Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Ifreann]

on 420 every year in Vancouver we have activists gather in front of an art gallery to get high together. Every year, they fail to get arrested, instead cops are so out numbered they can do nothing but sit there and watch.

I wonder how the people getting all shocked about this would feel reading the above. Is it really not the same thing? in b4 people use the "I'm shocked" shame tactic.

'Cos smoking a joint and threatening the government with loaded weapons will get the same response from cops. Eeyup.

[Lafayette Ronald Hubbard]

'Cos smoking a joint and threatening the government with loaded weapons will get the same response from cops. Eeyup.

one group had numbers, the other group has guns and (hopefully) numbers. Plus, the government going after them will probably only make it even more of a hazard.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Comparing the gun march proposals to the Rosa Parks incident is impossible: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... ssociation

I don't agree on a total firearms ban but there still need to be controls to prevent abuse.

[Ifreann]

'Cos smoking a joint and threatening the government with loaded weapons will get the same response from cops. Eeyup.

one group had numbers, the other group has guns and (hopefully) numbers.

Exactly. One group is stoners, hurting no one even if they are breaking the law. The other are terrorists. If the police don't have the numbers to deal with terrorists, do you think they're just going to stand there, or do you think they'll get reinforcements?

Plus, the government going after them will probably only make it even more of a hazard.

I'm sure it will. Which is why terrorism is a dangerous hobby.

[Occupied Deutschland]

one group had numbers, the other group has guns and (hopefully) numbers.

Exactly. One group is stoners, hurting no one even if they are breaking the law. The other are terrorists. If the police don't have the numbers to deal with terrorists, do you think they're just going to stand there, or do you think they'll get reinforcements?

Plus, the government going after them will probably only make it even more of a hazard.

I'm sure it will. Which is why terrorism is a dangerous hobby.

You should be in government.

Because that's the most expansive and useless definition of terrorist yet.

[Saruhan]

Exactly. One group is stoners, hurting no one even if they are breaking the law. The other are terrorists. If the police don't have the numbers to deal with terrorists, do you think they're just going to stand there, or do you think they'll get reinforcements?

I'm sure it will. Which is why terrorism is a dangerous hobby.

You should be in government.

Because that's the most expansive and useless definition of terrorist yet.

Using the threat of violence to insight political change?

[Ifreann]

Exactly. One group is stoners, hurting no one even if they are breaking the law. The other are terrorists. If the police don't have the numbers to deal with terrorists, do you think they're just going to stand there, or do you think they'll get reinforcements?

I'm sure it will. Which is why terrorism is a dangerous hobby.

You should be in government.

Because that's the most expansive and useless definition of terrorist yet.

Do you have a better term for people planning to use the threat of illegal violence to influence the government?

[Lafayette Ronald Hubbard]

Exactly. One group is stoners, hurting no one even if they are breaking the law. The other are terrorists. If the police don't have the numbers to deal with terrorists, do you think they're just going to stand there, or do you think they'll get reinforcements?

I fail to see how carrying a gun in itself is a violent act. Maybe it's imposing, but sure as hell isn't violent.

I'm sure it will. Which is why terrorism is a dangerous hobby.

you are really going to call it terrorism? that's like calling Darwin a Satanist.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You should be in government.

Because that's the most expansive and useless definition of terrorist yet.

Using the threat of violence to insight political change?

No threat of violence is involved. How one could say that when they specifically mention that at the first sign of resistance they will turn back makes no sense.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You should be in government.

Because that's the most expansive and useless definition of terrorist yet.

Do you have a better term for people planning to use the threat of illegal violence to influence the government?

No violence is involved.

They are using a demonstration involving illegal items to demonstrate their desire to change that law and resist the implementation of further ones.

You seem to be confusing carrying a gun with violence for some reason.

[Ifreann]

Exactly. One group is stoners, hurting no one even if they are breaking the law. The other are terrorists. If the police don't have the numbers to deal with terrorists, do you think they're just going to stand there, or do you think they'll get reinforcements?

I fail to see how carrying a gun in itself is a violent act. Maybe it's imposing, but sure as hell isn't violent.

Did I say it was violent?

I'm sure it will. Which is why terrorism is a dangerous hobby.

you are really going to call it terrorism? that's like calling Darwin a Satanist.

Not really, because mine is right.

---

Do you have a better term for people planning to use the threat of illegal violence to influence the government?

No violence is involved.

They are using a demonstration involving illegal items to demonstrate their desire to change that law and resist the implementation of further ones.

You seem to be confusing carrying a gun with violence for some reason.

Tell me, why are these illegal items going to be loaded rifles, if not to threaten their use? Unloaded firearms would be equally illegal to openly carry in DC, no? If the idea was just to break the law, why not do it peacefully?

[Saruhan]

Using the threat of violence to insight political change?

No threat of violence is involved. How one could say that when they specifically mention that at the first sign of resistance they will turn back makes no sense.

Well, it might be because I don't believe them, but when I think of 10 000 armed people with a grievance against the current government converging on the Capital I think less "Peaceful protest" and more This

[Farnhamia]

No threat of violence is involved. How one could say that when they specifically mention that at the first sign of resistance they will turn back makes no sense.

Well, it might be because I don't believe them, but when I think of 10 000 armed people with a grievance against the current government converging on the Capital I think less "Peaceful protest" and more This

Oh, come on, what could possibly go wrong?

[Ifreann]

Well, it might be because I don't believe them, but when I think of 10 000 armed people with a grievance against the current government converging on the Capital I think less "Peaceful protest" and more This

Oh, come on, what could possibly go wrong?

It could rain.

[Lafayette Ronald Hubbard]

Tell me, why are these illegal items going to be loaded rifles, if not to threaten their use? Unloaded firearms would be equally illegal to openly carry in DC, no? If the idea was just to break the law, why not do it peacefully?

all of your concerns can be answered with this: because loaded rifles are unfortunately illegal, and to change that, people are choosing civil disobedience where the democratic process has failed them the same way people would with any other activity/ object that has been unjustly persecuted by government. The fact that government does this to a weapon is no different. The tactic is the same, the message is the same, the object is just "scary".

[Saruhan]

Well, it might be because I don't believe them, but when I think of 10 000 armed people with a grievance against the current government converging on the Capital I think less "Peaceful protest" and more This

Oh, come on, what could possibly go wrong?

Eh, nothing much, a little nuclear holocaust of nations, but we'll survive. It'll just be a flesh wound

[Farnhamia]

Tell me, why are these illegal items going to be loaded rifles, if not to threaten their use? Unloaded firearms would be equally illegal to openly carry in DC, no? If the idea was just to break the law, why not do it peacefully?

all of your concerns can be answered with this: because loaded rifles are unfortunately illegal, and to change that, people are choosing civil disobedience where the democratic process has failed them the same way people would with any other activity/ object that has been unjustly persecuted by government. The fact that government does this to a weapon is no different. The tactic is the same, the message is the same, the object is just "scary".

"Persecuted" is a rather loaded term, don't you think? The Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller, said that the rights given by the Second Amendment are not unlimited and that you do not have the right to carry any arm in any manner for whatever purpose you like. Restrictions of what may or may not be carried and where have been upheld.

[Occupied Deutschland]

all of your concerns can be answered with this: because loaded rifles are unfortunately illegal, and to change that, people are choosing civil disobedience where the democratic process has failed them the same way people would with any other activity/ object that has been unjustly persecuted by government. The fact that government does this to a weapon is no different. The tactic is the same, the message is the same, the object is just "scary".

"Persecuted" is a rather loaded term, don't you think? The Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller, said that the rights given by the Second Amendment are not unlimited and that you do not have the right to carry any arm in any manner for whatever purpose you like. Restrictions of what may or may not be carried and where have been upheld.

And Heller didn't address open carry in public.

DC has decided to. This is a form of protest against the perceived injustice of such a ban as DC has on open carrying of firearms.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No threat of violence is involved. How one could say that when they specifically mention that at the first sign of resistance they will turn back makes no sense.

Well, it might be because I don't believe them, but when I think of 10 000 armed people with a grievance against the current government converging on the Capital I think less "Peaceful protest" and more This

But the Marines could handle any situation should things get out of hand.

After all, as you folks have mentioned countless times, firearms are no protection against tanks.

[Farnhamia]

"Persecuted" is a rather loaded term, don't you think? The Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller, said that the rights given by the Second Amendment are not unlimited and that you do not have the right to carry any arm in any manner for whatever purpose you like. Restrictions of what may or may not be carried and where have been upheld.

And Heller didn't address open carry in public.

DC has decided to. This is a form of protest against the perceived injustice of such a ban as DC has on open carrying of firearms.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." That's Justice Scalia writing for the majority. But challenge away. I'd love to see the conservatives on the Supreme Court try to rationalize a return to the Wild West (which never really existed the way some people think it did).

[Saruhan]

Well, it might be because I don't believe them, but when I think of 10 000 armed people with a grievance against the current government converging on the Capital I think less "Peaceful protest" and more This

But the Marines could handle any situation should things get out of hand.

After all, as you folks have mentioned countless times, firearms are no protection against tanks.

Yes, but a massacre isn't good PR. Especially considering the large amount of IT'S HAPPENING/Muh revolution Americans currently

[Occupied Deutschland]

And Heller didn't address open carry in public.

DC has decided to. This is a form of protest against the perceived injustice of such a ban as DC has on open carrying of firearms.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." That's Justice Scalia writing for the majority. But challenge away. I'd love to see the conservatives on the Supreme Court try to rationalize a return to the Wild West (which never really existed the way some people think it did).

...Yes?

You will notice how nowhere in there was there any mention of miscellaneous public places like roadways or non-governmental buildings (Starbucks, etc.).

I mean, I doubt there would be any upholding of the right and it'd likely just be kicked off to state regulation if it was even addressed, but that doesn't really matter to protestors who think it should.

[Occupied Deutschland]

But the Marines could handle any situation should things get out of hand.

After all, as you folks have mentioned countless times, firearms are no protection against tanks.

Yes, but a massacre isn't good PR. Especially considering the large amount of IT'S HAPPENING/Muh revolution Americans currently

Because when, where, and how you demonstrate should DEFINITELY be subject to the PR it might give. That's why we ban the KKK from parading in downtown Atlanta or why Idaho can ban the Aryan Nation from existing in that state.
...
Of course, that can't happen.

[Farnhamia]

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." That's Justice Scalia writing for the majority. But challenge away. I'd love to see the conservatives on the Supreme Court try to rationalize a return to the Wild West (which never really existed the way some people think it did).

...Yes?

You will notice how nowhere in there was there any mention of miscellaneous public places like roadways or non-governmental buildings (Starbucks, etc.).

I mean, I doubt there would be any upholding of the right and it'd likely just be kicked off to state regulation if it was even addressed, but that doesn't really matter to protestors who think it should.

Like I said, instead of wasting time on a silly march, they should be marshaling their forces to get a challenge going against either the DC law against open carry or some other similar law. The march is just melodrama. Let's have some honest action. After all, these people feel they're being persecuted. Time to stand up and sing "We shall overcome."

[Saruhan]

Yes, but a massacre isn't good PR. Especially considering the large amount of IT'S HAPPENING/Muh revolution Americans currently

Because when, where, and how you demonstrate should DEFINITELY be subject to the PR it might give. That's why we ban the KKK from parading in downtown Atlanta or why Idaho can ban the Aryan Nation from existing in that state.
...
Of course, that can't happen.

I dunno, are they violating any laws during the march?