Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Occupied Deutschland]

...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."

Guess what the march is?

Someone needs to be arrested for a challenge to be made. May as well accompany that arrest with melodrama and multiple arrests to draw public attention to the topic. This is how civil disobedience works.

[Farnhamia]

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?

Apparently it is against the law to carry loaded rifles inside the limits of the District of Columbia.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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?

Nope. But if they did they would be arrested because that's how the US works.

Similar to how these folks will not be breaking a law until they enter DC. At which point they will be arrested. Y'know, NOT banned from doing something because of the PR it might have if the protestors happened to break the law.

[Saruhan]

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

Apparently it is against the law to carry loaded rifles inside the limits of the District of Columbia.

I know the Gunlads are, but are the KKK and aryan whatever? 'Cause there's a fair bit of difference there

[Ensiferum]

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

Apparently it is against the law to carry loaded rifles inside the limits of the District of Columbia.

Hasn't it always been? If not I'm sure it was rather frowned upon. Even the Founding Fathers would not look kindly on a bunch of people near the Capitol with guns, especially the ones they would view as "uneducated". You know, the ones that caused them to create the Electoral College because they were afraid they would vote out of utter stupidity.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

As long as no bullets, meh.

[Neutraligon]

Apparently it is against the law to carry loaded rifles inside the limits of the District of Columbia.

Hasn't it always been? If not I'm sure it was rather frowned upon. Even the Founding Fathers would not look kindly on a bunch of people near the Capitol with guns, especially the ones they would view as "uneducated". You know, the ones that caused them to create the Electoral College because they were afraid they would vote out of utter stupidity.

That holds even more true considering what happens at the capital on July 4th. Then lets add to that the fact that the Boston Marathon attack is still fresh in every cops mind, especially at an event that big.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hasn't it always been? If not I'm sure it was rather frowned upon. Even the Founding Fathers would not look kindly on a bunch of people near the Capitol with guns, especially the ones they would view as "uneducated". You know, the ones that caused them to create the Electoral College because they were afraid they would vote out of utter stupidity.

That holds even more true considering what happens at the capital on July 4th. Then lets add to that the fact that the Boston Marathon attack is still fresh in every cops mind, especially at an event that big.

And that's where this idea goes from "ill-advised" to "idiotic" for me. In a time of great political polarization, shortly after a bomb attack on a major public event AND poisoned letters being sent to political officials, a bunch of guys are going to show up in the nation's capital with openly displayed weaponry to "let them know who's in charge"?

Do they have ANY sense of appropriate timing, or are they just hoping that some jittery cop will take a shot, and give them an excuse to try to spark a revolt?

[Occupied Deutschland]

That holds even more true considering what happens at the capital on July 4th. Then lets add to that the fact that the Boston Marathon attack is still fresh in every cops mind, especially at an event that big.

And that's where this idea goes from "ill-advised" to "idiotic" for me. In a time of great political polarization, shortly after a bomb attack on a major public event AND poisoned letters being sent to political officials, a bunch of guys are going to show up in the nation's capital with openly displayed weaponry to "let them know who's in charge"?

Do they have ANY sense of appropriate timing, or are they just hoping that some jittery cop will take a shot, and give them an excuse to try to spark a revolt?

What shitty timing, after all there's the Soviets to worry about and the military being integrated is fresh in everybody's mind.

I would also like to point out here, before the shitstorm hits that no, I'm not comparing these protestors to Rosa Parks I am comparing their activities (civil disobedience).

On second thought, perhaps there exists a better example.

What shitty timing, after all blacks have been given the right to vote and Huey Newton is still fresh in everyone's minds. Are they just hoping some racist cop will take a shot and give them an excuse to demonstrate the racism in the force?

Edit: Context for the above. Disclaimer: The BPP actions mentioned were not in themselves an act of civil disobedience as the law was not passed when they demonstrated. I believe the point remains intact however.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And that's where this idea goes from "ill-advised" to "idiotic" for me. In a time of great political polarization, shortly after a bomb attack on a major public event AND poisoned letters being sent to political officials, a bunch of guys are going to show up in the nation's capital with openly displayed weaponry to "let them know who's in charge"?

Do they have ANY sense of appropriate timing, or are they just hoping that some jittery cop will take a shot, and give them an excuse to try to spark a revolt?

What shitty timing, after all there's the Soviets to worry about and the military being integrated is fresh in everybody's mind.

I would also like to point out here, before the shitstorm hits that no, I'm not comparing these protestors to Rosa Parks I am comparing their activities (civil disobedience).

On second thought, perhaps there exists a better example.

What shitty timing, after all blacks have been given the right to vote and Huey Newton is still fresh in everyone's minds. Are they just hoping some racist cop will take a shot and give them an excuse to demonstrate the racism in the force?

In the first action, they weren't carrying guns, and King had made a point of non-violence.

In the second action...the Black Panthers openly and regularly called for revolution. Is that the comparison that you want to go with?

[Neutraligon]

That holds even more true considering what happens at the capital on July 4th. Then lets add to that the fact that the Boston Marathon attack is still fresh in every cops mind, especially at an event that big.

And that's where this idea goes from "ill-advised" to "idiotic" for me. In a time of great political polarization, shortly after a bomb attack on a major public event AND poisoned letters being sent to political officials, a bunch of guys are going to show up in the nation's capital with openly displayed weaponry to "let them know who's in charge"?

Do they have ANY sense of appropriate timing, or are they just hoping that some jittery cop will take a shot, and give them an excuse to try to spark a revolt?

That's part of what makes it go from ill-advised to idiotic for me. The other being the fact that they will be doing this on one of the busiest days on the DC mall, where there are a lot of foreigners, and there are many foreigners who do not speak English. Oh, and then there are the themes for this year, which are bound to make things more problematic when you add gun toting law-defying people to the mix.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And that's where this idea goes from "ill-advised" to "idiotic" for me. In a time of great political polarization, shortly after a bomb attack on a major public event AND poisoned letters being sent to political officials, a bunch of guys are going to show up in the nation's capital with openly displayed weaponry to "let them know who's in charge"?

Do they have ANY sense of appropriate timing, or are they just hoping that some jittery cop will take a shot, and give them an excuse to try to spark a revolt?

That's part of what makes it go from ill-advised to idiotic for me. The other being the fact that they will be doing this on one of the busiest days on the DC mall, where there are a lot of foreigners, and there are many foreigners who do not speak English. Oh, and then there are the themes for this year, which are bound to make things more problematic when you add gun toting law-defying people to the mix.

It's going to be a toxic stew, for sure.

[Occupied Deutschland]

What shitty timing, after all there's the Soviets to worry about and the military being integrated is fresh in everybody's mind.

I would also like to point out here, before the shitstorm hits that no, I'm not comparing these protestors to Rosa Parks I am comparing their activities (civil disobedience).

On second thought, perhaps there exists a better example.

What shitty timing, after all blacks have been given the right to vote and Huey Newton is still fresh in everyone's minds. Are they just hoping some racist cop will take a shot and give them an excuse to demonstrate the racism in the force?

In the first action, they weren't carrying guns, and King had made a point of non-violence.

In the second action...the Black Panthers openly and regularly called for revolution. Is that the comparison that you want to go with?

So where is Kokesh mentioning violence here? In fact, I seem to distinctly see there being a mention of nonviolence in the caveat that should they encounter physical resistance they will turn back.

Edit: Hell, it even specifically mentions that it will be a nonviolent protest.

...This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.

The second action isn't them calling for revolution is it? It's them openly carrying a firearm in protest of a government bill aimed at stopping them from doing a perfectly legal action they (or their lawyers would argue I guess) is a Constitutional Right. Which is EXACTLY what Kokesh's foaming at the mouth argument would be.

Edit 2: Only, y'know, Kokesh's would be after the fact rather than beforehand. So he'd be arguing directly to courts the Constitutionality rather than to the legislature as the BPP was doing in their protest

Now that argument would probably never get a Supreme Court hearing, but deliberately violating laws in protest of them is long established with an easy example in Rosa Parks. Using guns in protest is established easily via the BPPs actions in the state capitol. It only seems logical one would be able to combine these two seperate forms of protest and carry a gun somewhere where doing so was prohibited as an act of protest against the fairness/justness/constitutionality of those laws. It may be pointless, you may disagree with the reasoning, but it's still just a protest so long as the firearms are used as nothing more than a demonstrative piece and aren't wielded or used in any manner.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

In the first action, they weren't carrying guns, and King had made a point of non-violence.

In the second action...the Black Panthers openly and regularly called for revolution. Is that the comparison that you want to go with?

So where is Kokesh mentioning violence here? In fact, I seem to distinctly see there being a mention of nonviolence in the caveat that should they encounter physical resistance they will turn back.

Edit: Hell, it even specifically mentions that it will be a nonviolent protest.

...This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.

The second action isn't them calling for revolution is it? It's them openly carrying a firearm in protest of a government bill aimed at stopping them from doing a perfectly legal action they (or their lawyers would argue I guess) is a Constitutional Right. Which is EXACTLY what Kokesh's foaming at the mouth argument would be.

Now that argument would probably never get a Supreme Court hearing, but deliberately violating laws in protest of them is long established with an easy example in Rosa Parks. Using guns in protest is established easily via the BPPs actions in the state capitol. It only seems logical one would be able to combine these two seperate forms of protest and carry a gun somewhere where doing so was prohibited as an act of protest against the fairness/justness/constitutionality of those laws. It may be pointless, you may disagree with the reasoning, but it's still just a protest so long as the firearms are used as nothing more than a demonstrative piece and aren't wielded or used in any manner.

And all that it will take is one freaked-out tourist, one cop misreading one protester reaching to scratch an itch, or one protester reacting badly to someone setting off a firework behind him.

It's stupid. It's reckless. And you know what? Nobody is trying to take gun rights from them, so it's pointless.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So where is Kokesh mentioning violence here? In fact, I seem to distinctly see there being a mention of nonviolence in the caveat that should they encounter physical resistance they will turn back.

Edit: Hell, it even specifically mentions that it will be a nonviolent protest.


The second action isn't them calling for revolution is it? It's them openly carrying a firearm in protest of a government bill aimed at stopping them from doing a perfectly legal action they (or their lawyers would argue I guess) is a Constitutional Right. Which is EXACTLY what Kokesh's foaming at the mouth argument would be.

Now that argument would probably never get a Supreme Court hearing, but deliberately violating laws in protest of them is long established with an easy example in Rosa Parks. Using guns in protest is established easily via the BPPs actions in the state capitol. It only seems logical one would be able to combine these two seperate forms of protest and carry a gun somewhere where doing so was prohibited as an act of protest against the fairness/justness/constitutionality of those laws. It may be pointless, you may disagree with the reasoning, but it's still just a protest so long as the firearms are used as nothing more than a demonstrative piece and aren't wielded or used in any manner.

And all that it will take is one freaked-out tourist, one cop misreading one protester reaching to scratch an itch, or one protester reacting badly to someone setting off a firework behind him.

It's stupid. It's reckless. And you know what? Nobody is trying to take gun rights from them, so it's pointless.

Demonstrations don't get poo-pooed because they're stupid or reckless. Otherwise we'd have stamped out the fucking Aryan Nations and KKK long ago. Not to mention neo-nazis and, if we go back far enough, the whole black civil rights movement. Demonstrations allow-ability isn't predicated upon potential responses onlookers may have.

EDIT: Or at least, they aren't supposed to be. I recall one of the things said about the response to the 'freedom riders' in the South was that this couldn't happen because of how it would incite violence and such.

I mean sure, you can argue they're idiots with no chance of being found to have this right they claim they do, but that isn't enough to justify shooting down the unlikely-to-happen protest

[Neutraligon]

So where is Kokesh mentioning violence here? In fact, I seem to distinctly see there being a mention of nonviolence in the caveat that should they encounter physical resistance they will turn back.

Edit: Hell, it even specifically mentions that it will be a nonviolent protest.


The second action isn't them calling for revolution is it? It's them openly carrying a firearm in protest of a government bill aimed at stopping them from doing a perfectly legal action they (or their lawyers would argue I guess) is a Constitutional Right. Which is EXACTLY what Kokesh's foaming at the mouth argument would be.

Now that argument would probably never get a Supreme Court hearing, but deliberately violating laws in protest of them is long established with an easy example in Rosa Parks. Using guns in protest is established easily via the BPPs actions in the state capitol. It only seems logical one would be able to combine these two seperate forms of protest and carry a gun somewhere where doing so was prohibited as an act of protest against the fairness/justness/constitutionality of those laws. It may be pointless, you may disagree with the reasoning, but it's still just a protest so long as the firearms are used as nothing more than a demonstrative piece and aren't wielded or used in any manner.

And all that it will take is one freaked-out tourist, one cop misreading one protester reaching to scratch an itch, or one protester reacting badly to someone setting off a firework behind him.

It's stupid. It's reckless. And you know what? Nobody is trying to take gun rights from them, so it's pointless.

If they insist on doing this, the smartest thing they can do is not have loaded guns or ammunition, and to make that fact well known.

[Gun Manufacturers]

This:

That's scary as hell.

Damn straight. The guy with the glasses and black shirt looks like a (personal) space invader. They scare the crap out of me.

[Neutraligon]

And all that it will take is one freaked-out tourist, one cop misreading one protester reaching to scratch an itch, or one protester reacting badly to someone setting off a firework behind him.

It's stupid. It's reckless. And you know what? Nobody is trying to take gun rights from them, so it's pointless.

Demonstrations don't get poo-pooed because they're stupid or reckless. Otherwise we'd have stamped out the fucking Aryan Nations and KKK long ago. Not to mention neo-nazis and, if we go back far enough, the whole black civil rights movement. Demonstrations allow-ability isn't predicated upon potential responses onlookers may have.

I mean sure, you can argue they're idiots with no chance of being found to have this right they claim they do, but that isn't enough to justify shooting down the unlikely-to-happen protest

They are protesting at a very bad time to protest in DC. The fourth is one of the busiest times on the mall with both domestic and foreign travelers (some of whom do not speak or understand English), relatively recently after a terrorist attack (meaning cops will be more jumpy and quicker to respond to possible threats), in a place where there are a lot of kids who get into anything and everything, in a city that does not allow open carry, near not only the seat of power, but also a massive tourist spot, on a day with a very high amount of emotion and energy, where it is typically way to damn hot and humid. Oh yeah, lets add to that the fact that alcohol is being sold very nearby. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to you?

[Gun Manufacturers]

...
Why?

Seriously, this seems to be one of those cultural things even inside of America. What exactly is scary in that photo (besides of course that gleaming bald head. That shit is frighteningly bright)?

To see a citizen openly brandishing a weapon designed to kill, inside or outside of any establishment that isn't a gun range, scares the hell out of me.

They're not brandishing firearms, they have them holstered. Do you get scared when an armed police officer walks by?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

To see a citizen openly brandishing a weapon designed to kill, inside or outside of any establishment that isn't a gun range, scares the hell out of me.

They're not brandishing firearms, they have them holstered. Do you get scared when an armed police officer walks by?

Armed police officers are trained in the use of their weapons, including significant training in who and when NOT TO SHOOT.

Your random Joe or Jane with a gun may or may not have such training. It certainly isn't required.

The comparison doesn't work.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Demonstrations don't get poo-pooed because they're stupid or reckless. Otherwise we'd have stamped out the fucking Aryan Nations and KKK long ago. Not to mention neo-nazis and, if we go back far enough, the whole black civil rights movement. Demonstrations allow-ability isn't predicated upon potential responses onlookers may have.

I mean sure, you can argue they're idiots with no chance of being found to have this right they claim they do, but that isn't enough to justify shooting down the unlikely-to-happen protest

They are protesting at a very bad time to protest in DC. The fourth is one of the busiest times on the mall with both domestic and foreign travelers (some of whom do not speak or understand English), relatively recently after a terrorist attack (meaning cops will be more jumpy and quicker to respond to possible threats), in a place where there are a lot of kids who get into anything and everything, in a city that does not allow open carry, near not only the seat of power, ut also a massive tourist spot. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to you?

Not for the reasons you listed.

The only reason it's a bad idea is that it's illegal and I don't think a Supreme Court hearing on open carry would precipitate out of the arrest. Any improper response the police force had regarding excessive force would solely be on them. DC being a tourist locale has nothing to do with anything--both because it doesn't matter one whit towards what protests are OK and which are not, but also because this form of protest (civil disobedience) is deliberately ignoring such distinctions because it doesn't think those distinctions are proper or Constitutional.

Is there a chance of someone in the protest crowd shooting their gun off because they're idiots? Sure. There's a chance of someone at any other protest in DC whipping out a firearm and blasting away as well, it just won't be visible until they start shooting people's faces off. I fail to see how future possible risk is somehow justification for silencing protest when that is already accomplished through the event being protested by doing is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I don't get why gun nuts consistently feel so persecuted.

In the US, there are really only a few crazed lefties who want to take ALL the guns - a few. A very small few. The only gun-control measures (beyond things like machine gun bans, which should be a no-brainer) enjoying any mainstream support in the US federal government are things like extended background checks and assault weapons bans - and neither proposal has made it anywhere.

So why do gun-obsessed right-wingers pretend that the government has any intent, let alone any power, to take away their weapons?

Automatic weapons made after 1984 are already banned and those made before are heavily regulated. Which is good.

Actually, the date is May 19, 1986.

[Gun Manufacturers]

1000 people with hunting rifles
That's little better than the technology used on the last assault on the White House. I think the police snipers could take care of it by themselves.

Or Biden with his shotgun.

False. The Last Assault on the White House had much better technology.

Seen it. There were some parts of the plot that I needed to use a block and tackle to suspend my disbelief.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

They are protesting at a very bad time to protest in DC. The fourth is one of the busiest times on the mall with both domestic and foreign travelers (some of whom do not speak or understand English), relatively recently after a terrorist attack (meaning cops will be more jumpy and quicker to respond to possible threats), in a place where there are a lot of kids who get into anything and everything, in a city that does not allow open carry, near not only the seat of power, ut also a massive tourist spot. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to you?

Not for the reasons you listed.

The only reason it's a bad idea is that it's illegal and I don't think a Supreme Court hearing on open carry would precipitate out of the arrest. Any improper response the police force had regarding excessive force would solely be on them. DC being a tourist locale has nothing to do with anything--both because it doesn't matter one whit towards what protests are OK and which are not, but also because this form of protest (civil disobedience) is deliberately ignoring such distinctions because it doesn't think those distinctions are proper or Constitutional.

Is there a chance of someone in the protest crowd shooting their gun off because they're idiots? Sure. There's a chance of someone at any other protest in DC whipping out a firearm and blasting away as well, it just won't be visible until they start shooting people's faces off. I fail to see how future possible risk is somehow justification for silencing protest when that is already accomplished through the event being protested by doing is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

It's wrong not because it's illegal (not everything that is illegal is wrong), but because you're going to have a large number of civilians openly carrying weapons in a crowded, hot mall during a time when terrorism is on everyone's mind, and when tempers are on edge and paranoia is running high. It's a fucking catalyst. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Now, WILL a disaster happen? The odds are against it. But it's a stupid risk, proves nothing, and actually doesn't protest for any right that they're actually in danger of losing.

[Trotskylvania]

The second action isn't them calling for revolution is it? It's them openly carrying a firearm in protest of a government bill aimed at stopping them from doing a perfectly legal action they (or their lawyers would argue I guess) is a Constitutional Right. Which is EXACTLY what Kokesh's foaming at the mouth argument would be.

Edit 2: Only, y'know, Kokesh's would be after the fact rather than beforehand. So he'd be arguing directly to courts the Constitutionality rather than to the legislature as the BPP was doing in their protest

Now that argument would probably never get a Supreme Court hearing, but deliberately violating laws in protest of them is long established with an easy example in Rosa Parks. Using guns in protest is established easily via the BPPs actions in the state capitol. It only seems logical one would be able to combine these two seperate forms of protest and carry a gun somewhere where doing so was prohibited as an act of protest against the fairness/justness/constitutionality of those laws. It may be pointless, you may disagree with the reasoning, but it's still just a protest so long as the firearms are used as nothing more than a demonstrative piece and aren't wielded or used in any manner.

Ten thousand armed men marching to the capital is not a sign of healthy political discourse. It's a hair's breadth away from being a putsch. Though it may be disobedience, it lacks the most fundamental attribute necessary for civil disobedience: civility.