Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Americkill]

the vote needs a 3rd option:

YES, They will all end up dead or arrested

[Veddai Hegemony]

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.

It's perfectly civil. As long as you're not committing any sort of violence, or spouting off at the mouth like an ass, it remain civil disobedience. They're not going there with the intent of storming the White House and burning the Capitol. It's not liek they're BRITISH or anything.

That being said, I'm not sure how this is lacking in civility. I think it's stupid, but it's certainly more civil than when the Klan and the Aryan Nation do things like this. I doubt anyone will be spouting off about how the darkies need to be kicked out, and white racial genocide or anything else half as assbrained.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

It's perfectly civil. As long as you're not committing any sort of violence, or spouting off at the mouth like an ass, it remain civil disobedience. They're not going there with the intent of storming the White House and burning the Capitol. It's not liek they're BRITISH or anything.

That being said, I'm not sure how this is lacking in civility. I think it's stupid, but it's certainly more civil than when the Klan and the Aryan Nation do things like this. I doubt anyone will be spouting off about how the darkies need to be kicked out, and white racial genocide or anything else half as assbrained.

Armed men parading with common purpose is not a civil act. Especially in the capital of a nation-state. In any sensible nation, this would be considered a blatant act of sedition.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

My uncle was a police officer (just retired this year after 23 years, and had already retired from the Air Force after 20 years in the Security Forces), and we've gone to the range. I've shot better than him just about every time, and I've only been shooting since 2006. My uncle's usual training was static targets once or twice a year for qualifications. I'd bet I shot more since the beginning of the year than he used to shoot in 2 years time.

You also forget there are a lot of veterans/retired police officers out there that carry. That training doesn't go away the minute they leave the military/retire.

[St George]

It's a violation of gun laws I don't see it ending well and I support the second amendment.

So I guess Rosa Parks should've just went to the back of the bus like she was told to.....

Equating the gun nuts with the civil rights movement is fucking retarded.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

It's perfectly civil. As long as you're not committing any sort of violence, or spouting off at the mouth like an ass, it remain civil disobedience. They're not going there with the intent of storming the White House and burning the Capitol. It's not liek they're BRITISH or anything.

That being said, I'm not sure how this is lacking in civility. I think it's stupid, but it's certainly more civil than when the Klan and the Aryan Nation do things like this. I doubt anyone will be spouting off about how the darkies need to be kicked out, and white racial genocide or anything else half as assbrained.

Ten thousand civilians openly carrying weapons while marching in the nation's capital doesn't seem just a tiny bit intimidating to you?

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

I will be in attendance if I can make the arrangements and it goes through, though not as an armed member of the march.

[Veddai Hegemony]

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.

Responsible gun owners practice with their weapons, regularly. The sorts of people who take advantage of open carry laws? They generally practice even more. I could open carry, without a permit even. I don't, because I don't have time or money to practice. I need to practice so I can qualify and get my armed security license, but until I've got the money to buy rounds and range time, I can't use my 9mm. And since I can't practice with it, I don't carry it. Responsibility, it's not hard.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

My uncle was a police officer (just retired this year after 23 years, and had already retired from the Air Force after 20 years in the Security Forces), and we've gone to the range. I've shot better than him just about every time, and I've only been shooting since 2006. My uncle's usual training was static targets once or twice a year for qualifications. I'd bet I shot more since the beginning of the year than he used to shoot in 2 years time.

You also forget there are a lot of veterans/retired police officers out there that carry. That training doesn't go away the minute they leave the military/retire.

And they're not the ones who concern me. My apologies. I thought that the implication that people who were trained in how to properly use their firearms didn't concern me as much was blatantly evident. I suppose that I wasn't clear enough: PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROPRIATELY TRAINED IN HOW TO PROPERLY USE THEIR FIREARMS DO NOT CONCERN ME IN THIS SITUATION.

It's the yutzes who are trying to renew their man cards through open carry who concern me.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Responsible gun owners practice with their weapons, regularly. The sorts of people who take advantage of open carry laws? They generally practice even more. I could open carry, without a permit even. I don't, because I don't have time or money to practice. I need to practice so I can qualify and get my armed security license, but until I've got the money to buy rounds and range time, I can't use my 9mm. And since I can't practice with it, I don't carry it. Responsibility, it's not hard.

Great.

Now, if you can show me evidence that all 10,000 demonstrators will be both responsible and trained, I'll reluctantly concede the point.

But you can't. In fact, odds would seem to indicate that in any group of 10,000 people, there will be more than a few totally irresponsible assholes. I don't mind this at most demonstrations, but it does bother me when said demonstrators will be armed.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So I guess Rosa Parks should've just went to the back of the bus like she was told to.....

Equating the gun nuts with the civil rights movement is fucking retarded.

It was already done years before by people with much darker skin than I or Belaskhatya (possibly, I don't know) have.

Armed men parading with common purpose is not a civil act. Especially in the capital of a nation-state. In any sensible nation, this would be considered a blatant act of sedition.

Civil disobedience yes. Possibly a felony, probably.

Sedition? Hardly.

[Veddai Hegemony]

It's perfectly civil. As long as you're not committing any sort of violence, or spouting off at the mouth like an ass, it remain civil disobedience. They're not going there with the intent of storming the White House and burning the Capitol. It's not liek they're BRITISH or anything.

That being said, I'm not sure how this is lacking in civility. I think it's stupid, but it's certainly more civil than when the Klan and the Aryan Nation do things like this. I doubt anyone will be spouting off about how the darkies need to be kicked out, and white racial genocide or anything else half as assbrained.

Ten thousand civilians openly carrying weapons while marching in the nation's capital doesn't seem just a tiny bit intimidating to you?

Not to me, but I don't necessarily disagree with them either.

It's perfectly civil. As long as you're not committing any sort of violence, or spouting off at the mouth like an ass, it remain civil disobedience. They're not going there with the intent of storming the White House and burning the Capitol. It's not liek they're BRITISH or anything.

That being said, I'm not sure how this is lacking in civility. I think it's stupid, but it's certainly more civil than when the Klan and the Aryan Nation do things like this. I doubt anyone will be spouting off about how the darkies need to be kicked out, and white racial genocide or anything else half as assbrained.

Armed men parading with common purpose is not a civil act. Especially in the capital of a nation-state. In any sensible nation, this would be considered a blatant act of sedition.

As long as they're not DOING anything violent or threatening, and they're just CARRYING the guns on their shoulders, they're not doing anything that could be described as "uncivil." They're walking around with guns. They're not hurting anyone, they're not verbally threatening anyone. I won't say whether or not they're threatening anyone non-verbally, that's a really subjective situation, I wouldn't feel threatened, some people might. The point remains that until they make a violent action, point a gun at someone, or make a verbal threat to do so, their protest remains civil, and rather misguided. If only because I've enver actually felt the need to openly carry a rifle anywhere. I'm sure there could be a reason to do it, but I lack such reasons. I just don't see the point.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Responsible gun owners practice with their weapons, regularly. The sorts of people who take advantage of open carry laws? They generally practice even more. I could open carry, without a permit even. I don't, because I don't have time or money to practice. I need to practice so I can qualify and get my armed security license, but until I've got the money to buy rounds and range time, I can't use my 9mm. And since I can't practice with it, I don't carry it. Responsibility, it's not hard.

Great.

Now, if you can show me evidence that all 10,000 demonstrators will be both responsible and trained, I'll reluctantly concede the point.

But you can't. In fact, odds would seem to indicate that in any group of 10,000 people, there will be more than a few totally irresponsible assholes. I don't mind this at most demonstrations, but it does bother me when said demonstrators will be armed.

So you know without a doubt that the majority of members of every demonstration you see are unarmed? Or that any irresponsible assholes within the demonstration are unarmed?

Because you can't and you don't. So I'd get on condemning every protest ever before it happens for the possibility of something happening at it.

[Gun Manufacturers]

My uncle was a police officer (just retired this year after 23 years, and had already retired from the Air Force after 20 years in the Security Forces), and we've gone to the range. I've shot better than him just about every time, and I've only been shooting since 2006. My uncle's usual training was static targets once or twice a year for qualifications. I'd bet I shot more since the beginning of the year than he used to shoot in 2 years time.

You also forget there are a lot of veterans/retired police officers out there that carry. That training doesn't go away the minute they leave the military/retire.

And they're not the ones who concern me. My apologies. I thought that the implication that people who were trained in how to properly use their firearms didn't concern me as much was blatantly evident. I suppose that I wasn't clear enough: PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROPRIATELY TRAINED IN HOW TO PROPERLY USE THEIR FIREARMS DO NOT CONCERN ME IN THIS SITUATION.

It's the yutzes who are trying to renew their man cards through open carry who concern me.

You can tell what kind of training they've received simply by looking at a photograph of them standing at the counter of a coffee shop?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Equating the gun nuts with the civil rights movement is fucking retarded.

It was already done years before by people with much darker skin than I or Belaskhatya (possibly, I don't know) have.

Again, is the Black Panther Party REALLY the comparison that you're sticking with? You know, the organization that started out as self-defense against the police (a problem that I suspect the vast, vast majority of open carry demonstrators don't deal with on a regular basis), but ended up becoming a pale shadow of its former self, its members eventually known for violence, terrorism, drug addiction, and being played like a puppet by the feds?

[Veddai Hegemony]

Responsible gun owners practice with their weapons, regularly. The sorts of people who take advantage of open carry laws? They generally practice even more. I could open carry, without a permit even. I don't, because I don't have time or money to practice. I need to practice so I can qualify and get my armed security license, but until I've got the money to buy rounds and range time, I can't use my 9mm. And since I can't practice with it, I don't carry it. Responsibility, it's not hard.

Great.

Now, if you can show me evidence that all 10,000 demonstrators will be both responsible and trained, I'll reluctantly concede the point.

But you can't. In fact, odds would seem to indicate that in any group of 10,000 people, there will be more than a few totally irresponsible assholes. I don't mind this at most demonstrations, but it does bother me when said demonstrators will be armed.

In any group of ten thousand people, there probably will be a few dumbasses, this is true. I would hope that their knowledge of just how bad an angry mob exchanging gunfire with DC police would hurt their "cause" would be enough to keep it from happening. Or the more likely event that they'll just turn around, the way they said they would if they were confronted with resistance.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Great.

Now, if you can show me evidence that all 10,000 demonstrators will be both responsible and trained, I'll reluctantly concede the point.

But you can't. In fact, odds would seem to indicate that in any group of 10,000 people, there will be more than a few totally irresponsible assholes. I don't mind this at most demonstrations, but it does bother me when said demonstrators will be armed.

So you know without a doubt that the majority of members of every demonstration you see are unarmed? Or that any irresponsible assholes within the demonstration are unarmed?

Because you can't and you don't. So I'd get on condemning every protest ever before it happens for the possibility of something happening at it.

Something regarding a tree of liberty and the blood of patriots and tyrants ought be tossed in here.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It was already done years before by people with much darker skin than I or Belaskhatya (possibly, I don't know) have.

Again, is the Black Panther Party REALLY the comparison that you're sticking with? You know, the organization that started out as self-defense against the police (a problem that I suspect the vast, vast majority of open carry demonstrators don't deal with on a regular basis), but ended up becoming a pale shadow of its former self, its members eventually known for violence, terrorism, drug addiction, and being played like a puppet by the feds?

I'm not comparing the black panther party to this march. I'm comparing their actions in one instance to this one, largely because the situations are rather similar excluding the legality of actually holding the firearms.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And they're not the ones who concern me. My apologies. I thought that the implication that people who were trained in how to properly use their firearms didn't concern me as much was blatantly evident. I suppose that I wasn't clear enough: PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROPRIATELY TRAINED IN HOW TO PROPERLY USE THEIR FIREARMS DO NOT CONCERN ME IN THIS SITUATION.

It's the yutzes who are trying to renew their man cards through open carry who concern me.

You can tell what kind of training they've received simply by looking at a photograph of them standing at the counter of a coffee shop?

No. What? I'm saying that in any crowd of 10,000 people, you're going to get a good number of people who aren't properly trained, and who see their guns as phallic extensions. It's the nature of numbers: you can invite nothing but responsible, trained people, and the assholes will always come to crash the party. It's true in any demonstration, no matter the political leanings or causes involved. And if you're looking at thousands of folks, then you're likely looking at hundreds of dickwads.

[Veddai Hegemony]

And they're not the ones who concern me. My apologies. I thought that the implication that people who were trained in how to properly use their firearms didn't concern me as much was blatantly evident. I suppose that I wasn't clear enough: PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROPRIATELY TRAINED IN HOW TO PROPERLY USE THEIR FIREARMS DO NOT CONCERN ME IN THIS SITUATION.

It's the yutzes who are trying to renew their man cards through open carry who concern me.

You can tell what kind of training they've received simply by looking at a photograph of them standing at the counter of a coffee shop?

I actually pegged them as plain clothes or off duty cops, but that's just my immediate impression from looking at them, and YMMV.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Great.

Now, if you can show me evidence that all 10,000 demonstrators will be both responsible and trained, I'll reluctantly concede the point.

But you can't. In fact, odds would seem to indicate that in any group of 10,000 people, there will be more than a few totally irresponsible assholes. I don't mind this at most demonstrations, but it does bother me when said demonstrators will be armed.

In any group of ten thousand people, there probably will be a few dumbasses, this is true. I would hope that their knowledge of just how bad an angry mob exchanging gunfire with DC police would hurt their "cause" would be enough to keep it from happening. Or the more likely event that they'll just turn around, the way they said they would if they were confronted with resistance.

I hope so. But it's a public holiday, a crowded Mall, security probably on edge due to the crowd and the event, and it's a day known for alcohol consumption. Too many variables for me to feel comfortable, you know?

Hell, even a different day would be marginally better, though I'd still be concerned.

[St George]

Equating the gun nuts with the civil rights movement is fucking retarded.

It was already done years before by people with much darker skin than I or Belaskhatya (possibly, I don't know) have..

Good for them.

Proves fuck all though.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Again, is the Black Panther Party REALLY the comparison that you're sticking with? You know, the organization that started out as self-defense against the police (a problem that I suspect the vast, vast majority of open carry demonstrators don't deal with on a regular basis), but ended up becoming a pale shadow of its former self, its members eventually known for violence, terrorism, drug addiction, and being played like a puppet by the feds?

I'm not comparing the black panther party to this march. I'm comparing their actions in one instance to this one, largely because the situations are rather similar excluding the legality of actually holding the firearms.

Except that the 10,000 people marching on Washington this time don't even have the excuse of having to defend themselves against an abusive police force. Or if they do, please show me.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Great.

Now, if you can show me evidence that all 10,000 demonstrators will be both responsible and trained, I'll reluctantly concede the point.

But you can't. In fact, odds would seem to indicate that in any group of 10,000 people, there will be more than a few totally irresponsible assholes. I don't mind this at most demonstrations, but it does bother me when said demonstrators will be armed.

So you know without a doubt that the majority of members of every demonstration you see are unarmed? Or that any irresponsible assholes within the demonstration are unarmed?

Because you can't and you don't. So I'd get on condemning every protest ever before it happens for the possibility of something happening at it.

No.

But I do know that there will DEFINITELY be assholes at this demonstration who will DEFINITELY be armed, and DEFINITELY have their weapons at hand, so all reasonable doubt goes out the window, there.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It was already done years before by people with much darker skin than I or Belaskhatya (possibly, I don't know) have..

Good for them.

Proves fuck all though.

Civil rights have already been connected to firearms. Both in the context of skin color, and in the context of how the Second Amendment has been upheld as a civil right.

The civil rights movement makes an easy reference because similar tactics as are being discussed here (namely nonviolent civil disobedience) are being put into action.