Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[St George]

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.

10,000 armed men and women marching on the capital doesn't exactly scream non-violence, especially considering that many within gun nut movement are also associated or part of the equally nutty Tea Party movement.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

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.

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

By their reasoning one doesn't need to show any police abuse to justify open carrying as open carrying of a firearm is already a constitutionally protected right.

Y'know, because rights don't require one to prove they're a right.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

10,000 armed men and women marching on the capital doesn't exactly scream non-violence, especially considering that many within gun nut movement are also associated or part of the equally nutty Tea Party movement.

A priori reasoning isn't legal justification.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

I care because we've seen enough violence in this nation as of late. I don't have to know somebody for it to hurt when I see deaths on the news.

Even if every single person in this demonstration had an absolutely clear idea of what they were doing (doubtful, but let's go with it), they're walking into a public area on the one day of the year when it's the most crowded, meaning that innocents will be there.

I'm not preaching, and nor is anyone else here on either side of the equation. We're debating. It's what this forum is for. If you don't like my approach, you're welcome to place me on ignore.

They're not protesting any real threat to their rights. Nobody is coming to take their guns. Therefore, this entire exercise isn't just foolish, it's also utterly unnecessary.

[St George]

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.

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

Why are you trying to infringe on his 1st Amendment rights?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

I care because we've seen enough violence in this nation as of late. I don't have to know somebody for it to hurt when I see deaths on the news.

Even if every single person in this demonstration had an absolutely clear idea of what they were doing (doubtful, but let's go with it), they're walking into a public area on the one day of the year when it's the most crowded, meaning that innocents will be there.

I'm not preaching, and nor is anyone else here on either side of the equation. We're debating. It's what this forum is for. If you don't like my approach, you're welcome to place me on ignore.

They're not protesting any real threat to their rights. Nobody is coming to take their guns. Therefore, this entire exercise isn't just foolish, it's also utterly unnecessary.

So protests are only allowable if you think they are necessary, the presence of people uninvolved in a protest near a protest is justification for preventing that protest, and being in public means not offending people with what you say or do.

I'm...not sure how to respond to that.

[L Ron Cupboard]

All it needs is a troll with a PA system and some recorded gunfire. Instant chaos.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

I care because we've seen enough violence in this nation as of late. I don't have to know somebody for it to hurt when I see deaths on the news.

Even if every single person in this demonstration had an absolutely clear idea of what they were doing (doubtful, but let's go with it), they're walking into a public area on the one day of the year when it's the most crowded, meaning that innocents will be there.

I'm not preaching, and nor is anyone else here on either side of the equation. We're debating. It's what this forum is for. If you don't like my approach, you're welcome to place me on ignore.

They're not protesting any real threat to their rights. Nobody is coming to take their guns. Therefore, this entire exercise isn't just foolish, it's also utterly unnecessary.

If you don't feel the gun supporter's claim to necessity of civil obedience is strong enough, why should they care at all how offended or concerned completely uninvolved parties are?

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

Why are you trying to infringe on his 1st Amendment rights?

I ain't. He can say what he wishes. This is debate, after all. I'm justified to tell him to shut his mouth if I feel he's being unreasonable. It's up to him to decide if that is a prudent course of action.

[Veddai Hegemony]

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

I care because we've seen enough violence in this nation as of late. I don't have to know somebody for it to hurt when I see deaths on the news.

Even if every single person in this demonstration had an absolutely clear idea of what they were doing (doubtful, but let's go with it), they're walking into a public area on the one day of the year when it's the most crowded, meaning that innocents will be there.

I'm not preaching, and nor is anyone else here on either side of the equation. We're debating. It's what this forum is for. If you don't like my approach, you're welcome to place me on ignore.

They're not protesting any real threat to their rights. Nobody is coming to take their guns. Therefore, this entire exercise isn't just foolish, it's also utterly unnecessary.

They're not alleging anyone is coming to take their guns. They're protesting that their right to openly carry the guns they are consitutionally permitted to own is being violated. There is a difference.

Why do you even care, if I may so ask? To be blunt, all of this is most likely taking place well out of your chain of acquaintances. I think everyone involved in this has a pretty good idea what they're getting into if this powder keg goes alight. That ought to be enough to keep everyone in line, and if it doesn't then you will hear about it on the news and that will be that.

If you support it, support it. If not, ignore it. Don't try to preach to people willing to make very real risks to defend their rights through civil disobedience, even if you disagree with their methods.

Why are you trying to infringe on his 1st Amendment rights?

Madjack, is that you?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

By their reasoning one doesn't need to show any police abuse to justify open carrying as open carrying of a firearm is already a constitutionally protected right.

Y'know, because rights don't require one to prove they're a right.

Actually, no. Open carry is not a right.

"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."

While the question of open carry has never been definitively decided by the Supreme Court to my knowledge, I believe they've generally refused to hear challenges to reasonable state restrictions on the practice.

[St George]

Why are you trying to infringe on his 1st Amendment rights?

Madjack, is that you?

Correct.

[Myrensis]

Where's the third option of, "If not outright ordered to disperse by the police, they'll likely be blocked off from going anywhere important"?

Still if, God forbid, something does get out of hand, I think the gun-nuts are going to be in for a rude awakening as to which side public opinion falls on when thousands of armed people get belligerent with the police.

[Mike the Progressive]

By their reasoning one doesn't need to show any police abuse to justify open carrying as open carrying of a firearm is already a constitutionally protected right.

Y'know, because rights don't require one to prove they're a right.

Actually, no. Open carry is not a right.

"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."

While the question of open carry has never been definitively decided by the Supreme Court to my knowledge, I believe they've generally refused to hear challenges to reasonable state restrictions on the practice.

Isn't DC a federal enclave?

[St George]

Isn't DC a federal enclave?

Aye. It also has that whole taxation without representation thing you Americans got all hot and bothered about.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I care because we've seen enough violence in this nation as of late. I don't have to know somebody for it to hurt when I see deaths on the news.

Even if every single person in this demonstration had an absolutely clear idea of what they were doing (doubtful, but let's go with it), they're walking into a public area on the one day of the year when it's the most crowded, meaning that innocents will be there.

I'm not preaching, and nor is anyone else here on either side of the equation. We're debating. It's what this forum is for. If you don't like my approach, you're welcome to place me on ignore.

They're not protesting any real threat to their rights. Nobody is coming to take their guns. Therefore, this entire exercise isn't just foolish, it's also utterly unnecessary.

If you don't feel the gun supporter's claim to necessity of civil obedience is strong enough, why should they care at all how offended or concerned completely uninvolved parties are?

I have no idea what you're on about. I read the OP, expressed an opinion (as people do here), defended my point of view while trying to understand the perspectives of others (again, as people do here), and that's it. I'm not trying to change the world, though it might be nice if both I and my debate opponents walked away from this conversation with more of an understanding of and appreciation for each others' points of view. And if not, oh well: at least I tried.

I'm not trying to change the minds of anyone participating in this thing, although it would be nice to do so. I'm trying to express myself and learn from others. Understood?

[Veddai Hegemony]

By their reasoning one doesn't need to show any police abuse to justify open carrying as open carrying of a firearm is already a constitutionally protected right.

Y'know, because rights don't require one to prove they're a right.

Actually, no. Open carry is not a right.

"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."

While the question of open carry has never been definitively decided by the Supreme Court to my knowledge, I believe they've generally refused to hear challenges to reasonable state restrictions on the practice.

Generally reasonable restrictions are licensing requirements, not a n outright ban. An outright ban on anything is generally a bit on the unreasonable side. I don't actually know that anyone has had an opportunity to challenge a restriction on open carry, but I'm willing to be wrong on that one. If there was a DC open carry license, that would be one thing. With an absolute ban on it, it's treading on some very shaky ground as to how reasonable it is. They would have to show that the right to open carry is a sufficient threat to warrant banning, rather than the open carry protesters having to show that the right exists in the first place.

[Veddai Hegemony]

Madjack, is that you?

Correct.

Excellent, it is I, the Miehm.

You should support my views, as they are just and right, and I'll make fun of Tigger if you don't.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, no. Open carry is not a right.

"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."

While the question of open carry has never been definitively decided by the Supreme Court to my knowledge, I believe they've generally refused to hear challenges to reasonable state restrictions on the practice.

Isn't DC a federal enclave?

Point taken. I have no idea what the open carry laws are there, but I assume they're set by either the City Council or by Congress. I suspect the former for the city, but then again, I believe that the Mall is under the purview of the Parks Service. I could be wrong, though, and welcome corrections if so.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

If you don't feel the gun supporter's claim to necessity of civil obedience is strong enough, why should they care at all how offended or concerned completely uninvolved parties are?

I have no idea what you're on about. I read the OP, expressed an opinion (as people do here), defended my point of view while trying to understand the perspectives of others (again, as people do here), and that's it. I'm not trying to change the world, though it might be nice if both I and my debate opponents walked away from this conversation with more of an understanding of and appreciation for each others' points of view. And if not, oh well: at least I tried.

I'm not trying to change the minds of anyone participating in this thing, although it would be nice to do so. I'm trying to express myself and learn from others. Understood?

Lurk if you're here to learn. I've popped my 2 cents into the equation because I feel this is one of the few instances of NSG'ery that I should temper the waters of young, internet going liberals for.

At any rate, you've evaded the question. Your claim is that the march is a bad idea because the potential for something going wrong, is it not?

I, personally, would feel that the pursuit of one's 2nd amendment rights, expressed through the first, makes it, if not a good idea, an idea necessarily defended by the principles of those involved and, arguably, of the founders of this country. I think many involved in this march would feel the same. Why, then, should they forego their logic for yours?

[Greed and Death]

Isn't DC a federal enclave?

Point taken. I have no idea what the open carry laws are there, but I assume they're set by either the City Council or by Congress. I suspect the former for the city, but then again, I believe that the Mall is under the purview of the Parks Service. I could be wrong, though, and welcome corrections if so.

DC is acting like a state though.

[St George]

Correct.

Excellent, it is I, the Miehm.

You should support my views, as they are just and right, and I'll make fun of Tigger if you don't.

>_>

You are bad and should feel bad.

But you are right.

<_<

Lol @nslegioners becoming nsgers

[Veddai Hegemony]

Isn't DC a federal enclave?

Point taken. I have no idea what the open carry laws are there, but I assume they're set by either the City Council or by Congress. I suspect the former for the city, but then again, I believe that the Mall is under the purview of the Parks Service. I could be wrong, though, and welcome corrections if so.

That does rather complicate matters. To my knowledge, you're not allowed to have firearms in any national parks, at all. If the Mall is under the umbrella of the National Park Service, I would imagine that it would be a Federal matter. The issue is that DC, the city, has banned open carry within the city limits, meaning that long before protestors get to the mall, and make it a Federal issue, they'll be amrching through the City, making it a city one. And since the city ban is the one they're protesting, that does make some sense.

[St George]

Clearly the only solution is to return America to the loving bosom of Mother Britain. Rename Washington to Georgetown, every town named Independence to Coronation and replace your terrible national anthem with God Save the Queen.

Governors of the new territories will be announced shortly.