Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Veddai Hegemony]

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.

Unacceptable. If notihng else, because Georgetown is part of DC,a nd that would be confusing as all hell. God, don't you know anything?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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?

I came to learn and to state my own opinion, as I previously posted. I appreciate your passion, but your comment borders on unnecessary rudeness, as I believe that I've expressed myself with reason and civility, even if I've been mildly heated here and there.


I'm not speaking of rights here, but of the practicality of the method of expression. I'm generally for the right to bear arms with certain limitations. Open carry is an issue that I believe is best handled by states. In urban environments certain limitations might be necessary so as to avoid escalation of violence and avoid misunderstandings with the police (though I do understand the arguments for open carry in said situations), while in other areas it might make sense to openly display weapons. That's fine. I'm also fine with people taking a more liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment than my own, and believing that it gives the right to openly carry any sort of weapon without restriction. I'm fine with people demonstrating for that right.

What worries me is the idea of 10,000 armed civilians entering the Washington Mall on the busiest day of the year. Let's say that only one-half of one percent of these people are irresponsible gun owners, the types responsible gun owners roll their eyes at. 99.5% are honest, hard-working, tax-paying American citizens who want to do nothing more than peaceably assemble in order to demonstrate for their rights as they see them. .5% are jerkasses. Just .5% who give all gun owners an unfair reputation through association, the annoying ones who see life as an action movie and can't wait to take down their first criminal Dirty Harry style, or shoot for the head of the ATF agent storming through their door.

That makes for fifty untrained, armed idiots in the middle of a crowd of 700,000 people, many of whom will be drinking. There will also likely be pickpockets, misunderstandings, loud and sudden noises, and a host of distractions.

And all that it will take is one of those fifty people to shoot at the wrong time in the crowd, and for some of those 700,000 to be caught in the resulting crossfire.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Oh, you mean "My Country, 'Tis Of Thee"?

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

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?

I came to learn and to state my own opinion, as I previously posted. I appreciate your passion, but your comment borders on unnecessary rudeness, as I believe that I've expressed myself with reason and civility, even if I've been mildly heated here and there.


I'm not speaking of rights here, but of the practicality of the method of expression. I'm generally for the right to bear arms with certain limitations. Open carry is an issue that I believe is best handled by states. In urban environments certain limitations might be necessary so as to avoid escalation of violence and avoid misunderstandings with the police (though I do understand the arguments for open carry in said situations), while in other areas it might make sense to openly display weapons. That's fine. I'm also fine with people taking a more liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment than my own, and believing that it gives the right to openly carry any sort of weapon without restriction. I'm fine with people demonstrating for that right.

What worries me is the idea of 10,000 armed civilians entering the Washington Mall on the busiest day of the year. Let's say that only one-half of one percent of these people are irresponsible gun owners, the types responsible gun owners roll their eyes at. 99.5% are honest, hard-working, tax-paying American citizens who want to do nothing more than peaceably assemble in order to demonstrate for their rights as they see them. .5% are jerkasses. Just .5% who give all gun owners an unfair reputation through association, the annoying ones who see life as an action movie and can't wait to take down their first criminal Dirty Harry style, or shoot for the head of the ATF agent storming through their door.

That makes for fifty untrained, armed idiots in the middle of a crowd of 700,000 people, many of whom will be drinking. There will also likely be pickpockets, misunderstandings, loud and sudden noises, and a host of distractions.

And all that it will take is one of those fifty people to shoot at the wrong time in the crowd, and for some of those 700,000 to be caught in the resulting crossfire.

All of which are, nonetheless, to be accepted as part of the process of the march. Just because they may, or more are mathematically almost certain to be, in attendance does not mean the march should be condemned.

For that matter, if the police do their jobs at all, the large number of sightseers will be much less of a problem than you predict. Unless, of course, you're implying that they'll basically be bataan deathmarching the protestors without any regard for crowd control.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I came to learn and to state my own opinion, as I previously posted. I appreciate your passion, but your comment borders on unnecessary rudeness, as I believe that I've expressed myself with reason and civility, even if I've been mildly heated here and there.


I'm not speaking of rights here, but of the practicality of the method of expression. I'm generally for the right to bear arms with certain limitations. Open carry is an issue that I believe is best handled by states. In urban environments certain limitations might be necessary so as to avoid escalation of violence and avoid misunderstandings with the police (though I do understand the arguments for open carry in said situations), while in other areas it might make sense to openly display weapons. That's fine. I'm also fine with people taking a more liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment than my own, and believing that it gives the right to openly carry any sort of weapon without restriction. I'm fine with people demonstrating for that right.

What worries me is the idea of 10,000 armed civilians entering the Washington Mall on the busiest day of the year. Let's say that only one-half of one percent of these people are irresponsible gun owners, the types responsible gun owners roll their eyes at. 99.5% are honest, hard-working, tax-paying American citizens who want to do nothing more than peaceably assemble in order to demonstrate for their rights as they see them. .5% are jerkasses. Just .5% who give all gun owners an unfair reputation through association, the annoying ones who see life as an action movie and can't wait to take down their first criminal Dirty Harry style, or shoot for the head of the ATF agent storming through their door.

That makes for fifty untrained, armed idiots in the middle of a crowd of 700,000 people, many of whom will be drinking. There will also likely be pickpockets, misunderstandings, loud and sudden noises, and a host of distractions.

And all that it will take is one of those fifty people to shoot at the wrong time in the crowd, and for some of those 700,000 to be caught in the resulting crossfire.

All of which are, nonetheless, to be accepted as part of the process of the march. Just because they may, or more are mathematically almost certain to be, in attendance does not mean the march should be condemned.

For that matter, if the police do their jobs at all, the large number of sightseers will be much less of a problem than you predict. Unless, of course, you're implying that they'll basically be bataan deathmarching the protestors without any regard for crowd control.

I think that any attempt to light matches near powderkegs while numerous innocents are standing around is to be condemned, regardless of one's desire to express one's rights to light matches, or to store powderkegs, or even to place them in close proximity to each other.

[Neutraligon]

All of which are, nonetheless, to be accepted as part of the process of the march. Just because they may, or more are mathematically almost certain to be, in attendance does not mean the march should be condemned.

For that matter, if the police do their jobs at all, the large number of sightseers will be much less of a problem than you predict. Unless, of course, you're implying that they'll basically be bataan deathmarching the protestors without any regard for crowd control.

I think that any attempt to light matches near powderkegs while numerous innocents are standing around is to be condemned, regardless of one's desire to express one's rights to light matches, or to store powderkegs, or even to place them in close proximity to each other.

Especially when there are kids nearby who may see the match and decide lighting it sounds like fun. hence my suggestion that they make sure these guns are no loaded, they do not have ammunition with them, and they publicize these two facts as loudly as they can. They still get their point about open carry (well not really but whatever) and they do it is a manner that keeps themselves and the people around them safe. After all if there is no ammo, then there is no possibility that anyone will be shot accidentally by the protesters (or stupid kids) and if they publish that fact loudly, hopefully the police will be aware and will not respond to anything.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

All of which are, nonetheless, to be accepted as part of the process of the march. Just because they may, or more are mathematically almost certain to be, in attendance does not mean the march should be condemned.

For that matter, if the police do their jobs at all, the large number of sightseers will be much less of a problem than you predict. Unless, of course, you're implying that they'll basically be bataan deathmarching the protestors without any regard for crowd control.

I think that any attempt to light matches near powderkegs while numerous innocents are standing around is to be condemned, regardless of one's desire to express one's rights to light matches, or to store powderkegs, or even to place them in close proximity to each other.

Well then it seems we're at an impass. Liberty is more important than a feeling of security, at least to me. It's the same reason why such resistance has been roiled up when Obama speaks of 'right to assembly' as 'right to be in public without guns around.' If your value is placed on the feeling of security of those who are unwilling to meet the challenge of standing for liberty, then we lack the minimum necessary agreement to continue any discussion that's meaningful

[Neutraligon]

I think that any attempt to light matches near powderkegs while numerous innocents are standing around is to be condemned, regardless of one's desire to express one's rights to light matches, or to store powderkegs, or even to place them in close proximity to each other.

Well then it seems we're at an impass. Liberty is more important than a feeling of security, at least to me. It's the same reason why such resistance has been roiled up when Obama speaks of 'right to assembly' as 'right to be in public without guns around.' If your value is placed on the feeling of security of those who are unwilling to meet the challenge of standing for liberty, then we lack the minimum necessary agreement to continue any discussion that's meaningful

...source on Obama saying that.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Well then it seems we're at an impass. Liberty is more important than a feeling of security, at least to me. It's the same reason why such resistance has been roiled up when Obama speaks of 'right to assembly' as 'right to be in public without guns around.' If your value is placed on the feeling of security of those who are unwilling to meet the challenge of standing for liberty, then we lack the minimum necessary agreement to continue any discussion that's meaningful

...source on Obama saying that.

“The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado,” Obama said in an explicit reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... e-20130116

Source granted, my friend.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think that any attempt to light matches near powderkegs while numerous innocents are standing around is to be condemned, regardless of one's desire to express one's rights to light matches, or to store powderkegs, or even to place them in close proximity to each other.

Well then it seems we're at an impass. Liberty is more important than a feeling of security, at least to me. It's the same reason why such resistance has been roiled up when Obama speaks of 'right to assembly' as 'right to be in public without guns around.' If your value is placed on the feeling of security of those who are unwilling to meet the challenge of standing for liberty, then we lack the minimum necessary agreement to continue any discussion that's meaningful

Perhaps.

Just in case we're not totally at an impasse, let me see if I can use a crude example.

I absolutely support the civil right of people to shout "Nigger!", though it isn't something that I would do.

I believe that while they would technically have the right to do so, demonstrating for free speech by having a group walk into a black neighborhood and shout "Nigger!" at top volume would be incredibly stupid, and would likely to lead to violence. though it wouldn't be an inevitability. But it's a stupid risk, and there are other, more effective ways to make the same point that wouldn't have the same potential for disaster.

I think that I get where you're coming from. And liberty is important, though I suspect that we're of differing opinions regarding interpretation of the 2nd amendment in today's society. But there are ways of making one's point that don't require putting the lives of innocents at risk.

[Neutraligon]

...source on Obama saying that.

“The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado,” Obama said in an explicit reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... e-20130116

Source granted, my friend.

Does not say what you think it says. What he was saying was that people who were assembled had their right to life denied to them by a gun man. He did not say that people were not allowed to assemble with guns.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

...source on Obama saying that.

“The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado,” Obama said in an explicit reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... e-20130116

Source granted, my friend.

That's not "right to be in public without guns around". That's "right to be in public without being shot". Some limitations are necessary on nearly every single amendment in the Bill Of Rights, from incitement to violence to possession of weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute. These limitations should be carefully considered and thought through, and we should generally err in the name of liberty, but to assume that these rights are without limitation at all is to invite violence and chaos.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Well then it seems we're at an impass. Liberty is more important than a feeling of security, at least to me. It's the same reason why such resistance has been roiled up when Obama speaks of 'right to assembly' as 'right to be in public without guns around.' If your value is placed on the feeling of security of those who are unwilling to meet the challenge of standing for liberty, then we lack the minimum necessary agreement to continue any discussion that's meaningful

Perhaps.

Just in case we're not totally at an impasse, let me see if I can use a crude example.

I absolutely support the civil right of people to shout "Nigger!", though it isn't something that I would do.

I believe that while they would technically have the right to do so, demonstrating for free speech by having a group walk into a black neighborhood and shout "Nigger!" at top volume would be incredibly stupid, and would likely to lead to violence. though it wouldn't be an inevitability. But it's a stupid risk, and there are other, more effective ways to make the same point that wouldn't have the same potential for disaster.

I think that I get where you're coming from. And liberty is important, though I suspect that we're of differing opinions regarding interpretation of the 2nd amendment in today's society. But there are ways of making one's point that don't require putting the lives of innocents at risk.

This is what I was carrying when police opened fire

Tell me I was asking for it!

That bit of self-proclaimed humor aside, the right to assemble would imply that the police would have to defend the protesters from any aggression accrued by their message. This is why KKK members are often behind, rather than in front of, riot police. Just because their actions may cause violence does not mean they are any less valid in getting to voice their opinions. You don't even have the right to tell them to march hoodless. The same must be said of our friends and their rifles if they remain peaceful as promised.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

“The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado,” Obama said in an explicit reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... e-20130116

Source granted, my friend.

That's not "right to be in public without guns around". That's "right to be in public without being shot". Some limitations are necessary on nearly every single amendment in the Bill Of Rights, from incitement to violence to possession of weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute. These limitations should be carefully considered and thought through, and we should generally err in the name of liberty, but to assume that these rights are without limitation at all is to invite violence and chaos.

I once again voice my feeling that we're at an impasse, as truly I cannot find any more things to disagree with in your response without you declaring all of your opinions stem from your love of Ayn Rand.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

“The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado,” Obama said in an explicit reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... e-20130116

Source granted, my friend.

Does not say what you think it says. What he was saying was that people who were assembled had their right to life denied to them by a gun man. He did not say that people were not allowed to assemble with guns.

Right to assembly is not right to be in public, period. It's the right to assemble for means of protest. I'm not sure that the people, completely unaware of a gunman wanting their lives, were protesting much of anything, despite the Gungrabber's tacit implication of such a posteri.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Perhaps.

Just in case we're not totally at an impasse, let me see if I can use a crude example.

I absolutely support the civil right of people to shout "Nigger!", though it isn't something that I would do.

I believe that while they would technically have the right to do so, demonstrating for free speech by having a group walk into a black neighborhood and shout "Nigger!" at top volume would be incredibly stupid, and would likely to lead to violence. though it wouldn't be an inevitability. But it's a stupid risk, and there are other, more effective ways to make the same point that wouldn't have the same potential for disaster.

I think that I get where you're coming from. And liberty is important, though I suspect that we're of differing opinions regarding interpretation of the 2nd amendment in today's society. But there are ways of making one's point that don't require putting the lives of innocents at risk.

This is what I was carrying when police opened fire

Tell me I was asking for it!

That bit of self-proclaimed humor aside, the right to assemble would imply that the police would have to defend the protesters from any aggression accrued by their message. This is why KKK members are often behind, rather than in front of, riot police. Just because their actions may cause violence does not mean they are any less valid in getting to voice their opinions. You don't even have the right to tell them to march hoodless. The same must be said of our friends and their rifles if they remain peaceful as promised.

Again, they have the right...well, actually, they don't in D.C., but it's fairly debatable as to whether or not they should have that right. I just find their manner of going about it to be potentially disastrous, more so than it would be with a handful of racists with nothing more than a bullhorn and some unfortunate views on modern society.

[Neutraligon]

Does not say what you think it says. What he was saying was that people who were assembled had their right to life denied to them by a gun man. He did not say that people were not allowed to assemble with guns.

Right to assembly is not right to be in public, period. It's the right to assemble for means of protest. I'm not sure that the people, completely unaware of a gunman wanting their lives, were protesting much of anything, despite the Gungrabber's tacit implication of such a posteri.

Umm, no right to assembly is not right to protest.
"Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests." (Wikipedia)

What president Obama is saying is that those who were already using two rights the right to assemble and the right to freedom of religion had another right (the right to life) violated by a gun man. He was basically saying that people have a right to not be shot at. No where does he say that people cannot assemble with guns.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's not "right to be in public without guns around". That's "right to be in public without being shot". Some limitations are necessary on nearly every single amendment in the Bill Of Rights, from incitement to violence to possession of weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute. These limitations should be carefully considered and thought through, and we should generally err in the name of liberty, but to assume that these rights are without limitation at all is to invite violence and chaos.

I once again voice my feeling that we're at an impasse, as truly I cannot find any more things to disagree with in your response without you declaring all of your opinions stem from your love of Ayn Rand.

I may not be a Brony, but I would never accuse an Applejack flag-bearer of such a thing. For one thing, you're able to make your points concisely, and I don't fall asleep halfway through your posts, unlike my attempts to read her interminable bilge.

If it's not too off-topic, whatever our disagreements may be, I find your opinions to at least be interesting and thoughtful, and your methods of expression to be intelligent and coherent.

[Neutraligon]

I once again voice my feeling that we're at an impasse, as truly I cannot find any more things to disagree with in your response without you declaring all of your opinions stem from your love of Ayn Rand.

I may not be a Brony, but I would never accuse an Applejack flag-bearer of such a thing. For one thing, you're able to make your points concisely, and I don't fall asleep halfway through your posts, unlike my attempts to read her interminable bilge.

If it's not too off-topic, whatever our disagreements may be, I find your opinions to at least be interesting and thoughtful, and your methods of expression to be intelligent and coherent.

I agree on that one. I like it when we get people who have different points of views, and who express those views well.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Right to assembly is not right to be in public, period. It's the right to assemble for means of protest. I'm not sure that the people, completely unaware of a gunman wanting their lives, were protesting much of anything, despite the Gungrabber's tacit implication of such a posteri.

Umm, no right to assembly is not right to protest.
"Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests." (Wikipedia)

What president Obama is saying is that those who were already using two rights the right to assemble and the right to freedom of religion had another right (the right to life) violated by a gun man. He was basically saying that people have a right to not be shot at. No where does he say that people cannot assemble with guns.

People having a right not to die shouldn't make it illegal to carry peacefully anything that can dispense with it.

[Neutraligon]

Umm, no right to assembly is not right to protest.
"Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests." (Wikipedia)

What president Obama is saying is that those who were already using two rights the right to assemble and the right to freedom of religion had another right (the right to life) violated by a gun man. He was basically saying that people have a right to not be shot at. No where does he say that people cannot assemble with guns.

People having a right not to die shouldn't make it illegal to carry peacefully anything that can dispense with it.

Where did I say it should? I have said I think the method and time in which they are doing this is stupid, not that they should be prevented from doing so. It is however against the law in DC, and they will have to deal with that fact. I recommended above a way that might mitigate the issue.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

I once again voice my feeling that we're at an impasse, as truly I cannot find any more things to disagree with in your response without you declaring all of your opinions stem from your love of Ayn Rand.

I may not be a Brony, but I would never accuse an Applejack flag-bearer of such a thing. For one thing, you're able to make your points concisely, and I don't fall asleep halfway through your posts, unlike my attempts to read her interminable bilge.

If it's not too off-topic, whatever our disagreements may be, I find your opinions to at least be interesting and thoughtful, and your methods of expression to be intelligent and coherent.

I appreciate the roses if not the party throwing them.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I may not be a Brony, but I would never accuse an Applejack flag-bearer of such a thing. For one thing, you're able to make your points concisely, and I don't fall asleep halfway through your posts, unlike my attempts to read her interminable bilge.

If it's not too off-topic, whatever our disagreements may be, I find your opinions to at least be interesting and thoughtful, and your methods of expression to be intelligent and coherent.

I appreciate the roses if not the party throwing them.

More of an olive branch. We may disagree, but I do promise to try to not be a dick about it unless I think that you're being a total idiot, and I don't see that as being a serious possibility.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

People having a right not to die shouldn't make it illegal to carry peacefully anything that can dispense with it.

Where did I say it should? I have said I think the method and time in which they are doing this is stupid, not that they should be prevented from doing so. It is however against the law in DC, and they will have to deal with that fact. I recommended above a way that might mitigate the issue.

I was more referring to your agreement to the terribly uninformed Obama quote I supplied. It's so bad, so terribly failed in its logic and constitutional backing, that I can't even take seriously one who would agree with it. Once again, I acknowledge the impasse this would put us at.

As for whether or not they should carry loaded, I feel it a more powerful expression of controlled protest if they did so completely armed. I have confidence that this will turn out peacefully, hence my being there. If it doesn't, I'm willing to take that risk for the ideals that I believe in, as are those who are going knowing the same things as myself.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

I appreciate the roses if not the party throwing them.

More of an olive branch. We may disagree, but I do promise to try to not be a dick about it unless I think that you're being a total idiot, and I don't see that as being a serious possibility.

I'd quietly note how I believe you've already reached the point of complete idiocy with your 'hundreds of people' argument, so many times heard before by the dreaded gungrabbers, but I'd prefer to keep up the sentiment of olivebranchery. So I'll smile and nod.