Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Neutraligon]

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.

Umm, from everything I read about that quote, the quote does not say what you said it says. It does no mention anywhere that people should be prevented from assebling with guns. It does say people should be allowed to assemble without being shot at. these are two very different things. I am not sure how you are getting Obama saying people should not be allowed to assemble with guns frm the quote, I really don't see it at all. I put forward that idea as something of good faith. If they wish to be trusted in such a volatile atmosphere near a seat of government, they to need to show a wilingness to be peasceful. By doing this they are showing that willingness and mitigating any potential problems. I do not see how having loaded weapons versus unloaded weapons would be a more powerful statement.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Which 'hundreds of people' comment?

I did say 'dozens', which may have been a mild exaggeration, but certainly doesn't approach 'hundreds'.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back. As the AR 15 can fire 45 to 60 rounds a minute according to my research "dozens" isn't really an exaggeration.

EDIT 2: Semi-automatic, that is. Full auto is in the hundreds, but I'm not going into that.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

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.

Umm, from everything I read about that quote, the quote does not say what you said it says. It does no mention anywhere that people should be prevented from assebling with guns. It does say people should be allowed to assemble without being shot at. these are two very different things. I am not sure how you are getting Obama saying people should not be allowed to assemble with guns frm the quote, I really don't see it at all. I put forward that idea as something of good faith. If they wish to be trusted in such a volatile atmosphere near a seat of government, they to need to show a wilingness to be peasceful. By doing this they are showing that willingness and mitigating any potential problems. I do not see how having loaded weapons versus unloaded weapons would be a more powerful statement.

I'm going to ignore the majority of that, as I've typed my response to it. If it didn't make it into the final post, I'll note it here:
It's not about assembling with guns. It's that he claims there's a supposed right to assemble without being shot at, more preventatively interpretted as people shouldn't be allowed to have guns in public to use to shoot at people. Nothing about assembling with guns. He did not make this quote to respond to this event or anything like it.

The other point you raise about it not being more powerful I can answer with a new idea: Civil disobedience is powerful mainly because it requires much the same effort and organization as less peaceful protest while needing many more times the coolness to remain calm and not let things get violent, even if provoked, especially when the response could be so disastrous to the provokers. It's when people see well armed people willingly putting their hands behind their backs that the public will acknowledge the effort these people are going to.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

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.

Which 'hundreds of people' comment?

I did say 'dozens', which may have been a mild exaggeration, but certainly doesn't approach 'hundreds'.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back. As the AR 15 can fire 45 to 60 rounds a minute according to my research "dozens" isn't really an exaggeration.

I probably misread it then, though my view remains the same. Of course, 'assault weapons' are a whole 'nother issue here, if we want to maintain strict discussion on the march and the implications of the parameters the protest will undergo.

[Neutraligon]

Umm, from everything I read about that quote, the quote does not say what you said it says. It does no mention anywhere that people should be prevented from assebling with guns. It does say people should be allowed to assemble without being shot at. these are two very different things. I am not sure how you are getting Obama saying people should not be allowed to assemble with guns frm the quote, I really don't see it at all. I put forward that idea as something of good faith. If they wish to be trusted in such a volatile atmosphere near a seat of government, they to need to show a wilingness to be peasceful. By doing this they are showing that willingness and mitigating any potential problems. I do not see how having loaded weapons versus unloaded weapons would be a more powerful statement.

I'm going to ignore the majority of that, as I've typed my response to it. If it didn't make it into the final post, I'll note it here:
It's not about assembling with guns. It's that he claims there's a supposed right to assemble without being shot at, more preventatively interpretted as people shouldn't be allowed to have guns in public to use to shoot at people. Nothing about assembling with guns. He did not make this quote to respond to this event or anything like it.

The other point you raise about it not being more powerful I can answer with a new idea: Civil disobedience is powerful mainly because it requires much the same effort and organization as less peaceful protest while needing many more times the coolness to remain calm and not let things get violent, even if provoked, especially when the response could be so disastrous to the provokers. It's when people see well armed people willingly putting their hands behind their backs that the public will acknowledge the effort these people are going to.

As to the first, I do not see the followup to people have the right not to be shot to people should not be allowed to carry guns in public. Considering president Obama authorized people to carry guns in national parks (something that was illegal previously) I don't think you are right on that point. (Coincidentally this answers a question from earlier).

As to the second, you may have a point. I need to think on that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Which 'hundreds of people' comment?

I did say 'dozens', which may have been a mild exaggeration, but certainly doesn't approach 'hundreds'.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back. As the AR 15 can fire 45 to 60 rounds a minute according to my research "dozens" isn't really an exaggeration.

I probably misread it then, though my view remains the same. Of course, 'assault weapons' are a whole 'nother issue here, if we want to maintain strict discussion on the march and the implications of the parameters the protest will undergo.

Eh, just showing that while I have my moments, I wasn't an idiot in my description of the effects of the weapon. If you want to get back to the march? Pretty much the same. There's an argument to be made for open carry (whether I agree with that argument or not is irrelevant), civil disobedience is a useful and powerful tool, and yet this particular demonstration sounds like a very bad idea with a far greater unnecessary risk of disaster than pretty much any other action of civil disobedience that I've ever seen, heard about, or read about in my entire life, at least in the United States.

I take you back to my example of a group of free speech activists demonstrating against hate speech laws by going into a black neighborhood to shout racist slurs. They have the right. It's also a damned stupid idea, and will likely lead to unnecessary violence.

[Risottia]

Libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh has planned an armed 2nd Amendment march through DC for Independence Day. The march is an act of civil disobedience against DC gun laws which prohibits open carry of rifles.

Rally and march of armed people against a law in the capital isn't "civil disobedience". It's an act of intimidation against the democratic authorities of the republic. Or insurrection, if you prefer.

I'd have some 20.000 troops assembled, order the rebels to surrender, and should they fail to comply within one minute, mow them down with machineguns.

And that's just because the US don't have a serious cavalry anymore. A nice sabre charge would have been even better.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh has planned an armed 2nd Amendment march through DC for Independence Day. The march is an act of civil disobedience against DC gun laws which prohibits open carry of rifles.

Rally and march of armed people against a law in the capital isn't "civil disobedience". It's an act of intimidation against the democratic authorities of the republic. Or insurrection, if you prefer.

I'd have some 20.000 troops assembled, order the rebels to surrender, and should they fail to comply within one minute, mow them down with machineguns.

And that's just because the US don't have a serious cavalry anymore. A nice sabre charge would have been even better.

And I'm sure that firing on people who have not yet taken any actual action against the government, and claim to be exercising their Constitutional rights, will in no way, shape, or form lead to innocent bloodshed.

The march is a stupid and reckless idea. Escalating the situation is equally as moronic an idea.

[Neutraligon]

Rally and march of armed people against a law in the capital isn't "civil disobedience". It's an act of intimidation against the democratic authorities of the republic. Or insurrection, if you prefer.

I'd have some 20.000 troops assembled, order the rebels to surrender, and should they fail to comply within one minute, mow them down with machineguns.

And that's just because the US don't have a serious cavalry anymore. A nice sabre charge would have been even better.

And I'm sure that firing on people who have not yet taken any actual action against the government, and claim to be exercising their Constitutional rights, will in no way, shape, or form lead to innocent bloodshed.

The march is a stupid and reckless idea. Escalating the situation is equally as moronic an idea.

I would say more moronic considering the fire squad will be dealing with the exact same situation as the protesters as far as the crowd and they will be doing it purposely rather than having a possibility.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

I probably misread it then, though my view remains the same. Of course, 'assault weapons' are a whole 'nother issue here, if we want to maintain strict discussion on the march and the implications of the parameters the protest will undergo.

Eh, just showing that while I have my moments, I wasn't an idiot in my description of the effects of the weapon. If you want to get back to the march? Pretty much the same. There's an argument to be made for open carry (whether I agree with that argument or not is irrelevant), civil disobedience is a useful and powerful tool, and yet this particular demonstration sounds like a very bad idea with a far greater unnecessary risk of disaster than pretty much any other action of civil disobedience that I've ever seen, heard about, or read about in my entire life, at least in the United States.

I take you back to my example of a group of free speech activists demonstrating against hate speech laws by going into a black neighborhood to shout racist slurs. They have the right. It's also a damned stupid idea, and will likely lead to unnecessary violence.

Nonetheless, it can and should occur if they feel it is necessary. The same must be said of the gun toters. Moreover, I voice a previously voiced opinion in the thread how an armed yet peaceful rally has a greater message than an unarmed and peaceful one in the realm of gun control.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And I'm sure that firing on people who have not yet taken any actual action against the government, and claim to be exercising their Constitutional rights, will in no way, shape, or form lead to innocent bloodshed.

The march is a stupid and reckless idea. Escalating the situation is equally as moronic an idea.

I would say more moronic considering the fire squad will be dealing with the exact same situation as the protesters as far as the crowd and they will be doing it purposely rather than having a possibility.

Either way, one thing's for sure: I'll be on the opposite coast, as far away as I can be from D.C. while still remaining in the contiguous 48.

[Neutraligon]

I would say more moronic considering the fire squad will be dealing with the exact same situation as the protesters as far as the crowd and they will be doing it purposely rather than having a possibility.

Either way, one thing's for sure: I'll be on the opposite coast, as far away as I can be from D.C. while still remaining in the contiguous 48.

I'll be in DC during that time. Ah well should be interesting.

[Risottia]

And I'm sure that firing on people who have not yet taken any actual action against the government, and claim to be exercising their Constitutional rights, will in no way, shape, or form lead to innocent bloodshed.

What they CLAIM is immaterial.
They'd be violating a law and having an armed political rally in the capital. That's reason enough to chuck them in jail, and to shoot them if they resist arrest.
I know that in America it's generally only black and hispanic people who get shot when suspected of a crime and supposedly armed; maybe it's high time to shoot also any people who are committing a crime and are clearly armed.

The march is a stupid and reckless idea. Escalating the situation is equally as moronic an idea.

When a person is a problem, remove the person and you'll remove the problem.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Eh, just showing that while I have my moments, I wasn't an idiot in my description of the effects of the weapon. If you want to get back to the march? Pretty much the same. There's an argument to be made for open carry (whether I agree with that argument or not is irrelevant), civil disobedience is a useful and powerful tool, and yet this particular demonstration sounds like a very bad idea with a far greater unnecessary risk of disaster than pretty much any other action of civil disobedience that I've ever seen, heard about, or read about in my entire life, at least in the United States.

I take you back to my example of a group of free speech activists demonstrating against hate speech laws by going into a black neighborhood to shout racist slurs. They have the right. It's also a damned stupid idea, and will likely lead to unnecessary violence.

Nonetheless, it can and should occur if they feel it is necessary. The same must be said of the gun toters. Moreover, I voice a previously voiced opinion in the thread how an armed yet peaceful rally has a greater message than an unarmed and peaceful one in the realm of gun control.

You seem to have more faith in their wisdom and common sense than I do.

And exactly what message would that be? Do remember that the most effective examples of civil disobedience in modern history haven't even carried an implication of possible violence on the part of the protesters. There were certainly no weapons on Gandhi's salt march, or in the waistbands of the young students sitting at the Woolworth's lunch counters down south.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

And I'm sure that firing on people who have not yet taken any actual action against the government, and claim to be exercising their Constitutional rights, will in no way, shape, or form lead to innocent bloodshed.

What they CLAIM is immaterial.
They'd be violating a law and having an armed political rally in the capital. That's reason enough to chuck them in jail, and to shoot them if they resist arrest.
I know that in America it's generally only black and hispanic people who get shot when suspected of a crime and supposedly armed; maybe it's high time to shoot also any people who are committing a crime and are clearly armed.

The march is a stupid and reckless idea. Escalating the situation is equally as moronic an idea.

When a person is a problem, remove the person and you'll remove the problem.

Surely you're trolling. You're practically asking me to check my privilege.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And I'm sure that firing on people who have not yet taken any actual action against the government, and claim to be exercising their Constitutional rights, will in no way, shape, or form lead to innocent bloodshed.

What they CLAIM is immaterial.
They'd be violating a law and having an armed political rally in the capital. That's reason enough to chuck them in jail, and to shoot them if they resist arrest.
I know that in America it's generally only black and hispanic people who get shot when suspected of a crime and supposedly armed; maybe it's high time to shoot also any people who are committing a crime and are clearly armed.

The march is a stupid and reckless idea. Escalating the situation is equally as moronic an idea.

When a person is a problem, remove the person and you'll remove the problem.

Yeah. I mean, the whole civil rights movement just fell to pieces after Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. died. And after we toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq was peaceful. And let's not forget that Jesus dude. Man, did that ever work out for the High Priests and the Romans.

[Dremono]

This Kokesh guy is weird. Also, the poll needs to be less white and black.

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

Nonetheless, it can and should occur if they feel it is necessary. The same must be said of the gun toters. Moreover, I voice a previously voiced opinion in the thread how an armed yet peaceful rally has a greater message than an unarmed and peaceful one in the realm of gun control.

You seem to have more faith in their wisdom and common sense than I do.

And exactly what message would that be? Do remember that the most effective examples of civil disobedience in modern history haven't even carried an implication of possible violence on the part of the protesters. There were certainly no weapons on Gandhi's salt march, or in the waistbands of the young students sitting at the Woolworth's lunch counters down south.

The message is basically the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment, perhaps with more emphasis and even some capslock. A thread of anti-statism is in there too, hence not playing the game of the gubmint by firing back or resisting arrest. Both of these messages are best conveyed by putting your hands behind your berifled back and going to jail if need be. As for peacefulness of the other notable civil disobedience campaigns, I'd say that their expression was different and they are entitled to be as armed or unarmed as they want so long as they remain peaceful.

As for the faith I hold in them, I'm willing to bet my unpunctured, unpeppersprayed college-boy ass on it.

[Hippostania]

I'm usually against civil disobedience, but I wholeheartedly support this march. Open carry, concealed carry, pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, it should all be legal. Thank god for the second amendment!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You seem to have more faith in their wisdom and common sense than I do.

And exactly what message would that be? Do remember that the most effective examples of civil disobedience in modern history haven't even carried an implication of possible violence on the part of the protesters. There were certainly no weapons on Gandhi's salt march, or in the waistbands of the young students sitting at the Woolworth's lunch counters down south.

The message is basically the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment, perhaps with more emphasis and even some capslock. A thread of anti-statism is in there too, hence not playing the game of the gubmint by firing back or resisting arrest. Both of these messages are best conveyed by putting your hands behind your berifled back and going to jail if need be. As for peacefulness of the other notable civil disobedience campaigns, I'd say that their expression was different and they are entitled to be as armed or unarmed as they want so long as they remain peaceful.

As for the faith I hold in them, I'm willing to bet my unpunctured, unpeppersprayed college-boy ass on it.

Have you ever been in a demonstration?

[Neutraligon]

I'm usually against civil disobedience, but I wholeheartedly support this march. Open carry, concealed carry, pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, it should all be legal. Thank god for the second amendment!

Do you have a second amendment dealing with guns?

[Anarcho-Leftist States of Horseflip]

The message is basically the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment, perhaps with more emphasis and even some capslock. A thread of anti-statism is in there too, hence not playing the game of the gubmint by firing back or resisting arrest. Both of these messages are best conveyed by putting your hands behind your berifled back and going to jail if need be. As for peacefulness of the other notable civil disobedience campaigns, I'd say that their expression was different and they are entitled to be as armed or unarmed as they want so long as they remain peaceful.

As for the faith I hold in them, I'm willing to bet my unpunctured, unpeppersprayed college-boy ass on it.

Have you ever been in a demonstration?

Not yet; This'll be my first. Regardless, I feel it's about time I've attended one being that I am a man of politics.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Have you ever been in a demonstration?

Not yet; This'll be my first. Regardless, I feel it's about time I've attended one being that I am a man of politics.

Okay. I've been in more than a few on various sides of any number of issues.

First, as you're likely aware, a few idiots tend to feel more powerful when they're holding firearms, and can get a bit reckless. A miniscule minority of gun owners, to be sure, but remember my one-half of one percent comment.

Second, in a situation where people are demonstrating, moods tend to be contagious. It's group psychology, and can affect both those with no self-control and those who are usually like rocks. And it's never the calm moods that catch on. It's always the excitable ones, with people getting caught up in the moment.

Add to that everything else that I said earlier regarding crowds, the timing, the heat, and the alcohol, along with a police force that's more than usually alert due to recent events.

Stay safe.

[Hippostania]

I'm usually against civil disobedience, but I wholeheartedly support this march. Open carry, concealed carry, pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, it should all be legal. Thank god for the second amendment!

Do you have a second amendment dealing with guns?

In Finland? As far as I know, nope. We do have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe though.

[Kola Republic]

Let's watch the bloody mess from this and laugh.
They'll probably get arrested.