Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Sociobiology]

The quote's not only probably wrong, but it doesn't show much understanding of anything, really.

But this could be construed as dangerous because of the nature of the disobedience and it could be used (unjustifiably) as an excuse to do something awful to the protestors.

Unless someone actually intends on shooting someone, then this is really just akin to getting your entire student body to turn up to school in gang colours.

exactly only one guy needs to fire off a shot for the whole thing to go to hell. heck all you need is one idiot to point his rifle at a cop.
And of course the entire event is set up to be a highly emotional situation, so its not like anyone is going to be temped or anything.
Plus this is DC, so you have the additional worry of protesters near the white house and the secret service.

This has bad idea written all over it.

[Imperium of Tanith]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we look upon the forming of what will become the 21st Century version of the Haymarket Incident.

All I know is, Shit's gonna hit the fan.

[Farnhamia]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we look upon the forming of what will become the 21st Century version of the Haymarket Incident.

All I know is, Shit's gonna hit the fan.

Really? How is this march of people who think they're being persecuted because they can't stroll the streets of the nation's capitol carrying loaded rifles equivalent to a march in support of an eight-hour day at which someone threw a bomb at the police?

[Khadgar]

The quote's not only probably wrong, but it doesn't show much understanding of anything, really.
Unless someone actually intends on shooting someone, then this is really just akin to getting your entire student body to turn up to school in gang colours.

exactly only one guy needs to fire off a shot for the whole thing to go to hell. heck all you need is one idiot to point his rifle at a cop.
And of course the entire event is set up to be a highly emotional situation, so its not like anyone is going to be temped or anything.
Plus this is DC, so you have the additional worry of protesters near the white house and the secret service.

This has bad idea written all over it.

Well that's the point isn't it? It's the apocolyptic wet dream of the pro-revolution sorts. While they're safely way the fuck away of course. I'm sure there are people who want a massive altercation, because they believe it will lead to the glorious revolution that will absolutely go their way despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Imperium of Tanith]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we look upon the forming of what will become the 21st Century version of the Haymarket Incident.

All I know is, Shit's gonna hit the fan.

Really? How is this march of people who think they're being persecuted because they can't stroll the streets of the nation's capitol carrying loaded rifles equivalent to a march in support of an eight-hour day at which someone threw a bomb at the police?

Because some idiot's gonna start something with police, and next thing we know it'll be a lead-filled bloodbath. This march will be like a pile of tinder covered in gasoline, all it's gonna take is a single spark..

[Farnhamia]

Really? How is this march of people who think they're being persecuted because they can't stroll the streets of the nation's capitol carrying loaded rifles equivalent to a march in support of an eight-hour day at which someone threw a bomb at the police?

Because some idiot's gonna start something with police, and next thing we know it'll be a lead-filled bloodbath. This march will be like a pile of tinder covered in gasoline, all it's gonna take is a single spark..

Nah. Assuming this even happens, the police will greet the marchers and explain to the leaders that carrying loaded rifles in Washington is against the law and ask them, politely, to disperse. A few people might be arrested. The police will have been briefed not to answer violence with general mayhem. But personally I don't think anything will happen.

You haven't answered my question about why this is like the Haymarket affair.

[Imperium of Tanith]

First, both are showing public dissent against a controversial law, and both are/will be full of extremists and some loonies who wish to overthrow the government.

All it takes is a misfire from the crowd, or a really nervous junior cop.

[Samuraikoku]

All it takes is a misfire from the crowd

Which is why they shouldn't be carrying loaded rifles.

[Farnhamia]

First, both are showing public dissent against a controversial law, and both are/will be full of extremists and some loonies who wish to overthrow the government.

All it takes is a misfire from the crowd, or a really nervous junior cop.

The Haymarket affair started as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an eight-hour day. That's not even remotely the same as a bunch of ... people who think they're being unjustly prevented from carrying loaded rifles in Washington. And the law in DC is not controversial in the least, except in the minds of these people.

[Neo Art]

First, both are showing public dissent against a controversial law, and both are/will be full of extremists and some loonies who wish to overthrow the government.

All it takes is a misfire from the crowd, or a really nervous junior cop.

Do you really believe that for the broader american public "you can't carry loaded assault rifles down the street of a major american metropolitan area" is considered even remotely controversial?

[Imperium of Tanith]

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder my friend, which is why I always use that term loosely.

[Farnhamia]

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder my friend, which is why I always use that term loosely.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Neo Art]

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder my friend, which is why I always use that term loosely.

Except it's not. Controversy means the existence of broad disagreement. For controversy to exist, there must be significant disagreement as to the validity of this law. The vaaaaast majority of people fully accept this law as reasonable and necessary.

A few fringe lunatics do not "controversy" make.

[Farnhamia]

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder my friend, which is why I always use that term loosely.

Except it's not. Controversy means the existence of broad disagreement. For controversy to exist, there must be significant disagreement as to the validity of this law. The vaaaaast majority of people fully accept this law as reasonable and necessary.

A few fringe lunatics do not "controversy" make.

Nor is the District of Columbia unique in having such a law, I suspect.

[Imperium of Tanith]

It is in the eye of the beholder, is it not true that a controversy could be different when you ask a man on the street or if you ask Fox News?

[Samuraikoku]

It is in the eye of the beholder, is it not true that a controversy could be different when you ask a man on the street or if you ask Fox News?

What part of "broad disagreement" you don't get?

[The UK in Exile]

It is in the eye of the beholder, is it not true that a controversy could be different when you ask a man on the street or if you ask Fox News?

Opinion be divided: everyone says its one way, Bill O'Reilly says another.

[Farnhamia]

It is in the eye of the beholder, is it not true that a controversy could be different when you ask a man on the street or if you ask Fox News?

No, this law would be controversial if every place allowed open carry of rifles and suddenly Washington decided to ban it.

By the way, Congress retains the right to review and intervene in the local affairs of the District. These people should stay home and write to their Representatives, asking them to overturn this unjust law.

[Samuraikoku]

No, this law would be controversial if every place allowed open carry of rifles and suddenly Washington decided to ban it.

By the way, Congress retains the right to review and intervene in the local affairs of the District. These people should stay home and right to their Representatives, asking them to overturn this unjust law.

Write to their Representatives?

[Farnhamia]

No, this law would be controversial if every place allowed open carry of rifles and suddenly Washington decided to ban it.

By the way, Congress retains the right to review and intervene in the local affairs of the District. These people should stay home and right to their Representatives, asking them to overturn this unjust law.

Write to their Representatives?

Or have someone do it for them.

[Veceria]

Let them march. Ignore them if you don't like it. Let the government file charges against them for breaking the law. It's not like they're going to be any more violent than any other protesters just because they carry guns.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Write to their Representatives?

Or have someone do it for them.

He was pointing out that you wrote "right" not "write" though...

[Farnhamia]

Or have someone do it for them.

He was pointing out that you wrote "right" not "write" though...

Oh.

[Neo Art]

Let them march. Ignore them if you don't like it. Let the government file charges against them for breaking the law. It's not like they're going to be any more violent than any other protesters just because they carry guns.

I think they're more likely to be violent than any other protestors because they're the kind of people who think that bringinging armed assault rifles into the nation's capital on the 4th of July is a good idea.

To paraphrase Ron White, the danger of a hurricane is not THAT the wind is blowing, it's WHAT the wind is blowing. I don't think they're dangerous because they're protesting. I think they're more dangerous because of WHAT they're protesting, and what kind of people that makes them. Arguing that people who bring loaded rifles to a major city during a major holidy are not more likely to escallate into gun violence than other protestors is like saying members of NAMBLA are not more likely to escallate into raping children than other protestors.

That's just not true.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Let them march. Ignore them if you don't like it. Let the government file charges against them for breaking the law. It's not like they're going to be any more violent than any other protesters just because they carry guns.

Considering that these people probably fall into the 29% that support armed rebellion, I wouldn't be so sure.