DC Police Chief Responds to Adam Kokesh's Planned Armed March

[green73]

The District of Columbia’s police chief said Tuesday officers would arrest marchers who plan to openly carry rifles into the city in violation of District law.

“Passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such,” Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier said on NewsChannel

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/armed-protesters-face-arrest-91022.html

[aGameOfThrones]

“Mere mundanes Passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such,” Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier said on NewsChannel

Fixed it.

[SkepticalMetal]

Were we all expecting nothing to go wrong?

[torchbearer]

Were we all expecting nothing to go wrong?

wrong?
this was expected.
http://willvideoforfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hannibal-a-team.jpg
I love it when a plan comes together.

[mczerone]

DC's law is in violation of the law, and will be treated as such...

[RM918]

Were we all expecting nothing to go wrong?

The being arrested part was expected, so that's not really 'wrong'. It goes wrong if someone opens fire.

[torchbearer]

DC's law is in violation of the law, and will be treated as such...

someone needs to state this in press release.
d.c. laws violates the constitution. the d.c. police will be acting contrary to the constitution.

[SkepticalMetal]

wrong?
this was expected.
http://willvideoforfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hannibal-a-team.jpg
I love it when a plan comes together.
...Yeah, but the point is that there are so many ways this could go wrong and backfire that it inherently makes the whole thing a bad idea. The first part of where it's bad is where the cops come in - when they decide to intervene (and if there are 1000 or over then they might justify calling in the National Guard) - there is a substantial possibility that it could turn into a bloodbath. Regardless of whether or not that actually happens, the Media would most likely spin it in every way they can. If nothing serious happens, they could easily paint it as a bunch of "kooky old farts with guns" who aren't for "progressive" ideals. If something serious DOES happen, then they will be easily able to make it look like the gun-marchers brought it upon themselves, were threatening "national security," starting a violent insurrection, trying to eliminate good old American freedoms, trying to harm police officers...etc. Long story short, whatever there is to gain from this is microscopic, but what there is to lose is so massive that it's borderline absurdist.

[torchbearer]

adam has a chance with media attention to ask the question, why doesn't the 2nd amendment apply to d.c.?

[ZENemy]

...Yeah, but the point is that there are so many ways this could go wrong and backfire that it inherently makes the whole thing a bad idea. The first part of where it's bad is where the cops come in - when they decide to intervene (and if there are 1000 or over then they might justify calling in the National Guard) - there is a substantial possibility that it could turn into a bloodbath. Regardless of whether or not that actually happens, the Media would most likely spin it in every way they can. If nothing serious happens, they could easily paint it as a bunch of "kooky old farts with guns" who aren't for "progressive" ideals. If something serious DOES happen, then they will be easily able to make it look like the gun-marchers brought it upon themselves, were threatening "national security," starting a violent insurrection, trying to eliminate good old American freedoms, trying to harm police officers...etc. Long story short, whatever there is to gain from this is microscopic, but what there is to lose is so massive that it's borderline absurdist.

Please present your BETTER idea to achieve more freedom.

[torchbearer]

...Yeah, but the point is that there are so many ways this could go wrong and backfire that it inherently makes the whole thing a bad idea. The first part of where it's bad is where the cops come in - when they decide to intervene (and if there are 1000 or over then they might justify calling in the National Guard) - there is a substantial possibility that it could turn into a bloodbath. Regardless of whether or not that actually happens, the Media would most likely spin it in every way they can. If nothing serious happens, they could easily paint it as a bunch of "kooky old farts with guns" who aren't for "progressive" ideals. If something serious DOES happen, then they will be easily able to make it look like the gun-marchers brought it upon themselves, were threatening "national security," starting a violent insurrection, trying to eliminate good old American freedoms, trying to harm police officers...etc. Long story short, whatever there is to gain from this is microscopic, but what there is to lose is so massive that it's borderline absurdist.

making real, what is already reality.

[tod evans]

Veterans not currently on active duty are not to be trusted to bear arms in DC...

But it's okay for 100 IQ police currently employed by the city...

http://d22r54gnmuhwmk.cloudfront.net/photos/0/kx/mz/nxKxMzNrUafByDz-556x313-noPad.jpg

[RonPaulFanInGA]

“Passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such,” Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier said on NewsChannel

So when can we expect to see your officers hauled off?

How are they planning to arrest, say, 5,000 people anyway?

[torchbearer]

So when can we expect to see your officers hauled off?

How are they planning to arrest, say, 5,000 people anyway?

they aren't planning on arresting anyone.

[SkepticalMetal]

Please present your BETTER idea to achieve more freedom.
Okay. Education of the masses. Right now, this movement is so small of a minority that it's like a mouse in a sea of cats. Marching through DC with loaded rifles (at least I think that's what I heard) can be easily crushed, spinned, and ultimately destroyed. As an anarcho-capitalist I hold the TSA to be, by default, tyrannical, however this doesn't mean I protest every time I want to fly. This may be viewed as "exercising your freedom" (and it is) but with the gang of thieves in power, it's just plain fatuous. To bring about real change takes an academic revolution, not an armed one.

[torchbearer]

Okay. Education of the masses. Right now, this movement is so small of a minority that it's like a mouse in a sea of cats. Marching through DC with loaded rifles (at least I think that's what I heard) can be easily crushed, spinned, and ultimately destroyed. As an anarcho-capitalist I hold the TSA to be, by default, tyrannical, however this doesn't mean I protest every time I want to fly. This may be viewed as "exercising your freedom" (and it is) but with the gang of thieves in power, it's just plain fatuous. To bring about real change takes an academic revolution, not an armed one.


this isn't to overthrow the government. this is to assert the right to bare arms.

[JK/SEA]

Please present your BETTER idea to achieve more freedom.

write strongly worded letters to your Rep...march around with protest signs..(in the designated areas of course)...call in to talk shows...pound your fist on your keyboard...

see..lots of other stuff to do besides what Adam is proposing...i mean, somebody might get hurt, and then we all become slaves to the State...uh-huh uh huh uh huh..

[tod evans]

they aren't planning on arresting anyone.

Refer to Kent State

Ruby Ridge

Waco

Dorner


Etc..

[SkepticalMetal]

this isn't to overthrow the government. this is to assert the right to bare arms.
...You just missed my point entirely.

[compromise]

Yup, Kokesh is gonna end up in jail. Hopefully he gets out before Rand becomes president. Probably not, though. Rand might have to pardon him.

[torchbearer]

...You just missed my point entirely.

your point is, you think there are better ways.
there may be, you should go do them.

[torchbearer]

Yup, Kokesh is gonna end up in jail. Hopefully he gets out before Rand becomes president. Probably not, though. Rand might have to pardon him.

from a cops point of view, this event will be a sign of disrespect. they will violate him. if they capture him, they will work him over.
they will flail the skin off his back, put a crown of thorns on his head, and mock him.

[SkepticalMetal]

your point is, you think there are better ways.
there may be, you should go do them.
Not necessarily my core point. What I was really trying to say was that this is a bad idea. A "nothing to gain, everything to lose" kind of deal.

Oh, I should go do them? Right, because I guess it's totally unethical to point out something that I think is rather pointless and subject to disaster. How hypocritical!

[Qdog]

Its ballsy! I like it. Everyone wants to "support our troops" for supposedly protecting our "freedoms" by killing goat herders in Afganistan. Why do we not want to support these real heroes, who are willing to march through that black gates into the heart of Mordor facing almost certain death, all in the name of freedom?

It may be stupid. But at this point not standing up might be even more stupid. I know I wont dig my own grave so I can be shot in the back of the head.

[torchbearer]

Not necessarily my core point. What I was really trying to say was that this is a bad idea. A "nothing to gain, everything to lose" kind of deal.

Oh, I should go do them? Right, because I guess it's totally unethical to point out something that I think is rather pointless and subject to disaster. How hypocritical!

it gains in the same way obama winning over romney is a gain....
the people in louisiana will be agitated by a show of federal force against open carry protestors.
and i don't think this state is the only one.
this event will agitate. the pigs are playing their part as expected.

the pigs could neutralize kokesh by allowing him to march around without a fuss, or even act like- they don't even know what his problem is.. he can protest all he wants. then kokesh looks like a fool and the situation dies out.
that isn't happening is it.
you have no rights, only the privileges granted to you by a certain jurisdiction.
d.c. says you can't carry a firearm. therefore, you don't have the right.

that notion is false.

[SkepticalMetal]

it gains in the same way obama winning over romney is a gain....
the people in louisiana will be agitated by a show of federal force against open carry protestors.
and i don't think this state is the only one.
this event will agitate. the pigs are playing their part as expected.

the pigs could neutralize kokesh by allowing him to march around without a fuss, or even act like- they don't even know what his problem is.. he can protest all he wants. then kokesh looks like a fool and the situation dies out.
that isn't happening is it.
you have no rights, only the privileges granted to you by a certain jurisdiction.
d.c. says you can't carry a firearm. therefore, you don't have the right.

that notion is false.
First of all I must ask how you see Obama winning over Romney is a gain. Quit politics man...

But I suppose that if your ultimate goal is to have some sort of political revolution than things may very well turn in your favor through this. I am opposed to revolution in the political sense due to the fact that all throughout history, revolutions have simply been a matter of one gang of thieves throwing out the other. It always ends up being a pointless commotion and, in the end, accomplishes nothing. It's just a matter of history repeating itself over and over, with a new Lion taking it's place as King of the Jungle. It's never worked.

[torchbearer]

First of all I must ask how you see Obama winning over Romney is a gain. Quit politics man...

what did the conservative movement and republican congress do during Bush's 8 years?

Romney's win would neutralize most of the opposition we have to this bullshit right now. It would have been disastrous. Same policies. little opposition.

[torchbearer]

agitation builds opposition.
maybe you should read some history.

[SkepticalMetal]

what did the conservative movement and republican congress do during Bush's 8 years?

Romney's win would neutralize most of the opposition we have to this bullshit right now. It would have been disastrous. Same policies. little opposition.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/matson-k1.1.1.html

[torchbearer]

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/matson-k1.1.1.html

i'm not even going to click on the link. either type what you want to say, or don't bother with a response.

[SkepticalMetal]

agitation builds opposition.
maybe you should read some history.
...And, miss my point all over again, why don't you? I already stated that if your goal is a political revolution, you may very well succeed in that regard. But in the long run, you won't be doing anything that hasn't been done a thousand times before. It's an age-old mistake, committed by loads of people missing the point.

[SkepticalMetal]

i'm not even going to click on the link. either type what you want to say, or don't bother with a response.
You're right. I shouldn't bother sharing information with people who are obviously resistant to it.

[torchbearer]

You're right. I shouldn't bother sharing information with people who are obviously resistant to it.


i'm not clicking on a link, you can post text here. i assume you don't have the mental capacity to make an argument yourself, so you have to use someone else's argument.
that's fine. just post it here.

[torchbearer]

...And, miss my point all over again, why don't you? I already stated that if your goal is a political revolution, you may very well succeed in that regard. But in the long run, you won't be doing anything that hasn't been done a thousand times before. It's an age-old mistake, committed by loads of people missing the point.


revolution doesn't mean armed. shooting, pew pew pew. it can mean people get pissed off enough the get off their asses and do something about it. the second amendment is the best issue ever to agitate over.
agitation is what led to civil rights reforms.

[SkepticalMetal]

i'm not clicking on a link, you can post text here. i assume you don't have the mental capacity to make an argument yourself, so you have to use someone else's argument.
that's fine. just post it here.
I suppose I can't talk about Lockean property rights, or reference his writings in any way, because then I wouldn't have "the mental capacity to make an argument myself." Right.

[torchbearer]

I suppose I can't talk about Lockean property rights, or reference his writings in any way, because then I wouldn't have "the mental capacity to make an argument myself." Right.


you haven't done it yet. i'm a skeptic, but you producing your own ideas in debating my ideas are welcomed.

[torchbearer]

rockwell's anti-voting rhetoric is one of the market reasons i don't give his site traffic. its nothing personal, i just don't want to contribute to such crap.

[vita3]

When I attented a rally for 911 first responders, there were a couple of police officers with us holding. Capitol police came onto our bus told everyone no guns were allowed & kind of laughed. They were definitly on our side that day.

Don't know how this will play out, but there are plenty of Capitol police offficers who know our GOV needs to be taken back.

Gotta push forward to get anywhere in this struggle. peace

[shane77m]

It looks like this event will be a go. All anyone can do now is start preparing for any potential fallout. This could go in a lot of ways.
AK might let himself be arrested but there will probably be many in the crowd that will not. Hopefully the police will use some sense and just let them walk. Or maybe they might join in.

[SkepticalMetal]

you haven't done it yet. i'm a skeptic, but you producing your own ideas in debating my ideas are welcomed.
Apparently not, as when I attempted to share a link to an article with you on why you should quit politics, you immediately assumed that I didn't have a "mental capacity" for making coherent arguments (which I find rather ironic due to how you never really seem to respond to my posts in whole and/or miss the point entirely of what I'm trying to say, taking it in a whole different direction). All I have seen from you so far are bizarre, cryptic responses with the occasional ad hominem thrown in. I think here would be a good place to stop in an effort to prevent myself from sounding like a broken record attempting to try to get you to actually understand what it is I'm speaking about.

[torchbearer]

Apparently not, as when I attempted to share a link to an article with you on why you should quit politics, you immediately assumed that I didn't have a "mental capacity" for making coherent arguments (which I find rather ironic due to how you never really seem to respond to my post in whole and/or miss the point entirely of what I'm trying to say, taking it in a whole different direction). All I have seen from you so far are bizarre, cryptic responses with the occasional ad hominem thrown in. I think here would be a good place to stop in an effort to prevent myself from sounding like a broken record attempting to try to get you to actually understand what it is I'm speaking about.

i like bullet points. pun intended.

[XTreat]

Obama winning was definitely a good thing for us.

[Working Poor]

I don't think this event is a good idea. I hate think that one person could get killed much less a few 1000. Yea the media is paying attention to this I would bet one of the big media franchises would pay someone to get the ball rolling.I don't think we will win anything from our side. The very least that will happen is that a bunch of people will be jailed and charged with a felony and lose their right to legally own a gun. Please my beloved friends don't do this. Thete must be swomething else that could make a statement. We need to keep the focus on getting good people elected. We are gaining ground this event could give everyone all the proof they eed that we are the nut jobs and need to be ignoredt

[torchbearer]

Obama winning was definitely a good thing for us.

it could have been worse.

[Philhelm]

agitation builds opposition.
maybe you should read some history.

Exactly. If a Republican would have entered the White House, most of your meat and potatos Republican voters would have been pacified. With an Obama victory, we let the outrage brew, and it buys us more time to bridge the gap with the clueless elements of conservatism.

[69360]

Yup, Kokesh is gonna end up in jail. Hopefully he gets out before Rand becomes president. Probably not, though. Rand might have to pardon him.

Kokesh will be banned from all Rand Paul events and referred to as a troubled person we broke contact with year ago. As he should be. The guy either is cointelpro or has mental health issues.

[torchbearer]

Exactly. If a Republican would have entered the White House, most of your meat and potatos Republican voters would have been pacified. With an Obama victory, we let the outrage brew, and it buys us more time to bridge the gap with the clueless elements of conservatism.


just using history as a guide.

[torchbearer]

Kokesh will be banned from all Rand Paul events and referred to as a troubled person we broke contact with year ago. As he should be. The guy either is cointelpro or has mental health issues.

or he sees a threat, that is real and very imminent.

[Anti Federalist]

Okay. Education of the masses. Right now, this movement is so small of a minority that it's like a mouse in a sea of cats. Marching through DC with loaded rifles (at least I think that's what I heard) can be easily crushed, spinned, and ultimately destroyed. As an anarcho-capitalist I hold the TSA to be, by default, tyrannical, however this doesn't mean I protest every time I want to fly. This may be viewed as "exercising your freedom" (and it is) but with the gang of thieves in power, it's just plain fatuous. To bring about real change takes an academic revolution, not an armed one.

Why not?

I do...every time I fly I raise hell to whoever will listen and "opt out".

[JK/SEA]

I can vividly recall the Vietnam war protests. They started out with just a few 'wacko' 'nut job' 'dirty hippie' 'maggot' 'commie' 'sob's'...as the war raged on, and media reporting on the death count for YEARS AND YEARS, the protests got bigger and louder, and sometimes violent...until one day the protests could no longer be ignored. I was one of those early protesters, and was called some vile names along the way. You know what they ended up calling all of us 'American Chickens'?...they ended up calling us RIGHT.

My question to all of you naysayers...what are you REALLY afraid of?....clearly none of you negative nancy's won't be going , so...wtf..?..

[WarNoMore]

Kokesh will be banned from all Rand Paul events and referred to as a troubled person we broke contact with year ago. As he should be.

True, gotta keep the livestock on the plantation. Why wait for the media to demonize "fringe" elements of the liberty movement when we can do it for them?

[JK/SEA]

Kokesh will be banned from all Rand Paul events and referred to as a troubled person we broke contact with year ago. As he should be. The guy either is cointelpro or has mental health issues.

so?...for myself, i'd take that as a badge of honor. Let the chips fall where they may.

co-intelpro?...mental issues?....could say the same of you. Your point?

[brandon]

What grade crime is open carrying in DC? Are we talking possible felony here?

[WhistlinDave]

Anybody happen to know if there are any members of the DC Police force who are Oath Keepers? If there are, I'm interested to see if they will join the march when it crosses over into DC. That would be really cool....

[69360]

What grade crime is open carrying in DC? Are we talking possible felony here?

Felony and they will all end up prohibited persons and never be able to own a gun again.

[torchbearer]

Felony and they will all end up prohibited persons and never be able to own a gun again.

felons can own guns in louisiana.
i'd be proud to add them to our growing body of gun owners.

[ninepointfive]

Is there a term for an ally to your cause who is so afraid to do anything that might be frowned upon, that they actually argue the opposition's talking points for them? Because this is some interesting psychology at work here.

"Oh my gawd, don't dump that tea in the harbor, that's baaaahhhd, you guys" comes to mind.


"squish" just isn't gonna cut it on this one

[PatriotOne]

Kokesh will be banned from all Rand Paul events and referred to as a troubled person we broke contact with year ago. As he should be. The guy either is cointelpro or has mental health issues.

Yep. They know what he is.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

The following instructions regarding Adam Kokesh are contained in the packet of information for volunteers being trained to help at Ron Paul’s Sun Dome Rally–expected to draw over 10,000.


http://i41.tinypic.com/auuy1.jpg

[Origanalist]

Is there a term for an ally to your cause who is so afraid to do anything that might be frowned upon, that they actually argue the opposition's talking points for them? Because this is some interesting psychology at work here.

"Oh my gawd, don't that tea in the harbor, that's baaaahhhd, you guys" comes to mind.


"squish" just isn't gonna cut it on this one

I'm shaking my head in amazement at some of the comments. I'm not a huge fan (or a huge critic) of AK. I though his protest over the obscenity law was pretty dumbass, but this I completely understand.

[PaulConventionWV]

Veterans not currently on active duty are not to be trusted to bear arms in DC...

But it's okay for 100 IQ police currently employed by the city...

http://d22r54gnmuhwmk.cloudfront.net/photos/0/kx/mz/nxKxMzNrUafByDz-556x313-noPad.jpg

100 IQ is average. Didn't know if you knew that.

[kathy88]

How many people would wake up if Several thousand armed veterans are arrested for excercising their rights? I'm thinking MANY. How much bigger would the next event be? Where's the tipping point?

[PaulConventionWV]

Okay. Education of the masses. Right now, this movement is so small of a minority that it's like a mouse in a sea of cats. Marching through DC with loaded rifles (at least I think that's what I heard) can be easily crushed, spinned, and ultimately destroyed. As an anarcho-capitalist I hold the TSA to be, by default, tyrannical, however this doesn't mean I protest every time I want to fly. This may be viewed as "exercising your freedom" (and it is) but with the gang of thieves in power, it's just plain fatuous. To bring about real change takes an academic revolution, not an armed one.

You are really underestimating the liberty movement. "So small it's like a mouse in a sea of cats?"

Puh-lease, you know we're not THAT small. This movement is actually quite popular.

[PaulConventionWV]

Okay. Education of the masses. Right now, this movement is so small of a minority that it's like a mouse in a sea of cats. Marching through DC with loaded rifles (at least I think that's what I heard) can be easily crushed, spinned, and ultimately destroyed. As an anarcho-capitalist I hold the TSA to be, by default, tyrannical, however this doesn't mean I protest every time I want to fly. This may be viewed as "exercising your freedom" (and it is) but with the gang of thieves in power, it's just plain fatuous. To bring about real change takes an academic revolution, not an armed one.

Go back and tell the revolutionaries in the American Revolution that. I'm sure they would have loved to waste another millenium trying to education hundreds of millions of people.

[Philhelm]

Felony and they will all end up prohibited persons and never be able to own a gun again.

Which, of course, is why it is important never to surrender your weapon to begin with.

[PaulConventionWV]

it gains in the same way obama winning over romney is a gain....
the people in louisiana will be agitated by a show of federal force against open carry protestors.
and i don't think this state is the only one.
this event will agitate. the pigs are playing their part as expected.

the pigs could neutralize kokesh by allowing him to march around without a fuss, or even act like- they don't even know what his problem is.. he can protest all he wants. then kokesh looks like a fool and the situation dies out.
that isn't happening is it.
you have no rights, only the privileges granted to you by a certain jurisdiction.
d.c. says you can't carry a firearm. therefore, you don't have the right.

that notion is false.

You're right, they won't allow it no matter what. But even if they did, I certainly don't think it would make Kokesh look like a fool. These issues are real and represent real controversies over unconstitutional laws that are still in place and are going into effect as we speak. The police letting 1000 armed marchers march through washington is a sign that the people still have the power to change things. It would not neutralize the event if they allowed it, but like you said, they won't allow it anyone because of what I just stated.

[tod evans]

100 IQ is average. Didn't know if you knew that.

No, I'm obviously sub-par and need a refresher....:cool:

[SkepticalMetal]

Go back and tell the revolutionaries in the American Revolution that. I'm sure they would have loved to waste another millenium trying to education hundreds of millions of people.
Yeah, and the revolution really got us somewhere, right? This place is right back where it started. Political revolution never has any lasting value - as a believer in non-aggression, if people want to demonstrate their right to bear arms in this manner (despite the fact that it's nothing to gain and everything to lose) then I can't stop them.

[Weston White]

OK, so "with loaded firearms is a violation of the law ", but what about when the firearms are UNLOADED is still a violation incurred (which from my understanding is the plan)?

[RickyJ]

If you want to get real attention, and really make a statement, you don't tell them you are going to have a march, you just do it. He knew they weren't going to let him do this, so this amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt. The police very well might arrest people before they even have a chance to march now.

[Working Poor]

I really don't want a real civil war. I think this event is likely to get one going. Cause the liberty moveme.nt does seem popular.

On the other hand if it goes down the way Adam says to make a big court case that could be a good thing to tie up the court.

[RickyJ]

I really don't want a real civil war. I think this event is likely to get one going. Cause the liberty moveme.nt does seem popular

Whether you want one or not the police and government have shown they are coming for us, you either fight them or they will kill you or put you in prison and torture you.

[torchbearer]

OK, so "with loaded firearms is a violation of the law ", but what about when the firearms are UNLOADED is still a violation incurred (which from my understanding is the plan)?

just stop.
if this is going where i think its going-

it makes no sense to carry a gun unloaded. it isn't really "arms" unless you can use it as armament.
the gun is basically useless without ammo. why would you holster a gun with no ammo? maybe you plan to give it to an enemy in a trick?

[PaulConventionWV]

Yeah, and the revolution really got us somewhere, right? This place is right back where it started. Political revolution never has any lasting value - as a believer in non-aggression, if people want to demonstrate their right to bear arms in this manner (despite the fact that it's nothing to gain and everything to lose) then I can't stop them.

So violent revolution doesn't work, and political revolution doesn't have any lasting value? Just what is it you plan on doing, then?

[PaulConventionWV]

just stop.
if this is going where i think its going-

it makes no sense to carry a gun unloaded. it isn't really "arms" unless you can use it as armament.
the gun is basically useless without ammo. why would you holster a gun with no ammo? maybe you plan to give it to an enemy in a trick?

It wouldn't be much of a statement if the guns were unloaded. It would be like saying, "Oooh, look how scary this gun is!" when ammo means there is the real potential for the gun to actually be used at the owner's discretion.

[torchbearer]

It wouldn't be much of a statement if the guns were unloaded. It would be like saying, "Oooh, look how scary this gun is!" when ammo means there is the real potential for the gun to actually be used at the owner's discretion.

even on an everyday basis, it would be ridiculous to carry an unloaded weapon around.

[RickyJ]

How many people would wake up if Several thousand armed veterans are arrested for excercising their rights? I'm thinking MANY. How much bigger would the next event be? Where's the tipping point?

Very few because it won't be covered. No one will cover it, so it will be like it did not happen to the sheeple. The sheeple only watch main stream news, if it is not on there they don't believe it.

[Dr.3D]

even on an everyday basis, it would be ridiculous to carry an unloaded weapon around.

Openly carrying an unloaded weapon may even be a darned right dangerous thing to do.

[SkepticalMetal]

So violent revolution doesn't work, and political revolution doesn't have any lasting value? Just what is it you plan on doing, then?
My own way of going about things is talking to people about the evils of statism, and convincing them of the Rothbardian anarchist position. If you wish to demonstrate your freedom to carry a weapon openly even with thugs standing by to deprive you of that then, as I said, I can't stop you, but I simply believe that there are better ways to go about promoting liberty, especially ways in which it will last a lot longer. Although I don't agree with playing politics, Ron Paul got the movement where he did today by educating people on the evils of the state, not through taking to the streets with guns.

And, on a further note, I leave you with Neodoxy from the Mises forums:
"How about you go and smoke weed in public until a cop comes and tries and stop you. When he does why don't you pull out an illegally purchased gun and kill the police officer? It's individualist, right? It's libertarian to defend your property, right? Therefore it can't be stupid to do something if its libertarian, individualistic, and how things should be, right? That's the same logic that you're using and I have yet to see you provide a substantive chain of reasoning for it."

[TheTexan]

...Yeah, but the point is that there are so many ways this could go wrong and backfire that it inherently makes the whole thing a bad idea. The first part of where it's bad is where the cops come in - when they decide to intervene (and if there are 1000 or over then they might justify calling in the National Guard) - there is a substantial possibility that it could turn into a bloodbath. Regardless of whether or not that actually happens, the Media would most likely spin it in every way they can. If nothing serious happens, they could easily paint it as a bunch of "kooky old farts with guns" who aren't for "progressive" ideals. If something serious DOES happen, then they will be easily able to make it look like the gun-marchers brought it upon themselves, were threatening "national security," starting a violent insurrection, trying to eliminate good old American freedoms, trying to harm police officers...etc. Long story short, whatever there is to gain from this is microscopic, but what there is to lose is so massive that it's borderline absurdist.

The media is a mouthpiece for the liberals, and the state. The people that I think this event is trying to reach, already know that. Anything that we ever do, that is significant for the advancement of liberty, will be met with hostility and derision from the media.

The only way to avoid having the media used against us, is to do nothing, which is a pretty fucking shitty plan at this point I do believe.

[PaulConventionWV]

My own way of going about things is talking to people about the evils of statism, and convincing them of the Rothbardian anarchist position. If you wish to demonstrate your freedom to carry a weapon openly even with thugs standing by to deprive you of that then, as I said, I can't stop you, but I simply believe that there are better ways to go about promoting liberty, especially ways in which it will last a lot longer. Although I don't agree with playing politics, Ron Paul got the movement where he did today by educating people on the evils of the state, not through taking to the streets with guns.

And, on a further note, I leave you with Neodoxy from the Mises forums:
"How about you go and smoke weed in public until a cop comes and tries and stop you. When he does why don't you pull out an illegally purchased gun and kill the police officer? It's individualist, right? It's libertarian to defend your property, right? Therefore it can't be stupid to do something if its libertarian, individualistic, and how things should be, right? That's the same logic that you're using and I have yet to see you provide a substantive chain of reasoning for it."

When you say, "ways that will last longer", you really mean, "Ways that will take longer to come to fruition, and in fact, may never come to fruition at all."

[TheTexan]

write strongly worded letters to your Rep...march around with protest signs..(in the designated areas of course)...call in to talk shows...pound your fist on your keyboard...

see..lots of other stuff to do besides what Adam is proposing...i mean, somebody might get hurt, and then we all become slaves to the State...uh-huh uh huh uh huh..

Yup. Wouldn't want that to happen.

[TheTexan]

I really don't want a real civil war. I think this event is likely to get one going. Cause the liberty moveme.nt does seem popular.

I'm hoping that either secession happens before a civil war occurs, or that the threat of a possible civil war triggers a secession to try to avoid it.

But, as has been seen in the past, sometimes they won't just "let" you secede. So a war of some kind may or may not be inevitable regardless.

[JK/SEA]

My own way of going about things is talking to people about the evils of statism, and convincing them of the Rothbardian anarchist position. If you wish to demonstrate your freedom to carry a weapon openly even with thugs standing by to deprive you of that then, as I said, I can't stop you, but I simply believe that there are better ways to go about promoting liberty, especially ways in which it will last a lot longer. Although I don't agree with playing politics, Ron Paul got the movement where he did today by educating people on the evils of the state, not through taking to the streets with guns.

.[/B]"

we're all waiting.......please continue.

[69360]

How many people would wake up if Several thousand armed veterans are arrested for excercising their rights? I'm thinking MANY. How much bigger would the next event be? Where's the tipping point?

None. They will applaud the stormtroopers in tanks who either kill or arrest the armed "domestic terrorists" who attacked DC.

[TaftFan]

My write up: http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/2013/05/adam-kokesh-plots-armed-march-on-gun.html

[69360]

I'm hoping that either secession happens before a civil war occurs, or that the threat of a possible civil war triggers a secession to try to avoid it.

But, as has been seen in the past, sometimes they won't just "let" you secede. So a civil war may or may not be inevitable regardless.

Sure why not? I just moved to Maine to get away from all the crap and because it's a safe state. But if you Texans want to secede I'm in.

[TheTexan]

None. They will applaud the stormtroopers in tanks who either kill or arrest the armed "domestic terrorists" who attacked DC.

Probably 90 in 100 would applaud. But how many of those 90 would be willing to take up arms in defense of those stormtroopers? Maybe 1.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm hoping that either secession happens before a civil war occurs, or that the threat of a possible civil war triggers a secession to try to avoid it.

But, as has been seen in the past, sometimes they won't just "let" you secede. So a civil war may or may not be inevitable regardless.

This.

The system, for all its perceived strength, is, in many ways, a paper tiger.

This could be, with the proper pushing, USSR circa 1988.

It wasn't just people dancing on the Berlin wall that caused the USSR to collapse, there was active, internal, armed areas of resistance as well, constantly worrying and nagging the beast.

[SkepticalMetal]

When you say, "ways that will last longer", you really mean, "Ways that will take longer to come to fruition, and in fact, may never come to fruition at all."
No. If anything, you just described your own view. I've said this several times now - that if your ultimate goal is a political revolution then you are simply doing what numerous others have done before you. Perhaps they win their revolution (and they usually do). Okay, so what happens? They never helped people see the evils of statism, they just ended up overthrowing one gang of thieves and becoming the next. The majority allowed this to happen because they had no fucking clue what it was ever about. Most people just go about their lives watching the news as their only source of outside world information, or finding out news whatever the way of conveying news was in the time of the revolutions of the past. So these ideas could never come to fruition because they were never even there in the first place!

If you're anxious to get out there and "not do nothing" as others have so bluntly put it, so be it. For the last time, my point is that this has been tried a million times before. And besides, this kind of publicity stunt isn't getting even near the core matter. As Clayton on Mises said, "it's walking right into their trap, which is to turn everything into a bureaucratic morass of "compliance" issues, and then make anyone who 'just won't go along' look to be anti-social."

[JK/SEA]

No. If anything, you just described your own view. I've said this several times now - that if your ultimate goal is a political revolution then you are simply doing what numerous others have done before you. Perhaps they win their revolution (and they usually do). Okay, so what happens? They never helped people see the evils of statism, they just ended up overthrowing one gang of thieves and becoming the next. The majority allowed this to happen because they had no fucking clue what it was ever about. Most people just go about their lives watching the news as their only source of outside world information, or finding out news whatever the way of conveying news was in the time of the revolutions of the past. So these ideas could never come to fruition because they were never even there in the first place!

If you're anxious to get out there and "not do nothing" as others have so bluntly put it, so be it. For the last time, my point is that this has been tried a million times before. And besides, this kind of publicity stunt isn't getting even near the core matter. As Clayton on Mises said, "it's walking right into their trap, which is to turn everything into a bureaucratic morass of "compliance" issues, and then make anyone who 'just won't go along' look to be anti-social."

lol

[TheTexan]

No. If anything, you just described your own view. I've said this several times now - that if your ultimate goal is a political revolution then you are simply doing what numerous others have done before you. Perhaps they win their revolution (and they usually do). Okay, so what happens? They never helped people see the evils of statism, they just ended up overthrowing one gang of thieves and becoming the next. The majority allowed this to happen because they had no fucking clue what it was ever about. Most people just go about their lives watching the news as their only source of outside world information, or finding out news whatever the way of conveying news was in the time of the revolutions of the past. So these ideas could never come to fruition because they were never even there in the first place!

If you're anxious to get out there and "not do nothing" as others have so bluntly put it, so be it. For the last time, my point is that this has been tried a million times before. And besides, this kind of publicity stunt isn't getting even near the core matter. As Clayton on Mises said, "it's walking right into their trap, which is to turn everything into a bureaucratic morass of "compliance" issues, and then make anyone who 'just won't go along' look to be anti-social."

Maybe the way we reach the society that you seek is by having revolutions more often. Part of the issue is that the state has been allowed to trample on our freedoms for so long, without resistance.

[SkepticalMetal]

lol
Funny, I got the exact same response when I was debating people on gun control on another forum.

[ninepointfive]

Funny, I got the exact same response when I was debating people on gun control on another forum.

look, pacifism only gets you so much - so how about you stop turning your pointless debate here, and start converting people elsewhere if you are genuinely looking for some liberty in your lifetime....

[SkepticalMetal]

look, pacifism only gets you so much - so how about you stop turning your pointless debate here, and start converting people elsewhere if you are genuinely looking for some liberty in your lifetime....
...Not pacifism, dude. But no, I agree with you, this debate is pointless. Already I can see it's going straight into bland condescension. Oh well, people can do what they want. I'm pretty tired of repeating myself anyway.

[Weston White]

just stop.
if this is going where i think its going-

it makes no sense to carry a gun unloaded. it isn't really "arms" unless you can use it as armament.
the gun is basically useless without ammo. why would you holster a gun with no ammo? maybe you plan to give it to an enemy in a trick?

You carry your ammunition or loaded magazines in a case, bag, your pockets, etc. However, in this instance it is a type of right to bear arms promotional event. Regardless, that is the current definition of open carry, to carry an unloaded firearm in plain view. There is no actual intention to use the weapons for firing, but to protect against government tyranny. You cannot really be this dense, can you?

In reviewing your comments it would appear that you are being argumentative simply to argue.

[bolil]

You carry your ammunition or loaded magazines in a case, bag, your pockets, etc. However, in this instance it is a type of right to bear arms promotional event. Regardless, that is the current definition of open carry, to carry an unloaded firearm in plain view. There is no actual intention to use the weapons for firing, but to protect against government tyranny. You cannot really be this dense, can you?

In reviewing your comments it would appear that you are being argumentative simply to argue.

There is another reason people are argumentative? Hey, dude, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state COMMA the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Designating as legal arms, only, without ammunition would be like designating as legal, only, speech that didn't use words.

Ya dig?

or should I say, to keep it legit:
aopusye[dlkjgnpasydf nvc;asdpiuh apisbfpiyabwouyqapq[jf lkjanspidufhoiauysc laskjdnfpkabfdgout!

I swear, the out at the end was untilintional.

[Weston White]

There is another reason people are argumentative? Hey, dude, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state COMMA the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Designating as legal arms, only, without ammunition would be like designating as legal, only, speech that didn't use words.

Ya dig?

Only so far as open carry is concerned or when armed while in public.

Actually, that right really has nothing to do with placing reasonable restrictions on gun possession and ownership while out and about in the public, i.e., there is really no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons, at least until there is a lawful or purposeful basis requiring it to be used as intended.

This entire anarchist mindset is never going to go anywhere—in case you have not noticed most Americans no longer believe the II Amendment is even necessary, e.g., the average person cannot tell the difference between a gunshot and a firework; cannot tell the difference between a shotgun, rifle, or handgun; think that only military and police should be armed with weapons and are illegal for possession by "civilians" outside of their home; etc.

[Origanalist]

Yeah, and the revolution really got us somewhere, right? This place is right back where it started. Political revolution never has any lasting value - as a believer in non-aggression, if people want to demonstrate their right to bear arms in this manner (despite the fact that it's nothing to gain and everything to lose) then I can't stop them.

Yes, it did get them somewhere. No, it didn't get us anywhere. Who's fault is that?

[PaulConventionWV]

You carry your ammunition or loaded magazines in a case, bag, your pockets, etc. However, in this instance it is a type of right to bear arms promotional event. Regardless, that is the current definition of open carry, to carry an unloaded firearm in plain view. There is no actual intention to use the weapons for firing, but to protect against government tyranny. You cannot really be this dense, can you?

In reviewing your comments it would appear that you are being argumentative simply to argue.

Carrying unloaded guns doesn't do much to promote the issue, considering they might as well be carrying water pistols. This isn't advertising, this is an actual test, and for it to be any kind of test, there has to be some sort of risk involved. The guns must be loaded in order for them to be useful in "protecting against government tyranny." Besides, they're carrying them slung across their backs to show there is no intention of using them. It's just as good for achieving that purpose as it would be to have to load a clip into your gun before firing it, except not having the clip in your gun makes you vulnerable because it takes longer. A loaded gun slung across the back is just as non-combative and it doesn't require any loading in order to quickly be turned into a weapon of self-defense. Who came up with the arbitrary idea that, "You can carry a gun that can be loaded on site, but you can't carry a gun that is already loaded." That's BS. If you are carrying a gun and ammo, it doesn't make sense not to put ammo in the gun.

[Philhelm]

I believe that war is already upon us.

[bolil]

Only so far as open carry is concerned or when armed while in public.

Actually, that right really has nothing to do with placing reasonable restrictions on gun possession and ownership while out and about in the public, i.e., there is really no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons, at least until there is a lawful or purposeful basis requiring it to be used as intended.

This entire anarchist mindset is never going to go anywhere—in case you have not noticed most American’s no longer believe the II Amendment is even necessary, e.g., the average person cannot tell the difference between a gunshot and a firework; cannot tell the difference between a shotgun, rifle, or handgun; think that only military and police should be armed with weapons and are illegal for possession by "civilians" outside of their home; etc.

"He who would succumb to the irresistible power of necessity must suffer what fate destiny decrees"

In other words, why do you wear shoes? You don't necessarily need them, after all you might not cross harmful terrain. You wear them, precisely, because you might encounter terrain that would harm your feet without protection. Now, extrapolate, going from a instance of lesser importance (shoes for foot protection) to one of greater (modern means of self defense for life protection).

Shoes are worn in reasonable anticipation of harmful terrain, so should modern means of self defense be word in anticipation of aggressive and harmful people. Not wearing shoes will, in most cases (as regards working people), result in only lacerated feet. Most of these feet will heal (no pun) in time, but some of these wounds will become necrotic or otherwise infected. Now, in this case, the choice not to protect ones feet might result in the loss of them or even life.

Modern means of self defense are carried in reasonable expectation of harmful situations. Not carrying such means, in most cases (as regards all people), will result in nothing; but sometimes, when a situation such as the aforementioned occurs, not having such means will result in the loss of life. Since it is impossible to know when these situations arise it is an injustice to be deprived of the ability to confront them in a manner most favorable to success... that is armed.

It is funny you bring up an 'anarchist argument' and then continue to talk about the second amendment. If you can't see why, I am sure a person more versed than I in the eccentricities (unconventionalities) of proper anarchism will explain it to you.

[PaulConventionWV]

Only so far as open carry is concerned or when armed while in public.

Actually, that right really has nothing to do with placing reasonable restrictions on gun possession and ownership while out and about in the public, i.e., there is really no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons, at least until there is a lawful or purposeful basis requiring it to be used as intended.

This entire anarchist mindset is never going to go anywhere—in case you have not noticed most Americans no longer believe the II Amendment is even necessary, e.g., the average person cannot tell the difference between a gunshot and a firework; cannot tell the difference between a shotgun, rifle, or handgun; think that only military and police should be armed with weapons and are illegal for possession by "civilians" outside of their home; etc.

Did you just, implicitly or explicitly, claim that people should be required to unload their guns before going into public unless they need to be used, in a situation where precious seconds are important? Never mind the absurdity of the idea of carrying a gun and ammo separately, but trying to impose any restrictions on gun use like the one you just proposed would be an affront to liberty and the second amendment. You falsely stated that there really is no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons. How do you know that? I could think of a million scenarios in which it would be useful to have your gun ready in case of emergency.

[Origanalist]

Did you just, implicitly or explicitly, claim that people should be required to unload their guns before going into public unless they need to be used, in a situation where precious seconds are important? Never mind the absurdity of the idea of carrying a gun and ammo separately, but trying to impose any restrictions on gun use like the one you just proposed would be an affront to liberty and the second amendment. You falsely stated that there really is no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons. How do you know that? I could think of a million scenarios in which it would be useful to have your gun ready in case of emergency.

That post ( from Weston White ) has me wondering if I'm on the wrong site or just entered a alternate universe.

[newbitech]

No. If anything, you just described your own view. I've said this several times now - that if your ultimate goal is a political revolution then you are simply doing what numerous others have done before you. Perhaps they win their revolution (and they usually do). Okay, so what happens? They never helped people see the evils of statism, they just ended up overthrowing one gang of thieves and becoming the next. The majority allowed this to happen because they had no fucking clue what it was ever about. Most people just go about their lives watching the news as their only source of outside world information, or finding out news whatever the way of conveying news was in the time of the revolutions of the past. So these ideas could never come to fruition because they were never even there in the first place!

If you're anxious to get out there and "not do nothing" as others have so bluntly put it, so be it. For the last time, my point is that this has been tried a million times before. And besides, this kind of publicity stunt isn't getting even near the core matter. As Clayton on Mises said, "it's walking right into their trap, which is to turn everything into a bureaucratic morass of "compliance" issues, and then make anyone who 'just won't go along' look to be anti-social."

1 MILLION TIMES?! WHOA~!

[PaulConventionWV]

That post ( from Weston White ) has me wondering if I'm on the wrong site or just entered a alternate universe.

I assure you you're in the right place. His ideas (hopefully) are not welcome here.

[newbitech]

Did you just, implicitly or explicitly, claim that people should be required to unload their guns before going into public unless they need to be used, in a situation where precious seconds are important? Never mind the absurdity of the idea of carrying a gun and ammo separately, but trying to impose any restrictions on gun use like the one you just proposed would be an affront to liberty and the second amendment. You falsely stated that there really is no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons. How do you know that? I could think of a million scenarios in which it would be useful to have your gun ready in case of emergency.

1 MILLION SCENARIOS?! WHOA~@!

[PaulConventionWV]

1 MILLION SCENARIOS?! WHOA~@!

That's right. With enough time, I could come up with 1 million of them.

[Origanalist]

1 MILLION SCENARIOS?! WHOA~@!

Dude!

[newbitech]

That's right. With enough time, I could come up with 1 million of them.

1 MILLION OF THEM?! WOAH~!

[jtstellar]

don't know, i've always been for a separate but parallel approach,

one for when all efforts fail and we have to resort to more radical solutions. those separate movements can't be built overnight, obviously. i've always been for two separate approaches with minimal crossover--if you had to, do it quietly.

there should be another force-backed, 'civil' disobedience branch when radical time calls. i've always been for being focused--if you want politics, go into it 100% and play it like you're serious. if you want the radical approach, do it like you mean it as well.

what i don't get is people roaming around in the middle, not quite ready for radical solutions yet constantly criticizing the political effort. chicken hawk keyboard warriors is the one thing we don't need. everything else, i see a place for it. if you've chosen a side, declare some distance from the other. in the back of your mind, you know you will be there for each other when the time comes, but before then, declare space and pretend. you might even have to play word games a little under public pressure, but in the back of your mind, both sides know.

[newbitech]

don't know, i've always been for a separate but parallel approach,

one for when all efforts fail and we have to resort to more radical solutions. those separate movements can't be built overnight, obviously. i've always been for two separate approaches with minimal crossover--if you had to, do it quietly.

there should be another force-backed, 'civil' disobedience branch when radical time calls. i've always been for being focused--if you want politics, go into it 100% and play it like you're serious. if you want the radical approach, do it like you mean it as well. what i don't get is people roaming around in the middle, not quite ready for radical solutions yet constantly criticizing the political effort. chicken hawk keyboard warriors is the one thing we don't need. everything else, i see a place for it.

well said +rep

[Brian4Liberty]

DC's law is in violation of the law, and will be treated as such...

The Consitution is perfectly clear, and unambiguous on this.

"Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Origanalist]

The Consitution is perfectly clear, and unambiguous on this.

"Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

^^^^"shall not be" nuff said

[Brian4Liberty]

May 2, 1967


The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.

The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must

take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.

Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.

It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

[Warlord]

I'm torn about this.

I think it might be interesting to show the American people the gun grabbers arresting masses of people for exercising constitutional rights. A teachable moment as Obama would say.

But then there's the potential for something bad to happen.

[Petar]

I'm torn about this.

I think it might be interesting to show the American people the gun grabbers arresting masses of people for exercising constitutional rights. A teachable moment as Obama would say.

But then there's the potential for something bad to happen.

Right, but the fact that Kokesh isn't even capable of having an intelligent discussion about how this could possibly go bad is not reassuring.

[TruckinMike]

And to think that the framers of the Constitution were not even going to have a bill of rights. --> Redundant, given Article1 sec 8, article 2,sec 2 and all. Imagine how distorted our country would be if we(I mean Elbridge and George) had not included the BoR.

What would this thread look like?

[TheTexan]

But then there's the potential for something bad to happen.

1000+ people are going armed into the eye of the beast. Something "bad" is most certainly going to happen. Almost guaranteed. Whether that "bad" is something serious like lost lives, or something inevitable like gun legislation being passed, or something trivial like the media "being mean to us" I cannot say.

But I can say that good will come out of this as well. That good will likely come in the form of division. Some people view division as a bad thing, but it's not. It needs to happen. There is a core group of people across this country that stand steadfastly against us in everything we do. The more we try to work with them, the more they succeed.

I have no idea what's going to happen at this event. But I do know, that after its conclusion, our opponents will be even stronger in their opposition, and we likewise will be even stronger in our support of liberty.

Eventually, that divisiveness will manifest itself as a confrontation. A confrontation, that needs to happen.

[Petar]

1000+ people are going armed into the eye of the beast. Something "bad" is most certainly going to happen. Almost guaranteed. Whether that "bad" is something serious like lost lives, or something inevitable like gun legislation being passed, or something trivial like the media "being mean to us" I cannot say.

But I can say that good will come out of this as well. That good will likely come in the form of division. Some people view division as a bad thing, but it's not. It needs to happen. There is a core group of people across this country that stand steadfastly against us in everything we do. The more we try to work with them, the more they succeed.

I have no idea what's going to happen at this event. But I do know, that after its conclusion, our opponents will be even stronger in their opposition, and we likewise will be even stronger in our support of liberty.

Eventually, that divisiveness will manifest itself as a confrontation. A confrontation, that needs to happen.

Unless it just causes us to lose ground, possibly in a very severe way.

[aGameOfThrones]

I'm torn about this.

I think it might be interesting to show the American people the gun grabbers arresting masses of people for exercising constitutional rights. A teachable moment as Obama would say.

But then there's the potential for something bad to happen.

Whatever you do... Don't call 911.

[TheTexan]

Unless it just causes us to lose ground, possibly in a very severe way.

"Lose ground"?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but except for the excellent advancements made at the state level with nullification, we are losing hard at the Federal level.

[Petar]

"Lose ground"?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but except for the excellent advancements made at the state level with nullification, we are losing hard at the Federal level.

Not true at all.

Liberty is progressing rapidly, and there is no telling how successful it may become in the near future, provided that Adam Kokesh does not make Janet Napolitano's wet dream of having an excuse to round up patriots come true.

[TheTexan]

Liberty is progressing rapidly, and there is no telling how successful it may become in the near future

LOL

eta: I am literally laughing out loud just FYI

[TheTexan]

Still laughing!

[Petar]

LOL

eta: I am literally laughing out loud just FYI

It's not my fault that you are so out of touch with reality that you can't see the obvious when it is sitting right in front of your face.

And how does anyone not see that having an armed bunch of patriots march on DC would literally be Janet Napolitano's dream come true?

[Petar]

I'm glad that you are at least amused though.

[TheTexan]

It's not my fault that you are so out of touch with reality that you can't see the obvious when it is sitting right in front of your face.

lol if you say so. I'm still chuckling because you think we're making progress at the Federal level :)


And how does anyone not see that having an armed bunch of patriots march on DC would literally be Janet Napolitano's dream come true?

Shrug. Can't say I really care what her wet dream is. If she wants to "round up patriots" she can certainly try. If that's what needs to happen, then that's what needs to happen.

[PaulConventionWV]

Not true at all.

Liberty is progressing rapidly, and there is no telling how successful it may become in the near future, provided that Adam Kokesh does not make Janet Napolitano's wet dream of having an excuse to round up patriots come true.

We are successful only in raising awareness and possibly getting more pro-liberty legislators on capitol hill. However, it's not enough to reverse the current tide of anti-liberty legislation that has been and currently is being pushed upon us.

[Petar]

lol if you say so. I'm still chuckling because you think we're making progress at the Federal level :)

Shrug. Can't say I really care what her wet dream is. If she wants to "round up patriots" she can certainly try. If that's what needs to happen, then that's what needs to happen.

Rand Paul may very possibly be the next President of the United States, and you don't see how we are making progress?

And don't worry, Janet Napolitano will probably try and round up patriots at some point, but why make it convenient for her?

Why risk giving her the opportunity to do it in a way that has popular support behind it?

[RickyJ]

Rand Paul may very possibly be the next President of the United States, and you don't see how we are making progress?

And don't worry, Janet Napolitano will probably try and round up patriots at some point, but why make it convenient for her?

Why risk giving her the opportunity to do it in a way that has popular support behind it?

They won't let Rand Paul be president, you can forget about that, it won't happen.

[WarNoMore]

Rand Paul may very possibly be the next President of the United States, and you don't see how we are making progress?


Still trying to kick that football, Charlie Brown?

[TheTexan]

Rand Paul may very possibly be the next President of the United States, and you don't see how we are making progress?

Unlikely. You can continue to keep playing that game, year after year, election after election, thinking this time will be different. But I won't.

[Petar]

There were people on this site who said that Rand Paul would never be elected to Senate.

Just the fact that it is a strong possibility at this point proves how far we have come.

[The Rebel Poet]

There's a difference between civil disobedience[...]and actually violation of the law. There's two different things here, so civil disobedience: people come to Washington D.C. to, to protest, um, policies and government policies uh, all the time; it's no problem, but when you cross into the District of Columbia with firearms and you're not in compliance with the law, now you're talking about a criminal offence and there's, you know, there's going to be some action by police.

So people can be disobedient only as long as they remain obedient? Talk about doublespeak!

Also, her interpretation of "civil disobedience" means she believes that merely protesting (speaking against) a policy is disobedience!

[Mani]

For some reason this march reminds me of tiananmen square.

if there's 1000 armed protestors and the government knows about it well in advance..They aren't going to just have Al "Bag of Donuts" DC cop standing there writing tickets for open carry...

They will have seriously armed soldiers of the state maybe even bear cats, surveillance drones, other high tech equipment, people in riot gear, snipers, and other things to avoid this group from turning into anything substantial.

And AK promises a peaceful march, no fighting back...They will surrender without resistance.


So you have a group of armed people who will not use their arms, against the massive forces of the local and federal government. It's like the guy walking in front of the tank....


Who knew the day would ever come where marching on DC seemed to me like a stand at Tiananmen square?



I'm not saying the two are in any way comparable...but it's just the symbolism of one guy having the balls to stand up to an overwhelming force that can crush him like a bug.



Sure this could go bad, but the man has some guts. I'm sure along with 1000 people there will be at least 500 camera phones....We can witness the tear gas canisters being bounced off their heads as the boots stomp down on these guys.

At least that's some good footage to show the people how 2nd amendment folks are treated in DC.

[Weston White]

Carrying unloaded guns doesn't do much to promote the issue, considering they might as well be carrying water pistols. This isn't advertising, this is an actual test, and for it to be any kind of test, there has to be some sort of risk involved. The guns must be loaded in order for them to be useful in "protecting against government tyranny." Besides, they're carrying them slung across their backs to show there is no intention of using them. It's just as good for achieving that purpose as it would be to have to load a clip into your gun before firing it, except not having the clip in your gun makes you vulnerable because it takes longer. A loaded gun slung across the back is just as non-combative and it doesn't require any loading in order to quickly be turned into a weapon of self-defense. Who came up with the arbitrary idea that, "You can carry a gun that can be loaded on site, but you can't carry a gun that is already loaded." That's BS. If you are carrying a gun and ammo, it doesn't make sense not to put ammo in the gun.


But they will not be using toy guns—they will be using real guns. And under most jurisdictions carrying a loaded in open view when no threat exists to do so is a felony firearms violation and most certainly is also the case within the overly controlling Washington, D.C.; and I bet there are even multiplier charges that can be tacked on inside of D.C. for carrying firearms around or inside of federal buildings or to coerce, intimate, or threaten federal employees or elected servants.

Myself, I think carrying unloaded, with perhaps with a belt of ammo or magazine vest all loaded up with shinny rounds sends a crisp message to all forms of government.

I would even so far as to order and hand out yellor or orange breech plugs as an added safety precaution.

Also I thought I heard on Alex Jones, Adam stated that he was planning on lining everyone up into a formation to inspect their firearms prior to their march, or I might have just presumed that is what he was meaning, because he stated that after Alex said he would be worried about provocateurs firing off a round intentionally (because his listeners have been telling him to do something like this for years now, but he has always been to worried about what might happen).

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

"There's a difference between civil disobedience and violation of the law" Uh, no there's not, stupid bitch. The whole point of civil disobedience is to DISOBEY the law.

Also the idea they need a permit to protest is fucking laughable. I bet Russia loves that idea.

[Weston White]

"He who would succumb to the irresistible power of necessity must suffer what fate destiny decrees"

In other words, why do you wear shoes? You don't necessarily need them, after all you might not cross harmful terrain. You wear them, precisely, because you might encounter terrain that would harm your feet without protection. Now, extrapolate, going from a instance of lesser importance (shoes for foot protection) to one of greater (modern means of self defense for life protection).

Shoes are worn in reasonable anticipation of harmful terrain, so should modern means of self defense be word in anticipation of aggressive and harmful people. Not wearing shoes will, in most cases (as regards working people), result in only lacerated feet. Most of these feet will heal (no pun) in time, but some of these wounds will become necrotic or otherwise infected. Now, in this case, the choice not to protect ones feet might result in the loss of them or even life.

Modern means of self defense are carried in reasonable expectation of harmful situations. Not carrying such means, in most cases (as regards all people), will result in nothing; but sometimes, when a situation such as the aforementioned occurs, not having such means will result in the loss of life. Since it is impossible to know when these situations arise it is an injustice to be deprived of the ability to confront them in a manner most favorable to success... that is armed.

It is funny you bring up an 'anarchist argument' and then continue to talk about the second amendment. If you can't see why, I am sure a person more versed than I in the eccentricities (unconventionalities) of proper anarchism will explain it to you.

I don't know that is some serious confabulation footwork there (intended also as a pun). Debating between shoes and guns is a non sequitur. Besides, wherever I am at, I also require my shoes, such is not the case for arms.

The law is the law, period. Personally, I would like to see the standard definition of open carry to be changed, so that you can carry rounds inside of the weapon (or via a magazine well), while keeping the breech clear (without regard to the safety position of the gun). Until then there is always conceal carry or otherwise the ability to carry inside of a locked container that is kept stowed away.

[Weston White]

Did you just, implicitly or explicitly, claim that people should be required to unload their guns before going into public unless they need to be used, in a situation where precious seconds are important? Never mind the absurdity of the idea of carrying a gun and ammo separately, but trying to impose any restrictions on gun use like the one you just proposed would be an affront to liberty and the second amendment. You falsely stated that there really is no necessity in walking around with loaded weapons. How do you know that? I could think of a million scenarios in which it would be useful to have your gun ready in case of emergency.

Please see my prior post; but no, not I. Generally, that is what the law requires whenever open carrying, otherwise there are other alternatives such as CCW or carrying inside of a locked box kept in a backpack or something.

Come on really? If you cannot load you gun within 1-2 seconds, you probably have much bigger issues to worry about... and if precious seconds really do count, you might be better off using a tactical pocketknife than a sidearm (e.g., in a close-combat situation).

Otherwise, just load up while taking cover and then worry about returning fire.

[XTreat]

"There's a difference between civil disobedience and violation of the law" Uh, no there's not, stupid bitch. The whole point of civil disobedience is to DISOBEY the law.

Also the idea they need a permit to protest is fucking laughable. I bet Russia loves that idea.

Kinda rude don't ya think?

[dbill27]

Go Adam Kokesh! and I've been against a lot of what he's done. If we have the right to bear arms to prevent tyranny from our government well then here we fuckin are! This is what is needs to happen.

[S.Shorland]

Yes,the police are the ones denying THE law.Your Constitution.

[better-dead-than-fed]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&q=mcdonald+chicago&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3):


"wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." We think [this definition] accurately capture[s] the natural meaning of "bear arms."

[tangent4ronpaul]

15 pages? - WOW! I just finished page 3, so it's going to take a while to catch up. Sorry if this has already been posted, but it has relative info:

Protest group plans July 4 march on Washington with loaded rifles
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/protest-group-plans-july-4-march-on-washington-with-loaded-rifles/2013/05/07/59b8e392-b727-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz

An Iraq war veteran and Internet talk show host is trying to gather thousands of protesters to march into the District on Independence Day with loaded rifles on their backs.

But if Adam Kokesh follows through with his July 4 plans — 2,500 people have signed up for the cause — he and his makeshift band will be met on the Arlington Memorial Bridge by two police forces packing guns of their own.

Kokesh, 31, and D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier say they want to work together to ensure a peaceful airing of grievances. But the chief says only one side can have guns: hers. And she’ll have backup from the U.S. Park Police, which will also position officers at the District line.

“If you’re coming here to protest government policy, great,” Lanier said Tuesday on her monthly appearance on NewsChannel 8, reacting to the group’s plan to cross the Potomac River from Arlington National Cemetery. “If you’re coming here to break the law, we’ll take action.”

Lanier added, “There’s a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”

Kokesh is calling the event an “Open Carry March” but described it as a general demonstration against “tyranny,” not a protest against specific gun laws.

News of the march comes amid a national debate over gun regulations that emerged after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Kokesh has chosen to stage his protest in one of the most strictly regulated cities when it comes to firearms laws — and one of the most contested.

Washington allows residents to possess registered firearms on their property but forbids carrying them in public. And it was the backdrop for a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 that struck down a total ban on firearms — and guaranteed the right to own a gun for self-defense.

Kokesh’s timing is curious given the recent success of gun advocates in defeating a series of firearms restrictions in Congress that emerged in the wake of the Newtown massacre. However, efforts to revive the legislation are underway.

Authorities noted that they have not been in contact with Kokesh, who returned from Iraq a self-proclaimed libertarian and antiwar activist. Kokesh publicized his plans in Internet postings.

On his blog, “Adam Vs The Man,” Kokesh called on people to register for the march, which he called an act of civil disobedience. He said protesters with loaded guns slung across their backs will march around the District’s seats of power — the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court and the White House.

Kokesh wrote that he is planning a nonviolent protest, but he won’t predict what could happen if the police move in with force. He urged protesters to submit to arrests and said the group will peacefully turn back if denied entry to the District. Separately, he said some protesters plan to take a step into the District to prompt an arrest.

“We will march with rifles loaded and flung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny,” Kokesh wrote on his Web site. “Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington. . . . We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.”

He said he wants to work with law enforcement and hopes that Lanier will make an exception to the law and grant his group safe passage, and even a police escort, through the District. A D.C. police spokeswoman said the protesters will not be allowed in the District while carrying firearms.

Sgt. Paul Brooks of the U.S. Park Police said guns are not allowed in the cemetery in Arlington. But he said it appears the group plans to start just outside the cemetery gates, along Memorial Drive. He said the organization has not sought a permit, as required for demonstrations on National Park Service property, but Kokesh said on the Web site he does not intend to get one.

Lanier said on the television program that city representatives are willing to meet with Kokesh and other leaders “to facilitate whatever they want to get accomplished in a legal way.” But, she said, “passing into the District with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and it will be treated as such.”

In 2007, Kokesh was photographed at the Hart Senate Office Building being arrested wearing a T-shirt that read, “Iraq veterans against the war.” He was arrested again in 2011 when he led a group dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, and he has gotten into trouble for protesting in a Marine uniform and for taking a souvenir gun home from the battlefield.

-t

[PaulConventionWV]

Rand Paul may very possibly be the next President of the United States, and you don't see how we are making progress?

And don't worry, Janet Napolitano will probably try and round up patriots at some point, but why make it convenient for her?

Why risk giving her the opportunity to do it in a way that has popular support behind it?

Until that actually happens, we're not making much actual progress. Sure, we're gaining ground, but Obama is still passing executive orders that are diminishing our freedoms. That tide has not reversed yet. We are still net losing freedoms.

I honestly don't know what you're on about with Janet Napolitano. Care to tell me why she's so hot about the idea of patriots in DC with loaded rifles?

[ninepointfive]

Kokesh will be on Alex Jones again at the bottom of the hour this hour to discuss the DC chief of police's statement on the matter.



www.infowars.com

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Until that actually happens, we're not making much actual progress. Sure, we're gaining ground, but Obama is still passing executive orders that are diminishing our freedoms. That tide has not reversed yet. We are still net losing freedoms.

I honestly don't know what you're on about with Janet Napolitano. Care to tell me why she's so hot about the idea of patriots in DC with loaded rifles?
Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.

[Pericles]

Which, of course, is why it is important never to surrender your weapon to begin with.

Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner - correct answer.

[PaulConventionWV]

Please see my prior post; but no, not I. Generally, that is what the law requires whenever open carrying, otherwise there are other alternatives such as CCW or carrying inside of a locked box kept in a backpack or something.

Come on really? If you cannot load you gun within 1-2 seconds, you probably have much bigger issues to worry about... and if precious seconds really do count, you might be better off using a tactical pocketknife than a sidearm (e.g., in a close-combat situation).

Otherwise, just load up while taking cover and then worry about returning fire.

If it only takes 1-2 seconds to load a gun, then what's the point of keeping it unloaded? Also, do you realize how ridiculous it would be to try to enforce this? And yes, 1-2 seconds can be a long time when there's a bank robbery in progress or some imminent threat. "Taking cover" isn't always possible when you have somebody pointing a gun at you ready to shoot. How is it that you can't imagine, in a GUN FIGHT that people would be too far apart for close combat and also seconds being important, considering the fraction of a second it takes to fire a gun.

[brandon]

I bet they just close off the bridge entirely to prevent any conflict. They won't need to arrest anyone that way and it becomes a non-story.

[PaulConventionWV]

Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.

I know that. What does that have to do with my post?

[PaulConventionWV]

I bet they just close off the bridge entirely to prevent any conflict. They won't need to arrest anyone that way and it becomes a non-story.

They may just march around and find a different way in.

[69360]

I bet they just close off the bridge entirely to prevent any conflict. They won't need to arrest anyone that way and it becomes a non-story.

I don't even think they will make it that far. They will probably get scooped up or sent home as soon as they try to assemble.

Well as long as the government doesn't invoke the patriot act and preemptively raid their homes and send them all to gitmo.

This march is just a stupid idea that no good will come of.

[klamath]

Unlikely. You can continue to keep playing that game, year after year, election after election, thinking this time will be different. But I won't.

Revolution after revolution body after body, devastation after devastation thinking next time will be different. This will be the war to end all wars because everyone will have FREEDOM!

[JK/SEA]

Revolution after revolution body after body, devastation after devastation thinking next time will be different. This will be the war to end all wars because everyone will have FREEDOM!

whats the alternative?

[klamath]

whats the alternative?

The alternative to killing people and causing distruction with no gain? Hmmm. I like to kill a lot, let me think about that one:rolleyes:

[TheTexan]

The alternative to killing people and causing distruction with no gain? Hmmm. I like to kill a lot, let me think about that one:rolleyes:

I wouldnt say no gain. The last revolution worked fairly well. It didnt last, but thats not necessarily the fault of the revolutionaries. Even though their gains are now lost, I still consider it worth it.

You have to understand, its the threat of violence that prevents people from trampling on your rights. Even otherwise good people will trample on your rights, because they believe it is right or necessary. The threat of defensive force is what keeps them at bay.

We dont necessarily need to use force to reclaim our rights, but we will need to be prepared to do so if necessary. If we refuse to take up arms in our defense, they will continue as they always have to take up arms against us, unopposed, with nothing to lose.

[Anti Federalist]

Sure this could go bad, but the man has some guts.

And nobody can take that away from him, regardless.

[Petar]

And nobody can take that away from him, regardless.

Don't you ever wonder if maybe he is just controlled opposition?

I mean couldn't Janet Napolitano really use someone like him to provoke something that will give her the excuse that she needs to round up the patriots?

The guy doesn't even seem to be aware of what kind of tightrope he is walking here, so at best he seems really reckless.

[torchbearer]

the DC cops will be breaking the law, they should be arrested.

[Petar]

the DC cops will be breaking the law, they should be arrested.

And I should have a harem, what difference does it make in this world?

[torchbearer]

And I should have a harem, what difference does it make in this world?

well, maybe it should be injected into the matrix, by someone who would be quoted in the media that the DC cops are not upholding the law, they will in fact, be the ones breaking it.
let the liberals hiss over the comment for awhile.

[Petar]

well, maybe it should be injected into the matrix, by someone who would be quoted in the media that the DC cops are not upholding the law, they will in fact, be the ones breaking it.
let the liberals hiss over the comment for awhile.

Sure, but there comes a point where hysteria takes over and telling the truth only gets you burned with the witches.

Adam Kokesh does not even seem to be aware that invoking this eventuality is precisely what he is flirting with here.

[PaulConventionWV]

The alternative to killing people and causing distruction with no gain? Hmmm. I like to kill a lot, let me think about that one:rolleyes:

Accept the status quo? Oh, okay. If you believe that's what we should do, then fine, but I don't see what you're doing here if that's what you think.

[TheTexan]

Don't you ever wonder if maybe he is just controlled opposition?

I mean couldn't Janet Napolitano really use someone like him to provoke something that will give her the excuse that she needs to round up the patriots?

The guy doesn't even seem to be aware of what kind of tightrope he is walking here, so at best he seems really reckless.

You know how I know hes not controlled opposition? Because the LAST thing that TPTB wants is to even give anyone any IDEAS about armed rebellion. Its the only thing they fear.

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't you ever wonder if maybe he is just controlled opposition?

I mean couldn't Janet Napolitano really use someone like him to provoke something that will give her the excuse that she needs to round up the patriots?

The guy doesn't even seem to be aware of what kind of tightrope he is walking here, so at best he seems really reckless.

What does Janet Napolitano have to do with this?

[torchbearer]

Sure, but there comes a point where hysteria takes over and telling the truth only gets you burned with the witches.

Adam Kokesh does not even seem to be aware that invoking this eventuality is precisely what he is flirting with here.

but it needs to be said. it needs to be verbalized.
because that is what this action is saying.

[shane77m]

Don't you ever wonder if maybe he is just controlled opposition?

I mean couldn't Janet Napolitano really use someone like him to provoke something that will give her the excuse that she needs to round up the patriots?

The guy doesn't even seem to be aware of what kind of tightrope he is walking here, so at best he seems really reckless.

Anyone could be controlled opposition. Finally someone has the guts to do what others are thinking and suddenly the man is controlled opposition, DHS, commie, leftwing nujob, rightwing nutjob, and etc.

[klamath]

I wouldnt say no gain. The last revolution worked fairly well. It didnt last, but thats not necessarily the fault of the revolutionaries. Even though their gains are now lost, I still consider it worth it.

You have to understand, its the threat of violence that prevents people from trampling on your rights. Even otherwise good people will trample on your rights, because they believe it is right or necessary. The threat of defensive force is what keeps them at bay.

We dont necessarily need to use force to reclaim our rights, but we will need to be prepared to do so if necessary. If we refuse to take up arms in our defense, they will continue as they always have to take up arms against us, unopposed, with nothing to lose.I don't necessary think we gained that much in the last revolution. 5 million americans had not one bit of freedom. The british actually freed their slaves before we did and without killing a million people. It wasn't the violent revolution that gave us freedom as much as the minds of men like Locke and others. The war just gave us independence not necessarily freedom. The tories sure weren't afforded any freedom nor the blacks.
The real force that forces change is the mass of the public. Lose that and you are going to lose the battle of force.

[Petar]

You know how I know hes not controlled opposition? Because the LAST thing that TPTB wants is to even give anyone any IDEAS about armed rebellion. Its the only thing they fear.

No, what they need is an event to tie patriots to violent extremism.

What do you think Oklahoma City was about?

They need popular support for their plans to round us all up.



What does Janet Napolitano have to do with this?

Janet Napolitano is the head of the DHS.

These people literally sit around and try to figure out how they can impose martial-law, all day long.



but it needs to be said. it needs to be verbalized.
because that is what this action is saying.

Say it, but don't go about it in such a way that threatens to dismantle the entire liberty movement.



Anyone could be controlled opposition. Finally someone has the guts to do what others are thinking and suddenly the man is controlled opposition, DHS, commie, leftwing nujob, rightwing nutjob, and etc.

I've always suspected Adam of being controlled opposition, but even if I am wrong, he should at the very least be capable of addressing the dangerous tightrope that he really is walking in this case.

[torchbearer]

Say it, but don't go about it in such a way that threatens to dismantle the entire liberty movement.

the whole point of saying it, defines the action. It starts the right debate. It makes this action work.

[TheTexan]

I don't necessary think we gained that much in the last revolution. 5 million americans had not one bit of freedom. The british actually freed their slaves before we did and without killing a million people. It wasn't the violent revolution that gave us freedom as much as the minds of men like Locke and others. The war just gave us independence not necessarily freedom. The tories sure weren't afforded any freedom nor the blacks.
The real force that forces change is the mass of the public. Lose that and you are going to lose the battle of force.

Indeed it was minds like Locke that made the revolution worthwhile. Who is to say that Paul(s), Mises, Hayek, Rothbard wouldnt play a similar role.

[klamath]

Accept the status quo? Oh, okay. If you believe that's what we should do, then fine, but I don't see what you're doing here if that's what you think.
Why are YOU still here? I have been told multiple time by you violence advocates "why am I here". Because when I joined and I see it is still in the forums guidelines it was for political change.

+ For extreme violations a ban can be issued, such as for advocating violence or for obvious spam-bots.

Will the moderaters or administrators please inform me if I missread the guidelines and I need to be banned for NOT supporting a VIOLENT revolution? Is that now the intent of the Forums?

[Petar]

the whole point of saying it, defines the action. It starts the right debate. It makes this action work.

All I'm saying is that if this event goes sideways and turns into people shooting at each other, then that gives Janet Napolitano the excuse that she needs to round us all up.

It's not like they don't have the resources!

And who is going to sympathize with us in that case?

We need to play this smart.

The empire is going to collapse on it's own, we need to stay active and wait for that time to come.

We cannot afford to be seen as the belligerents, it would be suicide.

[jclay2]

Why are YOU still here? I have been told multiple time by you violence advocates "why am I here". Because when I joined and I see it is still in the forums guidelines it was for political change.


Will the moderaters or administrators please inform me if I missread the guidelines and I need to be banned for NOT supporting a VIOLENT revolution? Is that now the intent of the Forums?


If they had online forums back in 1776, the ff would have been banned for sure.

[Petar]

People need to get it out of their heads that today = 1776.

It's incredibly narrow minded to assume that everything is exactly the same today and requires the exact same approach.

[tod evans]

Why isn't it okay to let AK do what he wants?

Same for every person on the board...

The majority of us are grown up and can make decisions on our own.

AK isn't a spokesman for RP or even RPF so I've got problems getting my head around the objections..

Or are there a batch of folks here who belong to some super top secret club that AK's march is going to shine a negative light on?

[torchbearer]

Why isn't it okay to let AK do what he wants?

Same for every person on the board...

The majority of us are grown up and can make decisions on our own.

AK isn't a spokesman for RP or even RPF so I've got problems getting my head around the objections..

Or are there a batch of folks here who belong to some super top secret club that AK's march is going to shine a negative light on?

maybe these cowards just want to leave an evidence trail that they were good statist boot-lickers so they get a bunk at fema camp instead of a dirt nap in a mass grave.

[klamath]

Why isn't it okay to let AK do what he wants?

Same for every person on the board...

The majority of us are grown up and can make decisions on our own.

AK isn't a spokesman for RP or even RPF so I've got problems getting my head around the objections..

Or are there a batch of folks here who belong to some super top secret club that AK's march is going to shine a negative light on?
Adam is a public figure. Why can't people express their opinion on an action. I guess we shouldn't express any opinion on any subject or event. Support him or STFU!

[torchbearer]

Adam is a public figure. Why can't people express their opinion on an action. I guess we shouldn't express any opinion on any subject or event. Support him or STFU!

Well, i don't think you should stfu.
I hope i never came across that way.
I may be an ass, but i fully expect people to debate me passionately.

[Petar]

My motivation is that I'd like to see the liberty movement succeed, instead of potentially being aborted by someone who is compulsive and irrational at best.

[bolil]

I don't know that is some serious confabulation footwork there (intended also as a pun). Debating between shoes and guns is a non sequitur. Besides, wherever I am at, I also require my shoes, such is not the case for arms.

The law is the law, period. Personally, I would like to see the standard definition of open carry to be changed, so that you can carry rounds inside of the weapon (or via a magazine well), while keeping the breech clear (without regard to the safety position of the gun). Until then there is always conceal carry or otherwise the ability to carry inside of a locked container that is kept stowed away.

I was not debating, I was recognizing a parallel. Shoes protect your feet, modern means of self defense protect your life. As to "I also require my shoes, such is not the case for arms." You must not have read my post entirely as I addressed this.

Maybe we should regulate steel toed boots. No one needs assault footwear, cept our heroes in blue.

[klamath]

Oh I see you were smart enough to to hit the neg rep, radio button this time Ninepointfive. Thank you! I am honored to get neg rep from creeps like you. I would definately have to do some self inspection if I was getting postitive rep from you.

[torchbearer]

My motivation is that I'd like to see the liberty movement succeed, instead of potentially being aborted by someone who is a compulsive and irrational at best.

I understand that.
but in truth, the more people that show up, the less likely it will end badly. imagine an extreme.
one million people show up armed. how do they attack/arrest one million?
maybe you should try to get one million people there to insure success.

[klamath]

I understand that.
but in truth, the more people that show up, the less likely it will end badly. imagine an extreme.
one million people show up armed. how do they attack/arrest one million?
maybe you should try to get one million people there to insure success.
Because there are 300 million watching. It is those silent 300 million that is the force to contend with.

[torchbearer]

Because there are 300 million watching. It is those silent 300 million that is the force to contend with.

i thought the freak out was about violence at the event.
if one million people show up, the cops would not open fire, and there would be no need for the protestors to open fire because they couldn't arrest them all.

[klamath]

i thought the freak out was about violence at the event.
if one million people show up, the cops would not open fire, and there would be no need for the protestors to open fire because they couldn't arrest them all.
It is my opinion that if it comes off peacefully it will be a non event. No gain. We need not kid ourselves about intimidating progressives and liberals. Remember they are the ones the launched and visciously executed 7 out of the last 9 major wars. The only thing that will intimidate them is 160 million people.
If a gun battle breaks out I fear they will get that 160 million force.

[torchbearer]

It is my opinion that if it comes off peacefully it will be a non event. No gain. We need not kid ourselves about intimidating progressives and liberals. Remember they are the ones the launched and visciously executed 7 out of the last 9 major wars. The only thing that will intimidate them is 160 million people.
If a gun battle breaks out I fear they will get that 160 million force.


if one million armed people marched through the police, victory.
so, everyone knows the plan now?
go.
http://willvideoforfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hannibal-a-team.jpg

[angelatc]

Why are YOU still here? I have been told multiple time by you violence advocates "why am I here". Because when I joined and I see it is still in the forums guidelines it was for political change.


Will the moderaters or administrators please inform me if I missread the guidelines and I need to be banned for NOT supporting a VIOLENT revolution? Is that now the intent of the Forums?


But while Adam is walking a line, he isn't advocating for a violent revolution. He's advocating for peaceful protest.

[Petar]

I understand that.
but in truth, the more people that show up, the less likely it will end badly. imagine an extreme.
one million people show up armed. how do they attack/arrest one million?
maybe you should try to get one million people there to insure success.

It's probably a lot more useful to talk about what might be likely to occur.

Likely number of people to show up, likely police response, etc.

We're probably looking at maybe a couple thousand protestors, right?

What are the feds going to do?

At the very least, they will arrest everyone who crosses into DC and charge them with a felony.

I'm sure that there will also be some black operation that will attempt to solicit a violent response from the protestors.

If Adam volunteers to be the first one arrested, then that may likely be the first stage of such a black op (get their own man in the safety of custody).

Beyond that it is really just totally up in the air.

I guess I just hope that these protestors are ready to peacefully surrender and be charged with felonies.

[klamath]

But while Adam is walking a line, he isn't advocating for a violent revolution. He's advocating for peaceful protest.
I wasn't addressing Adams march I was specifically addressing someone that said it was time for 1776 again. I don't know about you but I was taught that 1776 and the following years involved violence.

[tod evans]

Adam is a public figure. Why can't people express their opinion on an action. I guess we shouldn't express any opinion on any subject or event. Support him or STFU!

Oh for Petes sake...

I'm not telling or asking you to do anything, just wondering how it is that some folks think what Adam has proposed is going to negatively effect you or me or the ideas this forum was founded on?

[klamath]

Indeed it was minds like Locke that made the revolution worthwhile. Who is to say that Paul(s), Mises, Hayek, Rothbard wouldnt play a similar role.
Locke was english. Were we fighting against Locke. It was an idea that was growing well before the American revolution. The idea of individual freedom didn't start then.

[jtstellar]

i don't know, this is all very interesting.

one thing i do agree with is that we need some form of gamble to move forward. this is how this entire coalition has grown since day 1. i can't say we really have had any calculated successes. mostly everything is done spontaneously, and people agreed with our reasons thereafter.

the concept is not altogether impossible. what remains i guess is really whether adam personally can pull this off, or would it be better if someone else did it. but then again, i don't think we're set up for such calculated moves as to even being able to pick and choose which person to lead which rally. i reserve my judgment on that part. i was going to say to avoid the new benghazi investigation because the hillary people might do something to sabotage/turn this into a different spectacle as intended, but some mentioned there's no new information provided by the new alleged whistle blowers, so who knows.

[torchbearer]

It's probably a lot more useful to talk about what might be likely to occur.

Likely number of people to show up, likely police response, etc.

We're probably looking at maybe a couple thousand protestors, right?

What are the feds going to do?

At the very least, they will arrest everyone who crosses into DC and charge them with a felony.

I'm sure that there will also be some black operation that will attempt to solicit a violent response from the protestors.

If Adam volunteers to be the first one arrested, then that may likely be the first stage of such a black op (get their own man in the safety of custody).

Beyond that it is really just totally up in the air.

I guess I just hope that these protestors are ready to peacefully surrender and be charged with felonies.

here is an idea to get one million people.
create an ad for both internet and print that says:

Want to do something meaningful this independence day?
Come to (this location) in Virginia for a free tour of D.C.!
One armed rifle required for tour.

people love free stuff. a free tour? all i have to do is bring a rifle? that is fucking awesome!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

[Petar]

Oh for Petes sake...

I'm not telling or asking you to do anything, just wondering how it is that some folks think what Adam has proposed is going to negatively effect you or me or the ideas this forum was founded on?

How hard is to understand that if this march goes out of control, then that could directly result in DHS rounding up all patriots, and with full public support.

Simple cause and effect man.

[TheTexan]

Locke was english. Were we fighting against Locke. It was an idea that was growing well before the American revolution. The idea of individual freedom didn't start then.

I'm not sure what your point here is.

[Petar]

here is an idea to get one million people.
create an ad for both internet and print that says:

Want to do something meaningful this independence day?
Come to (this location) in Virginia for a free tour of D.C.!
One armed rifle required for tour.

people love free stuff. a free tour? all i have to do is bring a rifle? that is fucking awesome!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

Again, not realistic.

[torchbearer]

Again, not realistic.

It was a joke.
But there is a way to get way more than 10,000 people there if there wasn't the fear mongering bullshit. the more people there, the more secure.

[klamath]

Oh for Petes sake...

I'm not telling or asking you to do anything, just wondering how it is that some folks think what Adam has proposed is going to negatively effect you or me or the ideas this forum was founded on?
A massive shootout that results in 60 or 70 million voters electing a massive progressive, anti gun Congress.

[klamath]

I'm not sure what your point here is.
That the war didn't necessarily give us freedom.

[Petar]

It was a joke.
But there is a way to get way more than 10,000 people there if there wasn't the fear mongering bullshit. the more people there, the more secure.

I wouldn't see 10,000 armed Kokeshites in DC as being "secure" at all, I would see it as a powder keg that is ripe for DHS exploitation.

[torchbearer]

I wouldn't see 10,000 armed Kokeshites in DC as being "secure" at all, I would see it as a powder keg that is ripe for DHS exploitation.

10000 is the start... every person over that mark decreases the odds of your -oh noez- happening.
do you not want to eliminate the possibility of failure?
this is happening. either you shit, or get off the pot.

[satchelmcqueen]

im not trying to "pussy out" in this march, but the law is the law and an arrest whether guilty or not would be unbearable for most. perhaps when they hit the dc line they could pull out plastic toy guns and lay them at the feet of the traitors wearing the uniform?

i cant believe im even suggesting this but they will use this to advance their gun control. however maybe blood shed will break into a pissed off public and washington will fall.

would the usa even exist if not for a few heros who started the ball rolling? nope.

[Root]

Adam is a public figure.
You're right, he is. Too bad no other pro 2A public figures have the guts to join him.

[Petar]

10000 is the start... every person over that mark decreases the odds of your -oh noez- happening.
do you not want to eliminate the possibility of failure?
this is happening. either you shit, or get off the pot.

I don't know that more marchers decreases the odds of really bad things happening, in fact, I think it may increase them.

I know that it increases the amount of resources in the DHS response, which I don't find particularly reassuring.

Part of me just wishes that Kokesh would go ahead and do this on his own.

Then he could just get arrested himself, and we wouldn't have to worry about something happening that will implode the whole liberty movement.

[klamath]

10000 is the start... every person over that mark decreases the odds of your -oh noez- happening.
do you not want to eliminate the possibility of failure?
this is happening. either you shit, or get off the pot.
Or the contrary. Every extra man is that much more tension in the oposing force. For every extra man in the march it increases the odd of a nonpeaceful rifle man. One shot and shit is going down.

[Root]

I really hope that Adam is talking to a lawyer about this.

[bolil]

Heh, we need a firsthand account of this when it happens. Does RPF Forum Member qualify one for press credentials? lol...

press credentials...

[TheTexan]

That the war didn't necessarily give us freedom.

I agree, that the intellectual revolution is critical and must exist prior to any attempts at independence.

But do you not see the similarities, with the intellectual revolution that we have undergone and are undergoing, today? The desire for freedom is strong. Stronger than it's been in a very long time. That desire may only exist in the minority, but hasn't it always? It certainly was in the minority in 1776.

We've had our intellectual revolution. Now we need our independence. Independence won't be given to us. We have to take it. They will object. They will threaten force.

The best way to prevent them from following through with their threat of force, is to make damn sure, that they know their aggressive force will be met with substantial defensive force.

In the event that they follow through with their threat of force anyway, we are left two options:
1) Defend
2) Submit

I can only speak for myself, but submission is not an option.

[torchbearer]

Or the contrary. Every extra man is that much more tension in the oposing force. For every extra man in the march it increases the odd of a nonpeaceful rifle man. One shot and shit is going down.

and to the extreme, i'd like to see them gun down one million americans and think there won't be hell to pay.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I wouldn't see 10,000 armed Kokeshites in DC as being "secure" at all, I would see it as a powder keg that is ripe for DHS exploitation.

He has balls of steel. You have balls of fluff.

[Petar]

He has balls of steel. You have balls of fluff.

Which interestingly enough does not preclude you from sucking them, heh.

[klamath]

and to the extreme, i'd like to see them gun down one million americans and think there won't be hell to pay. Yes it would spark a violent revolution exactly what I DON'T want. I see our odds of getting more freedom a 1000 times better peacefully than through a revolution that in my estimation we would lose.

[torchbearer]

Yes it would spark a violent revolution exactly what I DON'T want. I see our odds of getting more freedom a 1000 times better peacefully than through a revolution that in my estimation we would lose.

the pigs would shit themselves with overwhelming numbers. people aren't there to kill them, so if they are the ones who are driven away by fear, we win.

When people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

[tod evans]

How hard is to understand that if this march goes out of control, then that could directly result in DHS rounding up all patriots, and with full public support.

Simple cause and effect man.


A massive shootout that results in 60 or 70 million voters electing a massive progressive, anti gun Congress.

Oooookay...

Got it....

[TheTexan]

I see our odds of getting more freedom a 1000 times better peacefully

It's always possible. Historically there aren't just a whole lot of examples of gaining independence without at least some blood shed.

The way I see it, is there are only three options to gain freedom:
1) Convince enough people in America to give us permission to be free
2) Take freedom and be sufficiently armed to do it without their permission
3) Run into the mountains or the ocean or an island and hope they don't find you

#1 Isn't going to happen.

#2 Could be peaceful. The better armed and the more prepared we are to defend ourselves, the better the chance for peace.

If you're not prepared to defend yourself, at all, you will have to go with option #3. If you try #2 without being prepared to defend yourself, you will either be killed, or enslaved.

(I suppose you could possibly convince the people in America to give you permission to be free if you paid them enough. But that would be quite the large sum of cash!! And this is a theoretical possibility at best)

[klamath]

It's always possible. Historically there aren't just a whole lot of examples of gaining independence without at least some blood shed.

The way I see it, is there are only three options to gain freedom:
1) Convince enough people in America to give us permission to be free
2) Take freedom and be sufficiently armed to do it without their permission
3) Run into the mountains or the ocean or an island and hope they don't find you

#1 Isn't going to happen.

#2 Could be peaceful. The better armed and the more prepared we are to defend ourselves, the better the chance for peace.

If you're not prepared to defend yourself, at all, you will have to go with option #3. If you try #2 without being prepared to defend yourself, you will either be killed, or enslaved.
Independence does not equal freedom. Lots of countries have gained independence through violence but not many people have gained freedom through violence.

[klamath]

Independence does not equal freedom. Lots of countries have gained independence through violence but not many people have gained freedom through violence. ..

[Anti Federalist]

Much is made of the Indian Independence movement and Ghandi's role and policy of passive resistance.

Well, that's not the whole story, in fact, if it wasn't for militant factions and rebellions going on for a hundred years prior to that, there would have been no movement to speak of.

Not to mention the fact that the primary reason England "granted" India independence in 1947 was because it was a beaten and broken shell of itself, having barely survived WWII, in in no position to maintain an Empire any longer.

[torchbearer]

I am a STRONG believer in PEACE through strength.

then we will need more the 1000 people to show up in virginia if we want to keep peace.

[klamath]

It's always possible. Historically there aren't just a whole lot of examples of gaining independence without at least some blood shed.

The way I see it, is there are only three options to gain freedom:
1) Convince enough people in America to give us permission to be free
2) Take freedom and be sufficiently armed to do it without their permission
3) Run into the mountains or the ocean or an island and hope they don't find you

#1 Isn't going to happen.

#2 Could be peaceful. The better armed and the more prepared we are to defend ourselves, the better the chance for peace.

If you're not prepared to defend yourself, at all, you will have to go with option #3. If you try #2 without being prepared to defend yourself, you will either be killed, or enslaved.

(I suppose you could possibly convince the people in America to give you permission to be free if you paid them enough. But that would be quite the large sum of cash!! And this is a theoretical possibility at best)
I am a STRONG believer in PEACE through strength.

[torchbearer]

gun ownership is being demonized in the media, the same as the being a jew in nazi germany
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/no-ea-wont-license-guns-in-its-2013-games-but-it-never-has/

even in the gaming industry, media acts like support gun makers by buying their gun licenses is a bad thing.

[torchbearer]

the line in the sand is now.

[Anti Federalist]

I am a STRONG believer in PEACE through strength.

What kind of strength?

It would seem to me, this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that strength.

[klamath]

then we will need more the 1000 people to show up in virginia if we want to keep peace. Peace throught strength is that 200 million guns silently out in the population, not a 1000 or 10 thousand guns parading around washington.

[TheTexan]

Independence does not equal freedom. Lots of countries have gained independence through violence but not many people have gained freedom through violence.

I agree, but you can't have freedom without independence. I believe you missed the point, because you didn't really address the post.


but not many people have gained freedom through violence.

Not many people have gained freedom.... at all. The entire world is a giant slave system. If you haven't noticed.

[Bastiat's The Law]

So who's going?

[torchbearer]

Peace throught strength is that 200 million guns silently out in the population, not a 1000 or 10 thousand guns not parading around washington.

um, there are 300 million silent gun owners in the population right now.
all of them sitting behind a keyboard is not strength.

[torchbearer]

So who's going?

I don't expect to be there, but its for noble reasons.

[TheTexan]

um, there are 300 million silent gun owners in the population right now.
all of them sitting behind a keyboard is not strength.

This, for fucks sake. There is no difference, none at all, between having no weapons, and being unwilling to use them.

[klamath]

I agree, but you can't have freedom without independence. I believe you missed the point, because you didn't really address the post.



Not many people have gained freedom.... at all.
That is true. Not many have and the day that the masses get total freedom will be the day that anarchy will function.

[klamath]

um, there are 300 million silent gun owners in the population right now.
all of them sitting behind a keyboard is not strength.
Oh yes they are. That is very much on gun grabber minds and that is what they fear. They know they are there but they know not where. When they are in Washington they know where. It is what they can't see that they fear.

[torchbearer]

Oh yes they are. That is very much on gun grabber minds and that is what they fear. They know they are there but they know not where. When they are in Washington they know where. It is what they can't see that they fear.
they would also fear what they see.
but until they see people willing to take action, it doesn't matter.

[Deborah K]

I'm pretty sure Adam is doing this to prove a point, not start a war. He is capable of respectfully arguing with 'authorities' as is evidenced by this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI8vjoFjmdY

This doesn't necessarily have to go bad. Adam is an antagonist. It's who he is. Sam Adams was one too.

I'm not at all surprised that there are so many who don't have the courage of their convictions.

But, as I've always said, we don't have to agree on the best way to advance the cause of freedom. You do it your way, I'll do it mine, Adam will do it his. The only thing we need to agree on, is that it's worth the effort.

[klamath]

they would also fear what they see.
but until they see people willing to take action, it doesn't matter. They don't fear Adams march. He can be handled.

[torchbearer]

They don't fear Adams march. He can be handled.


with a 1000 people yes.
with a 100000 people, no.
are you purposely trying to push people away from this idea, because you want a low turn-out, thus a violent end?
in your fear, you are creating your own disaster. self-fulfilling prophecy.
the answer, more people.
even if you can't go yourself, get the word out. tell people there will be peace/strength through numbers. save this event by providing numbers.

[klamath]

I'm pretty sure Adam is doing this to prove a point, not start a war. He is capable of respectfully arguing with 'authorities' as is evidenced by this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI8vjoFjmdY

This doesn't necessarily have to go bad. Adam is an antagonist. It's who he is. Sam Adams was one too.

I'm not at all surprised that there are so many who don't have the courage of their convictions.

But, as I've always said, we don't have to agree on the best way to advance the cause of freedom. You do it your way, I'll do it mine, Adam will do it his. The only thing we need to agree on, it that it's worth the effort.No, not necessarily. Not if we believe it is a detriment to the effort. And for the record I don't think Adam would start shooting. I think he likes to argue but what we don't know is if one of those guns behind him does.

[torchbearer]

And for the record I don't think Adam would start shooting.

then you don't know adam, and this is why your fear is illogical.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

"I have a permit actually, it's the first amendment of the constitution." Grade A stuff here.

[Deborah K]

No, not necessarily. Not if we believe it is a detriment to the effort. And for the record I don't think Adam would start shooting. I think he likes to argue but what we don't know is if one of those guns behind him does.

You missed my point. We only need to agree that advancing the cause of freedom is worth the effort. We don't have to agree on methodology. If you don't agree with Adam's approach, so be it. Don't participate.

[satchelmcqueen]

i know you didnt mean it this way, but that reminds me of this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQ_n8xz1-o

I really hope that Adam is talking to a lawyer about this.

[bolil]

Wow, this kind of actual action really makes the plants grow tall.

[Weston White]

I was not debating, I was recognizing a parallel. Shoes protect your feet, modern means of self defense protect your life. As to "I also require my shoes, such is not the case for arms." You must not have read my post entirely as I addressed this.

Maybe we should regulate steel toed boots. No one needs assault footwear, cept our heroes in blue.

No, I read it. When one uses a shoe as a weapon, resulting death or even serious bodily is unlikely, just ask George Bush the Junior. However, when one uses a firearm, resulting death or serious bodily injury is very likely.

If the federal government would like to regulate steel toed shoes in the course of interstate commerce then they may do so.

More pointedly, nobody here is arguing that you cannot keep and bear arms (in general), only that as a requirement for open carry, while in the public, the firearm is to be free of ammunition and kept holstered; that is until it is to be intended for appropriate use. Such could be parallel to carrying around one’s unsheathed sword or axe in their hand—to do doing so might cause concern or fear to those having a sword brandished toward them.

Again as to open carry, I would like to see that rule changed to permit for allowing ammunition to remain inside of the weapon, only with the breech kept clear, safety set at the possessor’s preference.

The reason for keeping the breech clear is evident for the following:

1. It prevents accidental discharges.
2. To fire the gun it requires an act of loading and/or racking or cocking, which legally establishes the intent to use the weapon.
3. It provides those in view or vicinity of the possessor time to react to the gun being loaded with ammunition. And it serves as an alert that somebody is getting ready to possibly use a handgun.
4. If the open carry possessor is disarmed of their firearm by a criminal it provides them time to make an attempt at reclaiming their lost property before it could be used against them.
5. It affords a bit of peace of mind to law enforcement during confrontations.

[phill4paul]

Wow.
The reason for keeping the breech clear is evident for the following:

1. It prevents accidental discharges.
2. To fire the gun it requires an act of loading and/or racking or cocking, which legally establishes the intent to use the weapon.
3. It provides those in view or vicinity of the possessor time to react to the gun being loaded with ammunition. And it serves as an alert that somebody is getting ready to possibly use a handgun.
4. If the open carry possessor is disarmed of their firearm by a criminal it provides them time to make an attempt at reclaiming their lost property before it could be used against them.
5. It affords a bit of peace of mind to law enforcement during confrontations.

1. A wheel gun has a chamber in the breech. Accidental discharges shouldn't happen. That is why they are deemed accidental.
2. Actuating the firing pin legally establishes the intent to use.
3. It also puts someone in a situation they may already be may a disadvantanged.
4. No idea what you are talking about.
5. By all means

[Weston White]

Adam was on Alex Jones again today, he seemed to be hinting at the potential for violence to occur, stating that if things go that way, that acts of violence would be up to the reaction of the police in preventing them from peacefully protesting. So I am not sure, exactly how to take that, but he also stated he would not mind being arrested to challenge it in court (as he and many others would be facing many years to serve, just to start).

I find this worrisome, while I doubt Adam himself will actually do anything and will likely be one of the first arrested, I can see the situation becoming inflamed by others that would take it upon themselves to challenge the police into using force—as people willing to carry loaded guns through one of the most openly corrupted cities, would likely have little qualm in doing so, especially while high on a pack mentality.

Ultimately, I just hope this does not turn into more gun regulations becoming necessary, while additionally resulting in growing support by federal lawmakers; likened to when armed Black Panther members stormed the California Legislature just to prove a point about oppression against blacks.

[Deborah K]

Adam was on Alex Jones again today, he seemed to be hinting at the potential for violence to occur, stating that if things go that way, that acts of violence would be up to the reaction of the police in preventing them from peacefully protesting. So I am not sure, exactly how to take that, but he also stated he would not mind being arrested to challenge it in court (as he and many others would be facing many years to serve, just to start).

I find this worrisome, while I doubt Adam himself will actually do anything and will likely be one of the first arrested, I can see the situation becoming inflamed by others that would take it upon themselves to challenge the police into using force—as people willing to carry loaded guns through one of the most openly corrupted cities, would likely have little qualm in doing so, especially while high on a pack mentality.

Ultimately, I just hope this does not turn into more gun regulations becoming necessary, while additionally resulting in growing support by federal lawmakers; likened to when armed Black Panther members stormed the California Legislature just to prove a point about oppression against blacks.

There is risk. No doubt. But this is going to be heavily covered, if not by the MSM, by the tubers. Everyone will be watching. I think it will be very difficult for DC police to get away with any brutality or abuse. They, and the propaganda arm of the gov't, aka MSM (at the behest of the gov't) will likely try to make a mockery of it all. I don't think this will be a flashpoint, but I do think it will give the cause of freedom more exposure regardless of how the gov't and media try to spin it.

[pcosmar]

Wow.

I believe I was involved in a discussion in another thread . I do not believe that he understands the mechanics or safe gun handling practices at all.

Revolvers (as you mentioned) have rounds in the chamber at all times,, and are quite safe.
the 1911 was designed to be carried with a round chambered, and has multiple safeties.

Most modern firearms are quite safe loaded,, and set on safe. with only a few exceptions,, (that I am not fond of)

And his understanding (and current practice)of the "commerce clause" is completely backwards.

it was to ensure the free travel of goods and services,, not to restrict them. It was supposed to prevent localized restrictions.

[Professor8000]

In modern firearms, a true "accidental discharge" is so incredibly rare as to be laughable. In almost all cases it is due to poor modification of the firing mechanism. In some poorly maintained Rifles the firing pin can get stuck forward and cause a slam fire situation, but this is also very rare. What many people consider an "accidental discharge" is more appropriately called a "negligent discharge" as it is operator error that caused the discharge.

Anyone who carries a weapon for self defense and doesn't keep a round chambered is handicapping their ability to fight. Keeping a round chambered in no way demonstrates the intent to use a firearm.

When has there ever been a right to feel comfortable in public? I really don't give a damn how comfortable other people are with people open carrying fully loaded firearms in public as comfort has never ever been a right.

[Weston White]

Really, wow?

1. Revolvers are little used nowadays, though perhaps it would better to require that one cylinder be kept empty and positioned as the next-to-breech. But accidental discharges do occur and can result in otherwise avoidable death, pain, suffering, loss, and criminal charges and/or civil damages.
2. Not so when it is argued after the fact that the discharge was unintentional. Keeping the gun unloaded dissolves that excuse or at least realizes negligence on the part of the possessor of the firearm.
3. Sure, most likely that would little be the case, and if it truly is a concern there is always the option of conceal carry as opposed to open carry. And when that is in-fact the case, truth be told you are probably going to get the brunt of it regardless if your firearm is loaded or not. If somebody beats you to the draw, they already have obtained a massive advantage over you. You can either submit to their cooperation or step-on-up to play a round of wild-west; a tough roll of the dice either way.
4. So, say somebody runs up to you, seeing your sidearm on your hip, rips it from your holster as you’re enjoying your latte or cigarette, points it into your back and pulls the trigger, and to their surprise nothing happens, so then they rack the slide and glace the safety, meanwhile you drop you latte or smoke, pull out our hidden pocketknife from wherever and stick it into their bicep or forearm, they drop back while hunching down in pain and you quickly grab your piece from their weakened grasp and secure it back into your holster, then pull out your handcuffs, hook them up and begin rendering them medical aid after securing your pocketknife and calling upon somebody to dial 911. …Now you understand or still not yet?
5. For example, initially, law enforcement do not know what type of encounter they are walking into, what another’s facilities, intentions, or motivations are. And let’s be honest, the average LEO is not the sharpest tool in the shed. At least when in public they should be permitted a bit of leeway when dealing with unfamiliar people and diverse cultures.