D.C. Police Chief Laughs At Gun Marchers...

[green73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yl-oFY1YN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yl-oFY1YN8



D.C. Police Chief Laughs At Gun Marchers: ‘There’s A Very Good Chance We’ll Meet Them’ On The Bridge

The July 4th Open Carry March on Washington being organized by libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh, which will purportedly feature thousands of marchers armed with loaded firearms, will be met with an unflinching police response, according to D.C. Metro Police Chief Cathy Lanier. In an interview with D.C.’s Newschannel 8 this week, Lanier said that if marchers attempted to carry loaded weapons into the district, they would be in violation of the law, “and we’ll have to treat it as such.”

Asked if the police would meet the marchers in force, Lanier laughed and said “There’s a very good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”

Adam Kokesh has spoken provocatively about the march, setting a goal of 10,000 attendees, and posting intimidating tweets like “When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery.”

However, after promising defiant “civil disobedience” all over the city on the event’s Facebook page, Kokesh quickly added that he would seek the cooperation of the police, and offer himself up as a canary in the coal mine to judge the police response. In an interview with Newschannel 8′s Bruce DePuyt, Chief Lanier gave Kokesh an idea of what he’s in store for.

NewsTalk host Bruce DePuyt asked Lanier if the armed protesters, who plan to march across the Arlington Memorial Bridge, will be allowed into the city.

“First, I want to clear up,” Chief Lanier began, “There’s a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, as civil disobedience, and actual violation of the law. There’s two different things here. Civil disobedience, people come to D.C. to protest policies and government policy all the time—it’s no problem. But when you cross into the District of Columbia with a firearm and you’re not in compliance with the law, now you’re talking about a criminal offense and there’s going to be some action by police.”

“There’s no permit that’s been filed by the organizer,” she continued, “we have not made contact directly with the organizer, but we will, and we’ll make sure that they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia, as long as they’re in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms through the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such.”

Chief Lanier later added that even if Kokesh doesn’t reach out to the Metro Police, she would try to make contact with him.

DePuyt then played a clip of Kokesh’s internet radio show, in which he lapses into intermittent Shatneritis as he explains how he won’t “cower before your tyranny, Washington,” and describes the response to the march as “overwhelming.”

Asked for her reaction, a clearly amused Chief Lanier responded, “Yeah, I’ve seen that,” and reiterated that “if you’re coming here to break the law, we’re going to take action.”

DePuyt asked “Is there a chance you’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge, with equivalent…”

Chief Lanier laughed and replied, emphatically, “There’s a very good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”

Clearly, Chief Lanier is far from intimidated by the prospect of meeting these marchers, in part because, as she later notes, previous threats to march on D.C. with loaded guns have amounted to nothing. As amusing as it might seem to watch Metro Police jack up a bunch of gun nuts, though, their eventual chickening-out will be for the best. A chaotic arrest scene plus loaded guns is an equation for someone to get hurt.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/d-c-police-chief-laughs-at-gun-marchers-theres-a-very-good-chance-well-meet-them-on-the-bridge/

[tod evans]

I was really impressed by the stars on her epaulets....:rolleyes:

[donnay]

“First, I want to clear up,” Chief Lanier began, “There’s a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, as civil disobedience, and actual violation of the law. There’s two different things here. Civil disobedience, people come to D.C. to protest policies and government policy all the time [1]—it’s no problem. But when you cross into the District of Columbia with a firearm and you’re not in compliance with the law, now you’re talking about a criminal offense
[2] and there’s going to be some action by police.”



1: 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


2: 2nd Amendment:


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.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I know everyone on RPFs knows this but I think it needs to be repeated wherever that ridiculous interview is shown:

Protesting alone is NOT civil disobedience. Civil Disobedience means BREAKING THE LAW. Specifically, in this case, an unjust and immoral law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience


I honestly can't tell if she knows she's lying about civil disobedience or if the chief of police in Washington DC really is that ignorant?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Interesting that she said there had been previous attempts at armed marches before.

Anyone know the history?

-t

[kathy88]

Something tells me she won't be laughing July 5th.

[better-dead-than-fed]

2: 2nd Amendment:

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.

And as for D.C.'s legislative act ostensibly prohibiting open carry:


... a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law....

The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. ... The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. ... Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void....

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 - Supreme Court 1803 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9834052745083343188). And of course there's always:


During the 1788 ratification debates ... It was understood across the political spectrum that the right [to bear arms] helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946).

[donnay]

The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8


Source:
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[torchbearer]

I was really impressed by the stars on her epaulets....:rolleyes:
looks like she could rival Saddam or Gaddafi.

[erowe1]

“First, I want to clear up,” Chief Lanier began, “There’s a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, as civil disobedience, and actual violation of the law.

What?

[RockEnds]

“First, I want to clear up,” Chief Lanier began, “There’s a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, as civil disobedience, and actual violation of the law.

ORLY?

Even wiki knows better.



Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience



You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

MLK Jr, Letter From Birmingham Jail

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

[better-dead-than-fed]

What?

http://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/cartmanauthoritah.jpg

[tod evans]

What?

If ya' insert the ice-pick just above the left orbit and scramble the first 1/2" or so of the cerebral cortex it'll all make sense..

[WM_in_MO]

“There’s a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, as civil disobedience, and actual violation of the law. There’s two different things here. Civil disobedience, people come to D.C. to protest policies and government policy all the time—it’s no problem."

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS BREAKING UNJUST LAWS. PERIOD.

[newbitech]

She clearly has no concept of what civil disobedience is.

[MelissaWV]

She clearly has no concept of what civil disobedience is.

I am considering printing out the definition and mailing it in, with the YouTube link to her video printed somewhere on the page so she understands why she's getting it.

[jclay2]

I know everyone on RPFs knows this but I think it needs to be repeated wherever that ridiculous interview is shown:

Protesting alone is NOT civil disobedience. Civil Disobedience means BREAKING THE LAW. Specifically, in this case, an unjust and immoral law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience


I honestly can't tell if she knows she's lying about civil disobedience or if the chief of police in Washington DC really is that ignorant?

Most likely she is lying. Notice that she didn't address Adam's point about doing something that is illigal vs something that is lawful.

[fr33]

Someone buy this woman a dictionary. She's probably had a lot schooling but she's still stupid.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I was really impressed by the stars on her epaulets....:rolleyes:Yeah, Cops with a 24/7 Ego trip. Look at all the shit on that uniform. If she's into military dress, badges, stars, gold piping, etc let the coward go in the military, EARN REAL ONES or go join the Boy scouts/girl scouts s pathetic display

Parade & Pageantry of these egotistical clowns playing dress-up with real weapons is scary.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Right at the beginning of the interview, the host paraphrases Kokesh as saying "the way to do that is to take some armed guns... put em on our backs, and march..."

Scary shit when even your guns have guns. Booo!!!!

[tod evans]

Scary shit when even your guns have guns. Booo!!!!


Boogity-boogity!:eek:

[Dr.3D]

Someone buy this woman a dictionary. She's probably had a lot schooling but she's still stupid.
The amount of schooling a person has, doesn't change their I.Q.. Once a dummy, always a dummy. She seems to be an educated dummy.

[Henry Rogue]

I was really impressed by the stars on her epaulets....:rolleyes:
She's a four star general in her occupying army.

[JK/SEA]

I was really impressed by the stars on her epaulets....:rolleyes:

yeah, you can get these off Ebay.

[Lucille]

I know everyone on RPFs knows this but I think it needs to be repeated wherever that ridiculous interview is shown:

Protesting alone is NOT civil disobedience. Civil Disobedience means BREAKING THE LAW. Specifically, in this case, an unjust and immoral law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

I honestly can't tell if she knows she's lying about civil disobedience or if the chief of police in Washington DC really is that ignorant?

Adam smirked over that one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraPLEQ70pw

3 minute mark.

[Christian Liberty]

Adam Kokesh has spoken provocatively about the march, setting a goal of 10,000 attendees, and posting intimidating tweets like “When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery.”


Tough medicine for some, but Kokesh is completely right. Unfortunately, the government agents have way more guns, so we're still screwed.

Good luck Kokesh...

[JK/SEA]

She needs to shave the hair off her head to complete the 'look'....

I'd like to see the day when this POS gets in front of the tribunal after the Revolution and gets her BS awards and stars ripped from the uniform.

[JK/SEA]

Tough medicine for some, but Kokesh is completely right. Unfortunately, the government agents have way more guns, so we're still screwed.

Good luck Kokesh...

its still going to be a win-win no matter the outcome.

[MelissaWV]

Adam Kokesh has spoken provocatively about the march, setting a goal of 10,000 attendees, and posting intimidating tweets like “When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery.”

Right, except he kind of needs to clarify this, because other posts and other threads on here have discussed turning around and walking away if they are confronted at the bridge(s), the point being to show that the police are the thugs, etc.. The above quote doesn't seem like anyone's turning around.

[aGameOfThrones]

Shit, I know it's wrong(using your kids for a political statement), but wouldn't it be a complete surprise if there were 1000 or more 12 to 16 years of age kids marching with real(if allowed by law on account of being a minor, and unloaded)or toy guns?

[Origanalist]

I am considering printing out the definition and mailing it in, with the YouTube link to her video printed somewhere on the page so she understands why she's getting it.

It probably still wouldn't get through.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Adam Kokesh has spoken provocatively about the march, setting a goal of 10,000 attendees, and posting intimidating tweets like “When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery.”... the government agents have way more guns, so we're still screwed.

The number of guns is never decisive. Civilians could defeat an unconstitutional regime through improvisation and exploitation of institutional vulnerabilities. The 911 hijackers used no guns; neither did McVeigh.


On one side we have a group composed of the oppressor and his agents, the professional army, well armed and disciplined, in many cases receiving foreign help as well as the help of the bureaucracy in the employ of the oppressor. On the other side are the people of the nation or region involved. It is important to emphasize that guerrilla warfare is a war of the masses, a war of the people. The guerrilla band is an armed nucleus, the fighting vanguard of the people. ... The guerrilla band is not to be considered inferior to the army against which it fights simply because it is inferior in firepower. Guerrilla warfare is used by the side which is supported by a majority but which possesses a much smaller number of arms for use in defense against oppression. ...

It is always possible to carry out guerrilla attacks in such a way as to assure surprise; and it is the duty of the guerrilla fighter to do so. "Hit and run," some call this scornfully, and this is accurate. Hit and run, wait, lie in ambush, again hit and run, and thus repeatedly, without giving any rest to the enemy. ... Thus, it is clear that guerrilla warfare is a phase that does not afford in itself opportunities to arrive at complete victory. It is one of the initial phases of warfare and will develop continuously until the guerrilla army in its steady growth acquires the characteristics of a regular army. At that moment it will be ready to deal final blows to the enemy and to achieve victory. ...

It is also possible to have recourse to ... sabotage. It is possible to paralyze entire armies, to suspend the industrial life of a zone, leaving the inhabitants of a city without factories, without light, without water, without communications of any kind, without being able to risk travel by highway except at certain hours. If all this is achieved, the morale of the enemy falls, the morale of his combatant units weakens, and the fruit ripens for plucking at a precise moment....

The numerical inferiority of the guerrilla makes it necessary that attacks always be carried out by surprise; this great advantage is what permits the guerrilla fighter to inflict losses on the enemy without suffering losses....

Another fundamental characteristic of the guerrilla soldier is his flexibility, his ability to adapt himself to all circumstances, and to convert to his service all of the accidents of the action. Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight....

Acts of sabotage are very important. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths. ...

In Algeria, ... tele-explosive mines, that is, mines exploded by radio at great distances from the point where they are located, are being used today against the French colonial power....

The technique of lying in ambush along roads in order to explode mines and annihilate survivors is one of the most remunerative in point of ammunition and arms. The surprised enemy does not use his ammunition and has no time to flee, so with a small expenditure of ammunition large results are achieved. ...

GUERILLA WARFARE, by Che Guevara (http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/pascher/che.html)

That's all over my head, but I post it as an example of one person's take.

[whippoorwill]

We'll work with them to get them to do the civil disobedience the right way...yea I'm pertty sure thats not the way its suppost to work.

[austin944]

What if the DC police do meet the marchers on the DC side of the bridge -- wouldn't that kill that event, or at least put a damper on the message being sent?

Kokesh has said that they would not resist force, so I don't think he's planning to push past police lines, but I could be wrong.

Isn't a backup plan needed, like perhaps float the marchers across the river in a boat, or would the police stop that as well?

[JK/SEA]

Back-up plan could be to have the group break out and line up in Battalion formations facing the bridge at ease. Stay this way for a half hour or more, then march out. Call it a day....will see.

[tangent4ronpaul]

As soon as they step foot on the bridge, they are in DC.

If they stop them on the DC side of the bridge and their partners block the return path....

-t

[erowe1]

What if the DC police do meet the marchers on the DC side of the bridge -- wouldn't that kill that event, or at least put a damper on the message being sent?

Kokesh has said that they would not resist force, so I don't think he's planning to push past police lines, but I could be wrong.

Isn't a backup plan needed, like perhaps float the marchers across the river in a boat, or would the police stop that as well?

He's definitely not planning to push past police lines. And if that turns out not to be true, or that anybody with his group is not on board with that, then you can be sure that whoever tries to cause real trouble with the police will have been someone trying to hurt the cause, not help it.

I think the canary in the coal mine line means that Kokesh will cross the bridge alone first and let them arrest him so that the other marchers could see what's in store for them if they do.

Getting arrested for carrying guns will be the message.

[Philhelm]

She needs to shave the hair off her head to complete the 'look'....

I'd like to see the day when this POS gets in front of the tribunal after the Revolution and gets her BS awards and stars ripped from the uniform.

No, they should be nailed to her flesh as she had earned them.

[phill4paul]

He's definitely not planning to push past police lines. And if that turns out not to be true, or that anybody with his group is not on board with that, then you can be sure that whoever tries to cause real trouble with the police will have been someone trying to hurt the cause, not help it.

I think the canary in the coal mine line mean that Kokesh will cross the bridge alone first and let them arrest him so that the other marchers could see what's in store for them if they do.

Getting arrested for carrying guns will be the message.

That's the way I understand it at this time. Adam first. Which I think would end fine there. He would be setting himself up for a massive donation run for some of the best media savvy lawyers available. Then on to the Supreme. I really don't know what direction this will take. I do know that he has created an opportunity unlike no other. If 10k march to the line there WILL be live massive media coverage. If for no other reason than their 'hope' that it will go south.

[austin944]

I think the canary in the coal mine line mean that Kokesh will cross the bridge alone first and let them arrest him so that the other marchers could see what's in store for them if they do.

If the police arrest Kokesh, then other marchers could do the same thing as Kokesh and the police might have a logistical problem in arresting a lot of people. I'm thinking the police would merely block the bridge and then they have a standoff, rather than face the task of arresting possibly hundreds or thousands of marchers.

I wonder if non-armed marchers could participate and try to pass through police lines?

[Czolgosz]

If Adam is truly marching to get arrested (which is the inevitable end result), this is a waste of time.

[ghengis86]

Shit, I know it's wrong(using your kids for a political statement), but wouldn't it be a complete surprise if there were 1000 or more 12 to 16 years of age kids marching with real(if allowed by law on account of being a minor, and unloaded)or toy guns?

They'd shoot the kids without batting an eye. Probably use gas on them, fire in them with full auto weapons and burn then to a crisp. I.e. WACO

[erowe1]

If Adam is truly marching to get arrested (which is the inevitable end result), this is a waste of time.

Why do you say that?

[ghengis86]

If Adam is truly marching to get arrested (which is the inevitable end result), this is a waste of time.

If he is arrested then he has standing and cause to challenge in court (however futile that may be) and lay bare the states absurdities.

If not, all the better

[tangent4ronpaul]

They'd shoot the kids without batting an eye. Probably use gas on them, fire in them with full auto weapons and burn then to a crisp. I.e. WACO

Think of the royalties or fees - WOW! - too get that footage! - I suppose camera's will be rare at that event... :rolleyes:

-t

[Tod]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a police chief would try to re-define civil disobedience.

[Czolgosz]

Why do you say that?

There's no new or different net result.

Yes there are few articles presented to the masses, but those are programmatic trash. And preaching to the quire really isn't beneficial.


Real action is what it takes to awaken the other 27%, if you want freedom. Without being too elaborate, 3% forces government to react, government only reacts one way, the other 27% will not tolerate that reaction and will in turn, join the bloody push for freedom.

[Czolgosz]

If he is arrested then he has standing and cause to challenge in court (however futile that may be) and lay bare the states absurdities.

If not, all the better


State driven courts mock freedom.

[erowe1]

If he is arrested then he has standing and cause to challenge in court (however futile that may be) and lay bare the states absurdities.

If not, all the better

It's not futile. Civil disobedience changes peoples' minds.

[brandon]

I love how the police chief in DC has absolutely no clue what civil disobediance means. Sounds like a real qualified person to hold that role.

[erowe1]

There's no new or different net result.

Yes there are few articles presented to the masses, but those are programmatic trash. And preaching to the quire really isn't beneficial.


Real action is what it takes to awaken the other 27%, if you want freedom. Without being too elaborate, 3% forces government to react, government only reacts one way, the other 27% will not tolerate that reaction and will in turn, join the bloody push for freedom.

To get the other 27% not to tolerate the government's reaction, first you have to put the government in the position of reacting that way.

[tangent4ronpaul]

If 10k march to the line there WILL be live massive media coverage. If for no other reason than their 'hope' that it will go south.

If it bleeds, it leads...


I wonder if non-armed marchers could participate and try to pass through police lines?

Non-armed supporters are encouraged to attend. Especially if they are "armed" with video cameras. Don't know about passing through police lines - but probably... There will be a ton of people coming into DC and who is to say who is part of the protest or just happened to be crossing the bridge at that time.

-t

[newbitech]

Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)

a good read.


All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75.(10) (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html#notes) If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.(11) (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html#notes)

my favorite passage.


I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)


Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism) Henry David Thoreau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau) that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) to overrule or atrophy their consciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience), and that they have a duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty) to avoid allowing such acquiescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence) to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injustice). Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) and theMexican–American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War).

[Anti Federalist]

Civil Disobedience

Henry David Thoreau

1849 (Originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government")

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. . . .

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. . . .

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. . . .

How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army. . . .

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it. . . .

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico--see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war. . . .

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels? . . .

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn. . . .

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with--for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel--and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well that he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he will treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborlines without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action. I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name--if ten honest men only--ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. . . .

Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her--the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now. . . .

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. . . . I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case. . . .

I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated my as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior will or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? . . .

When I came out of prison--for some one interfered, and paid that tax--I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had come to my eyes come over the scene--the town, and State, and country, greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right . . . This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village. . . .

I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man a musket to shoot one with--the dollar is innocent--but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good. . . .

I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well, they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill will, without personal feelings of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker for fire, and I have only myself to blame. . . .

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to--for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well--is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thoreau's friend and fellow writer and philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who lived nearby and had given Thoreau the land by Walden Pond, came to visit Thoreau during his brief stay in the Concord jail after Emerson heard what had happened. Upon seeing Thoreau in his cell, Emerson exclaimed "What are you doing in there?"

Thoreau immediately responded "What are you doing out there?

[Warlord]

Rand Paul toasts Thoreau


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ntb8Lr-pPI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ntb8Lr-pPI

[PaulConventionWV]

"Do civil disobedience the RIGHT way"...

What an oxymoron.

[PaulConventionWV]

With that many people, it does make me wonder if they really plan on arresting anyone. Because if they did, you know those officers would be afraid of what might happen if they tried to arrest someone and fifty other people pointed their guns at them tellling them to back off. I'm not saying that will happen, but you never know for sure. They have said they would go peacefully, but hell, how many officers would it take to cart away a few thousand protestors on a bridge? It just seems unlikely that they would peacefully arrest that many people without a single problem.

That's not to say I'm against this march. I'm prepared for whatever happens and I'm very curious to see how it goes, but you have to wonder what the police reaction will be like because many of them are very forceful when making an arrest, and that could anger one of the other thousands of armed protestors there, causing a conflict. And you know people are going to try to escape if they see the opportunity, being that the ones in the back have a clear path to freedom back across the bridge. That is, if they don't block them in from both sides, which they might do.

[PaulConventionWV]

I love how the police chief in DC has absolutely no clue what civil disobediance means. Sounds like a real qualified person to hold that role.

She knows exactly what it means and deliberately lied about it.

[Michigan11]

Another way to protest would be to fish off the river banks without a fishing license of course, using a harpoon.

[roho76]

How can you be disobedient to a law that your not actively breaking? Disobedience doesn't mean - standing around in a particular area and bitching about something.

[erowe1]

With that many people, it does make me wonder if they really plan on arresting anyone. Because if they did, you know those officers would be afraid of what might happen if they tried to arrest someone and fifty other people pointed their guns at them tellling them to back off. I'm not saying that will happen, but you never know for sure. They have said they would go peacefully, but hell, how many officers would it take to cart away a few thousand protestors on a bridge? It just seems unlikely that they would peacefully arrest that many people without a single problem.

That's not to say I'm against this march. I'm prepared for whatever happens and I'm very curious to see how it goes, but you have to wonder what the police reaction will be like because many of them are very forceful when making an arrest, and that could anger one of the other thousands of armed protestors there, causing a conflict. And you know people are going to try to escape if they see the opportunity, being that the ones in the back have a clear path to freedom back across the bridge. That is, if they don't block them in from both sides, which they might do.

If there really are thousands of people doing this, then it will be a big deal no matter how it turns out. Is there any reason to expect that many, though?

I don't recall seeing anybody here talking about planning on going.

[kcchiefs6465]

As soon as they step foot on the bridge, they are in DC.

If they stop them on the DC side of the bridge and their partners block the return path....

-t
Which would not surprise me.

We need live streaming that cannot be taken down. To keep the police from crossing the line. Though I'd imagine they are going to be badgeless.

[erowe1]

Which would not surprise me.

We need live streaming that cannot be taken down. To keep the police from crossing the line. Though I'd imagine they are going to be badgeless.

I think they will act with the assumption that everything will be recorded. They would be fools not to. Where the danger comes in is if they decide to work that assumption into something deceptive.

[JK/SEA]

Another way to protest would be to fish off the river banks without a fishing license of course, using a harpoon.

i prefer dynamite. Although i've never tried it and don't advocate you do this as it might affect children.

[newbitech]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/945056_529601427100062_564494804_n.jpg

[bolil]

I think they will act with the assumption that everything will be recorded. They would be fools not to. Where the danger comes in is if they decide to work that assumption into something deceptive.

Looks like an arms race. Gotta have independent cameras in the crowd.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

How can you be disobedient to a law that your not actively breaking? Disobedience doesn't mean - standing around in a particular area and bitching about something.


Sure it does.

Free speech zones, and protest permits. In a free society like ours, it's the wave of the future! :rolleyes:

[newbitech]

Sure it does.

Free speech zones, and protest permits. In a free society like ours, it's the wave of the future! :rolleyes:

the wave good bye presumably.

[jmdrake]

“There’s a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, as civil disobedience, and actual violation of the law. There’s two different things here. Civil disobedience, people come to D.C. to protest policies and government policy all the time—it’s no problem."

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS BREAKING UNJUST LAWS. PERIOD.

Real civil disobedience.

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media//90/3390-004-A84ED8FB.jpg

Fake civil disobedience.

http://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/riot2.jpg

Revival of real civil disobedience.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xWrdQZm-_Sc/T9PHjDJbr8I/AAAAAAAAA20/URjXmJnlo0A/s400/536469_418270654869822_115186371844920_1322700_130 2917380_n.jpg

Any questions?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Real civil disobedience.

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media//90/3390-004-A84ED8FB.jpg

Fake civil disobedience.


And to further your point, that was also coordinated, to a large extent.

[jmdrake]

And to further your point, that was also coordinated, to a large extent.

True. Other women had been arrested for not giving up their seat, but they had "issues" in their backgrounds (arrest record, unwed mother, ect.) Rosa was chosen to repeat the civil disobedience because of her squeaky clean record.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

True. Other women had been arrested for not giving up their seat, but they had "issues" in their backgrounds (arrest record, unwed mother, ect.) Rosa was chosen to repeat the civil disobedience because of her squeaky clean record.


Doesn't fit with Kokesh. He has a dancing arrest on his record. lmao.

I'm not disagreeing with you or mocking you... just making myself giggle is all, and it can be tough to do that these days.

[PaulConventionWV]

Which would not surprise me.

We need live streaming that cannot be taken down. To keep the police from crossing the line. Though I'd imagine they are going to be badgeless.

Somebody should rent a helicopter to allow them to provide constant coverage from a safe distance, out of reach of police.