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

[better-dead-than-fed]

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.

That's what I think about all gun owners.

 

[Weston White]

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.

Well I cannot say that I am really surprised that somebody working in law enforcement would make such a statement. I will take this as yet one more reason to avoid Texas, where it is that I presume you patrol alongside of other people who also possess your diluted mindset.

As someone who works in Law Enforcement, let me give you a little lesson on the escalation of force in conflict resolution. It is only reliably effective up to the use of physical force. Once non-lethal force is used, the predictability of how someone responds to any escalation of force goes out the window. If a problem can not be solved without violence, it is a dangerous and unpredictable situation. To say that the threat of lethal force can reliably do what negotiation will not is irresponsible and foolish.

Alright, so now you are switching it up? What is this that you are doing, come on, really now? First you argue that guns need to be maintained in a ready-to-fire state because that precious second or two oh-so counts, and now you are arguing about the effectiveness of negotiating with somebody that is out to kill or seriously injure you?

At any rate, I would have to disagree. It is fairly predicable what the result will be when an officer uses less-lethal tools such as: OC-spray, Taser, police dog, banana gun, etc., on somebody. Unless they are tripping out, dusted, etc., they will begin to comply with the commands of the LEO’. Just the same, if an officer tells a person to stop doing something or else they are going to pepper-spray them as they are pointing their OC in their direction, will in most instants compel that person to stop; have a criminal hiding in an attack, making an announcement that you will sending up your police dog to painfully bite them is one of the fastest ways to get them to come down all on their own. Only the mentally ill or incredibly stupid will refuse to consider such threats of pain compliance—at least until such threats become a reality.

Moreover, most incidents involving armed law enforcement personnel drawing their sidearm to apprehend a suspect (regardless of how cooperative or not they appear to be) are resolved without a single shot being fired. Being that just the mere show of that legal force, the realization of what might happen with a single trigger pull, is enough to snap a wrongdoer back into reality.

I respect people's decisions to not carry firearms for protection as that is a personal decision that each person must make. Self defense is a martial art and a way of life, and not everyone is willing to shoulder that level of personal responsibility. Someone's right to feel safe is non-existent, as is a person's right to feel protected. People have a right to protect themselves, however, they are not entitled to have specific feelings. Fundamental concerns are not in any way the same as rights.

I would disagree. Individual feelings do matter, which is why our American legal system provides both criminal and civil protections against acts such as personal harassment, threats, extortion, blackmail, invasion of privacy, etc.

Realizing the ability to feel safe or comfort is the very effluence of your own individual desire to keep and bear fully loaded arms. Based on the premise that you possess a sincere desire to obtain as an emotional sentiment, which is to feel (or to perceive yourself as being) self-empowered. It is this very realization serving as the emanation of your own personal feelings or comforts.

That being stated, sure nobody possess a guarantee to feel a certain way (e.g., as in today I wanted to feel joyous, but that emotion was not realized so I am going to sue the government for wronging cheating me out of that feeling), but neither do other individuals possess a guarantee to impede another feelings (e.g., it is not unreasonable for society agree to implement public laws requiring open carry firearms to remain unloaded whenever in public; or to be denied possession of a firearm whenever under the influence, drunk, or high; or to deny ownership of firearms to people that are mentally incompetent or are of low moral character; etc.)

 

[tod evans]

We claim to be seeking liberty..

The freedom to do as you please so long as you don't harm anybody..

Where exactly does "Something bad might happen." come into play?

There's lots of speculation of bad press or mass slaughter even potential [gasp] arrest..

I'm just not seeing freedom or liberty as I know it being promoted..

 

[Petar]

If DHS is physically capable of doing that, we have already lost, and they're about to do it regardless of Kokesh. If you don't want to be called a violent extremist, surrender your weapons immediately, and register D or R.

Simply not true.

DHS could do it, but not without popular support.

This is where "optics" become key.

A march such as Kokesh's unfortunately has the distinct potential to end in such a way that could turn public support against us completely.

"First they came for the communists..." and all that...

 

[Petar]

That's fear-mongering. The only people going to camps are ones actively resisting. The economy would be destroyed with no one working.

The people going to camps will likely be us if Kokesh's armed march results in a firefight with Capitol Police, DHS, etc.

 

[Weston White]

Advising a careful approach concerning civil disobedience is not the same as supporting unconstitutional laws.

Actually, it might be that Washington, D.C. is not exactly the best place to visit in a concerted effort to defy its own local laws, being that in the U.S. Constitution, its federal seat (the District of Columbia) was granted total powers of legislation—so they can pretty much get away with making whatever unconstitutional law their little heartless minds devise of, or at least have been granted great latitude to do so:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And"

 

[tod evans]

We claim to be seeking liberty..

The freedom to do as you please so long as you don't harm anybody..

Where exactly does "Something bad might happen." come into play?

The people going to camps will likely be us if Kokesh's armed march results in a firefight with Capitol Police, DHS, etc.

There's lots of speculation of bad press or mass slaughter even potential [gasp] arrest..

I'm just not seeing freedom or liberty as I know it being promoted..

Do I have this right?

If AK marches in DC on the 4th I'm to expect a visit from from the internment squad..

Or does this potential arrest of me only occur if the DC cops fire their weapons at AK?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

1) It's "civil disobedience" because the federal government will at the very least lock you up for doing it.

2) What good is civil disobedience if it seriously risks destroying the whole liberty movement?

3) The DHS is currently preparing to round up patriots and put us all in internment camps one day. If we do something that makes us look like violent extremists then that will give them the public support that they need to do it right away. If we hold our ground peacefully then they may never have the public support that they need to make their move.

No one could "destroy the whole liberty movement". Not the mainstream media, not the government. Not even Ron Paul if he wanted to.
If you believe that someone could, it would be prudent to get an in depth understanding of what the liberty movement is.

The DHS is not going to show up at your house because some random activist from the internet that has virtually nothing to do with you does something that you've already made clear that you're distancing yourself from and disapprove of.

 

[Petar]

Do I have this right?

If AK marches in DC on the 4th I'm to expect a visit from from the internment squad..

Or does this potential arrest of me only occur if the DC cops fire their weapons at AK?

Ok, now you are just being facetious.

If Adam Kokesh's march should become a violent disaster for one reason or another, then yes, there is a good chance that the internment squad will be showing up to at the very least take away your weapons.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

The rotation on the swastika is odd. That way is supposed to be an American Indian symbol for good luck.

-t

 

[Petar]

No one could "destroy the whole liberty movement". Not the mainstream media, not the government. Not even Ron Paul if he wanted to.
If you believe that someone could, it would be prudent to get an in depth understanding of what the liberty movement is.

The DHS is not going to show up at your house because some random activist from the internet does something that you've already made clear that you're distancing yourself from and disapprove of.

An event like Kokesh's turning violent could easily give the DHS the pretense and public support that they need to successfully activate their plans to disarm/round up patriots around the country.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Ok, now you are just being facetious.

If Adam Kokesh's march should become a violent disaster for one reason or another, then yes, there is a good chance that the internment squad will be showing up to at the very least take away your weapons.

You're clearly underestimating the amount of support there is for gun ownership in the US.

Even if the worst happened and this resulted in some sort of massive violent massacre (which I doubt), that wouldn't just disappear.

 

[Petar]

You're clearly underestimating the amount of support there is for gun ownership in the US.

Even if something bad happened and this resulted in violence (which I doubt will happen), that wouldn't just disappear.

Hard-core patriots are a small percentage of US citizens.

Something perceived as an armed insurrection in DC could easily have the entire group targeted for disarmament, internment, etc.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

The rotation on the swastika is odd. That way is supposed to be an American Indian symbol for good luck.

-t

they don't look like Native Americans to me. Despite setting myself up for being called a "violent extremist patriot", I'm not one who knows very much about Nazis.

p.s. in the silver circles over the red signs, they're going the other direction. x 2

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Hard-core patriots are a small percentage of US citizens.

Something perceived as an armed insurrection in DC could easily have the entire group targeted for disarmament, internment, etc.

So essentially, if AK marches the DHS is going to show up at your door, take away your guns and maybe bring you up into a camp, and all the gun owners are gonna cheer with the gun-control advocates because you're kinda, sorta, almost barely related to him as a "patriot" and therefore deserve it even though you denounce what he's doing, made your disapproval known, and have already made it clear enough you're trying to distance yourself from him and this event or anything like it.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Actually, it might be that Washington, D.C. is not exactly the best place to visit in a concerted effort to defy its own local laws, being that in the U.S. Constitution, its federal seat (the District of Columbia) was granted total powers of legislation—so they can pretty much get away with making whatever unconstitutional law their little heartless minds devise of, or at least have been granted great latitude to do so....

That's not reflected here:

We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

-- District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008

 

[tod evans]

An event like Kokesh's turning violent could easily give the DHS the pretense and public support that they need to successfully activate their plans to disarm/round up patriots around the country.

The DHS needs public support before doing whatever they want...

Ummm, Oookay...

Isn't the DHS just one tentacle of the monster Holder controls?

Didn't Holder just tell the fine citizens of Kansas that he and his goons will do as they please regardless of state law?

So now we have DHS [and by tacit agreement the full force of the federal government] disarming and "rounding up" those who don't worship at the alter of the state, all because some dude had the temerity to sling a rifle on his back and march across a bridge into DC..

I suppose at some point I really should make an effort to meet Adam, I didn't realize that he had such sway over both the government goons and my freedom....

Hmmmm.

 

[Petar]

So essentially, if AK marches the DHS is going to show up at your door, take away your guns and maybe bring you up into a camp, and all the gun owners are gonna cheer with the gun-control advocates because you're kinda, sorta, almost barely related to him as a "patriot" and therefore deserve it even though you denounce what he's doing, made your disapproval known, and have already made it clear enough you're trying to distance yourself from him and this event or anything like it.

The DHS needs public support before doing whatever they want...

Ummm, Oookay...

Isn't the DHS just one tentacle of the monster Holder controls?

Didn't Holder just tell the fine citizens of Kansas that he and his goons will do as they please regardless of state law?

So now we have DHS [and by tacit agreement the full force of the federal government] disarming and "rounding up" those who don't worship at the alter of the state, all because some dude had the temerity to sling a rifle on his back and march across a bridge into DC..

I suppose at some point I really should make an effort to meet Adam, I didn't realize that he had such sway over both the government goons and my freedom....

Hmmmm.

You're both being totally facetious.

The whole argument is that if this march turns violent, which it very possibly could, then yes, DHS will have its excuse/public support to disarm/round up patriots.

 

[Weston White]

That's not reflected here:

-- District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008

But keep in mind that is a very specific point, has more to due with the Castle Doctrine, and they had gotten away with such prohibitions for a long time.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You're both being totally facetious.

The whole argument is that if this march turns violent, which it very possibly could, then yes, DHS will have its excuse/public support to disarm/round up patriots.

I understand the argument. I just think your fear is clouding your perspective giving you a very cursory look at it and doesn't really take into account how the real world functions.