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

[ZENemy]

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

Correct.

They are ready to be arrested. Adam himself said they will not RESPOND to force, IE if they are FORCED to disarm and be arrested they will not challenge the police, the point is either to march as a free people or be arrested and "expose" the fact that DC does not welcome free men. I am paraphrasing but that is the just of what he said.

 

[TheTexan]

We have this cute little thing called the rule of law in our country. DC doesn't allow carrying firearms. If you disagree with that and think it's unconstitutional, which I actually do think, we have a process to change the laws.

LOL

 

[shane77m]

Easy:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

 

[AuH20]

Correct.

They are ready to be arrested. Adam himself said they will not RESPOND to force, IE if they are FORCED to disarm and be arrested they will not challenge the police, the point is either to march as a free people or be arrested and "expose" the fact that DC does not welcome free men. I am paraphrasing but that is the just of what he said.

Disarm and take your federal lashings for 5 years. They win again. IMHO these punks need to be put in their place.

 

[69360]

...



Everything the FedCoats did to Randy Weaver was "according to law and policy", and his wife's killer went on to have a long career sucking on the federal tit.

You guys want it both ways, and the world doesn't work like that.

Then why did the feds admit fault in internal memos, why was he acquitted and why did the government pay a settlement? Because the feds came up on the spot with illegal rules of engagement and our system dealt with it. It works if you use it and not do dumb confrontational showboating bs like this march.

 

[69360]

It's not - but klamath and friends have bent the discussion to make it seem that way. It's why he's probably not actually on "our team" whatever that means. He's also earlier said we were going to kill children. If that's not something of an enigma, then what are he and his type seeking to accomplish? certainly not liberty - just division.

What exactly do you think the liberal mainstream media and the feds will call it then? I say they will be labeled domestic turrists. One little screwup and everything we all have worked for will be set back years if not permanently.

 

[AuH20]

What exactly do you think the liberal mainstream media and the feds will call it then? I say they will be labeled domestic turrists. One little screwup and everything we all have worked for will be set back years if not permanently.

They'll do it anyway. I don't see any net gain or loss eitherway. Time is running out. It's like a hockey game when the opposing team's enforcer is constantly taking liberties with your teammates and continuously mauling them with no reprisal. At some point, someone has to knock that guy out. TKO. If that results in dead cops who acted as the aggressors, so be it. This is a battle of wills and the Washington mercs don't have the will to play this game. They rely almost exclusively on fear, propaganda and subservience.

 

[ninepointfive]

What exactly do you think the liberal mainstream media and the feds will call it then? I say they will be labeled domestic turrists. One little screwup and everything we all have worked for will be set back years if not permanently.

Could care less at this point. They've been doing this for the past few years already.

 

[Bman]

I have to say I don't agree with this idea. I don't think it will open up anyone's eyes and has far larger negative outcomes then positive outcomes. If the group is allowed to march all that happens is a bunch of people say "what a bunch of nuts" and a few say "wow they actually allowed this". The more likely outcome is that people get arrested, most of the sheep agree with the arrest and lives are needlessly ruined when they could have been applied to much more effective situations. Another outcome is that a shot gets fired and at the very least an armed stand off or engagement occurs. This will not end well. It may make history books but it will not end well at all. To what degree one can only guess.

 

[ninepointfive]

I have to say I don't agree with this idea. I don't think it will open up anyone's eyes and has far larger negative outcomes then positive outcomes. If the group is allowed to march all that happens is a bunch of people say "what a bunch of nuts" and a few say "wow they actually allowed this". The more likely outcome is that people get arrested, most of the sheep agree with the arrest and lives are needlessly ruined when they could have been applied to much more effective situations. Another outcome is that a shot gets fired and at the very least an armed stand off or engagement occurs. This will not end well. It may make history books but it will not end well at all. To what degree one can only guess.

I think we all still suffer somewhat from the idea that you need a majority of people to believe in your ideas and be on the same team. If history is the judge, 3-5% is required to actively participate, and support from 10% more is all that's required.

 

[Bman]

I think we all still suffer somewhat from the idea that you need a majority of people to believe in your ideas and be on the same team. If history is the judge, 3-5% is required to actively participate, and support from 10% more is all that's required.

I don't see anywhere close to 10%.

 

[AuH20]

I would bring my plate carrier and rifle. And I would bring a sign that would say "Dear Law Enforcement, Go home. Your life and pension isn't worth it." Many of these cops are hourly mercs. They don't want to get shot. When you prematurely tell the authorities that you're going the Gandhi route, you're just asking to get your ass kicked.

 

[klamath]

We have this cute little thing called the rule of law in our country. DC doesn't allow carrying firearms. If you disagree with that and think it's unconstitutional, which I actually do think, we have a process to change the laws. You don't grab yer gun and march into Washington screaming hey look at me I'm a jackass.



I would have reacted the same as Randy Weaver did.

As would I. It is one thing to try and protect your home and family and entirely another to go looking for a fight.

 

[ninepointfive]

I don't see anywhere close to 10%.

3-5?

 

[ninepointfive]

As would I. It is one thing to try and protect your home and family and entirely another to go looking for a fight.

you'd have been this guy, sorry to say it - no offence:

 

[ZENemy]

CAN THE NAY SAYERS GIVE US THEIR BETTER IDEAS FOR FREEDOM PLEASE?


I could not say it better than this guy

 

[klamath]

I have to say I don't agree with this idea. I don't think it will open up anyone's eyes and has far larger negative outcomes then positive outcomes. If the group is allowed to march all that happens is a bunch of people say "what a bunch of nuts" and a few say "wow they actually allowed this". The more likely outcome is that people get arrested, most of the sheep agree with the arrest and lives are needlessly ruined when they could have been applied to much more effective situations. Another outcome is that a shot gets fired and at the very least an armed stand off or engagement occurs. This will not end well. It may make history books but it will not end well at all. To what degree one can only guess.

Pretty much it.

 

[Bman]

3-5?

Nope.

 

[AuH20]

At one time, you could walk into the White House unannounced. It was open to the public. It used to be the people's house.

 

[klamath]

you'd have been this guy, sorry to say it - no offence:

Nice to see what YOU would do the the objecters....