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

[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.