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

[TheTexan]

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

"Lose ground"?

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

 

[Petar]

"Lose ground"?

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

Not true at all.

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

 

[TheTexan]

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

LOL

eta: I am literally laughing out loud just FYI

 

[TheTexan]

Still laughing!

 

[Petar]

LOL

eta: I am literally laughing out loud just FYI

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

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

 

[Petar]

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

 

[TheTexan]

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

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

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

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

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not true at all.

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

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

 

[Petar]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RickyJ]

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

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

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

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

 

[WarNoMore]

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

Still trying to kick that football, Charlie Brown?

 

[TheTexan]

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

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

 

[Petar]

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

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

 

[The Rebel Poet]

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

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

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

 

[Mani]

For some reason this march reminds me of tiananmen square.

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

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

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


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


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



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



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

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

 

[Weston White]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

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

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

 

[Weston White]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Weston White]

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

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

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

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

 

[XTreat]

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

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

Kinda rude don't ya think?