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

[Deborah K]

No, not necessarily. Not if we believe it is a detriment to the effort. And for the record I don't think Adam would start shooting. I think he likes to argue but what we don't know is if one of those guns behind him does.

You missed my point. We only need to agree that advancing the cause of freedom is worth the effort. We don't have to agree on methodology. If you don't agree with Adam's approach, so be it. Don't participate.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

i know you didnt mean it this way, but that reminds me of this....

I really hope that Adam is talking to a lawyer about this.

 

[bolil]

Wow, this kind of actual action really makes the plants grow tall.

 

[Weston White]

I was not debating, I was recognizing a parallel. Shoes protect your feet, modern means of self defense protect your life. As to "I also require my shoes, such is not the case for arms." You must not have read my post entirely as I addressed this.

Maybe we should regulate steel toed boots. No one needs assault footwear, cept our heroes in blue.

No, I read it. When one uses a shoe as a weapon, resulting death or even serious bodily is unlikely, just ask George Bush the Junior. However, when one uses a firearm, resulting death or serious bodily injury is very likely.

If the federal government would like to regulate steel toed shoes in the course of interstate commerce then they may do so.

More pointedly, nobody here is arguing that you cannot keep and bear arms (in general), only that as a requirement for open carry, while in the public, the firearm is to be free of ammunition and kept holstered; that is until it is to be intended for appropriate use. Such could be parallel to carrying around one’s unsheathed sword or axe in their hand—to do doing so might cause concern or fear to those having a sword brandished toward them.

Again as to open carry, I would like to see that rule changed to permit for allowing ammunition to remain inside of the weapon, only with the breech kept clear, safety set at the possessor’s preference.

The reason for keeping the breech clear is evident for the following:

1. It prevents accidental discharges.
2. To fire the gun it requires an act of loading and/or racking or cocking, which legally establishes the intent to use the weapon.
3. It provides those in view or vicinity of the possessor time to react to the gun being loaded with ammunition. And it serves as an alert that somebody is getting ready to possibly use a handgun.
4. If the open carry possessor is disarmed of their firearm by a criminal it provides them time to make an attempt at reclaiming their lost property before it could be used against them.
5. It affords a bit of peace of mind to law enforcement during confrontations.

 

[phill4paul]

Wow.

The reason for keeping the breech clear is evident for the following:

1. It prevents accidental discharges.
2. To fire the gun it requires an act of loading and/or racking or cocking, which legally establishes the intent to use the weapon.
3. It provides those in view or vicinity of the possessor time to react to the gun being loaded with ammunition. And it serves as an alert that somebody is getting ready to possibly use a handgun.
4. If the open carry possessor is disarmed of their firearm by a criminal it provides them time to make an attempt at reclaiming their lost property before it could be used against them.
5. It affords a bit of peace of mind to law enforcement during confrontations.

1. A wheel gun has a chamber in the breech. Accidental discharges shouldn't happen. That is why they are deemed accidental.
2. Actuating the firing pin legally establishes the intent to use.
3. It also puts someone in a situation they may already be may a disadvantanged.
4. No idea what you are talking about.
5. By all means

 

[Weston White]

Adam was on Alex Jones again today, he seemed to be hinting at the potential for violence to occur, stating that if things go that way, that acts of violence would be up to the reaction of the police in preventing them from peacefully protesting. So I am not sure, exactly how to take that, but he also stated he would not mind being arrested to challenge it in court (as he and many others would be facing many years to serve, just to start).

I find this worrisome, while I doubt Adam himself will actually do anything and will likely be one of the first arrested, I can see the situation becoming inflamed by others that would take it upon themselves to challenge the police into using force—as people willing to carry loaded guns through one of the most openly corrupted cities, would likely have little qualm in doing so, especially while high on a pack mentality.

Ultimately, I just hope this does not turn into more gun regulations becoming necessary, while additionally resulting in growing support by federal lawmakers; likened to when armed Black Panther members stormed the California Legislature just to prove a point about oppression against blacks.

 

[Deborah K]

Adam was on Alex Jones again today, he seemed to be hinting at the potential for violence to occur, stating that if things go that way, that acts of violence would be up to the reaction of the police in preventing them from peacefully protesting. So I am not sure, exactly how to take that, but he also stated he would not mind being arrested to challenge it in court (as he and many others would be facing many years to serve, just to start).

I find this worrisome, while I doubt Adam himself will actually do anything and will likely be one of the first arrested, I can see the situation becoming inflamed by others that would take it upon themselves to challenge the police into using force—as people willing to carry loaded guns through one of the most openly corrupted cities, would likely have little qualm in doing so, especially while high on a pack mentality.

Ultimately, I just hope this does not turn into more gun regulations becoming necessary, while additionally resulting in growing support by federal lawmakers; likened to when armed Black Panther members stormed the California Legislature just to prove a point about oppression against blacks.

There is risk. No doubt. But this is going to be heavily covered, if not by the MSM, by the tubers. Everyone will be watching. I think it will be very difficult for DC police to get away with any brutality or abuse. They, and the propaganda arm of the gov't, aka MSM (at the behest of the gov't) will likely try to make a mockery of it all. I don't think this will be a flashpoint, but I do think it will give the cause of freedom more exposure regardless of how the gov't and media try to spin it.

 

[pcosmar]

Wow.

I believe I was involved in a discussion in another thread . I do not believe that he understands the mechanics or safe gun handling practices at all.

Revolvers (as you mentioned) have rounds in the chamber at all times,, and are quite safe.
the 1911 was designed to be carried with a round chambered, and has multiple safeties.

Most modern firearms are quite safe loaded,, and set on safe. with only a few exceptions,, (that I am not fond of)

And his understanding (and current practice)of the "commerce clause" is completely backwards.

it was to ensure the free travel of goods and services,, not to restrict them. It was supposed to prevent localized restrictions.

 

[Professor8000]

In modern firearms, a true "accidental discharge" is so incredibly rare as to be laughable. In almost all cases it is due to poor modification of the firing mechanism. In some poorly maintained Rifles the firing pin can get stuck forward and cause a slam fire situation, but this is also very rare. What many people consider an "accidental discharge" is more appropriately called a "negligent discharge" as it is operator error that caused the discharge.

Anyone who carries a weapon for self defense and doesn't keep a round chambered is handicapping their ability to fight. Keeping a round chambered in no way demonstrates the intent to use a firearm.

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.

 

[Weston White]

Really, wow?

1. Revolvers are little used nowadays, though perhaps it would better to require that one cylinder be kept empty and positioned as the next-to-breech. But accidental discharges do occur and can result in otherwise avoidable death, pain, suffering, loss, and criminal charges and/or civil damages.
2. Not so when it is argued after the fact that the discharge was unintentional. Keeping the gun unloaded dissolves that excuse or at least realizes negligence on the part of the possessor of the firearm.
3. Sure, most likely that would little be the case, and if it truly is a concern there is always the option of conceal carry as opposed to open carry. And when that is in-fact the case, truth be told you are probably going to get the brunt of it regardless if your firearm is loaded or not. If somebody beats you to the draw, they already have obtained a massive advantage over you. You can either submit to their cooperation or step-on-up to play a round of wild-west; a tough roll of the dice either way.
4. So, say somebody runs up to you, seeing your sidearm on your hip, rips it from your holster as you’re enjoying your latte or cigarette, points it into your back and pulls the trigger, and to their surprise nothing happens, so then they rack the slide and glace the safety, meanwhile you drop you latte or smoke, pull out our hidden pocketknife from wherever and stick it into their bicep or forearm, they drop back while hunching down in pain and you quickly grab your piece from their weakened grasp and secure it back into your holster, then pull out your handcuffs, hook them up and begin rendering them medical aid after securing your pocketknife and calling upon somebody to dial 911. …Now you understand or still not yet?
5. For example, initially, law enforcement do not know what type of encounter they are walking into, what another’s facilities, intentions, or motivations are. And let’s be honest, the average LEO is not the sharpest tool in the shed. At least when in public they should be permitted a bit of leeway when dealing with unfamiliar people and diverse cultures.

 

[phill4paul]

Really, wow?

1. Revolvers are little used nowadays, though perhaps it would better to require that one cylinder be kept empty and positioned as the next-to-breech. But accidental discharges do occur and can result in otherwise avoidable death, pain, suffering, loss, and criminal charges and/or civil damages.
2. Not so when it is argued after the fact that the discharge was unintentional. Keeping the gun unloaded dissolves that excuse or at least realizes negligence on the part of the possessor of the firearm.
3. Sure, most likely that would little be the case, and if it truly is a concern there is always the option of conceal carry as opposed to open carry. And when that is in-fact the case, truth be told you are probably going to get the brunt of it regardless if your firearm is loaded or not. If somebody beats you to the draw, they already have obtained a massive advantage over you. You can either submit to their cooperation or step-on-up to play a round of wild-west; a tough roll of the dice either way.
4. So, say somebody runs up to you, seeing your sidearm on your hip, rips it from your holster as you’re enjoying your latte or cigarette, points it into your back and pulls the trigger, and to their surprise nothing happens, so then they rack the slide and glace the safety, meanwhile you drop you latte or smoke, pull out our hidden pocketknife from wherever and stick it into their bicep or forearm, they drop back while hunching down in pain and you quickly grab your piece from their weakened grasp and secure it back into your holster, then pull out your handcuffs, hook them up and begin rendering them medical aid after securing your pocketknife and calling upon somebody to dial 911. …Now you understand or still not yet?
5. For example, initially, law enforcement do not know what type of encounter they are walking into, what another’s facilities, intentions, or motivations are. And let’s be honest, the average LEO is not the sharpest tool in the shed. At least when in public they should be permitted a bit of leeway when dealing with unfamiliar people and diverse cultures.

1. SMFH.
2. Done with you.

 

[Weston White]

In modern firearms, a true "accidental discharge" is so incredibly rare as to be laughable. In almost all cases it is due to poor modification of the firing mechanism. In some poorly maintained Rifles the firing pin can get stuck forward and cause a slam fire situation, but this is also very rare. What many people consider an "accidental discharge" is more appropriately called a "negligent discharge" as it is operator error that caused the discharge.

Anyone who carries a weapon for self defense and doesn't keep a round chambered is handicapping their ability to fight. Keeping a round chambered in no way demonstrates the intent to use a firearm.

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.

Gee, seriously? In most all cases the mere brandishing of a firearm by a stranger is enough to end the threat and establish one control of the situation--causing the wrongdoing to have serious secondary considerations about what is they are doing or are about to do. Only rarely are live rounds required to be expended (unless you work in law enforcement of course—alright, bad joke).

Also not everybody within our little social experiment, feels compelled to “pack-heat”, and such individuals have just as much of a right to feel safe as you have do to feel protected. Your fundamental concerns or “rights” are no more important than are theirs.

 

[Weston White]

There is risk. No doubt. But this is going to be heavily covered, if not by the MSM, by the tubers. Everyone will be watching. I think it will be very difficult for DC police to get away with any brutality or abuse. They, and the propaganda arm of the gov't, aka MSM (at the behest of the gov't) will likely try to make a mockery of it all. I don't think this will be a flashpoint, but I do think it will give the cause of freedom more exposure regardless of how the gov't and media try to spin it.

Oh that reminded me. He is also asking for other to join that just want to be there, to video the march, or to even peacefully protest in other ways. That participants do not have to do the rifle thing to participate with them.


* But also let not forget what Luke Rudkowski has gone through or at least his version of events involving contacts with so-called—unidentifiable—law enforcement officers during the many political events that he has covered.

 

[J_White]

what stops an agent provocateur from getting into this supposed peaceful march and cause mayhem, which can later be blamed on pro-gun and Liberty groups ?

 

[ninepointfive]

what stops an agent provocateur from getting into this supposed peaceful march and cause mayhem, which can later be blamed on pro-gun and Liberty groups ?

ohhh hey - welcome to the discussion.

 

[Origanalist]

Gee, seriously? In most all cases the mere brandishing of a firearm by a stranger is enough to end the threat and establish one control of the situation--causing the wrongdoing to have serious secondary considerations about what is they are doing or are about to do. Only rarely are live rounds required to be expended (unless you work in law enforcement of course—alright, bad joke).

Also not everybody within our little social experiment, feels compelled to “pack-heat”, and such individuals have just as much of a right to feel safe as you have do to feel protected. Your fundamental concerns or “rights” are no more important than are theirs.

Nobody has a right to "feel safe". Where did you get that idea?

 

[Weston White]

Nobody has a right to "feel safe". Where did you get that idea?

I didn't state that, that was commented by someone else.

 

[pcosmar]

what stops an agent provocateur from getting into this supposed peaceful march and cause mayhem, which can later be blamed on pro-gun and Liberty groups ?

Nothing,, but then.,

What's to stop a provocateur from being among the cop side of the line and shooting another cop?
which could then be blamed on the protesters.
Which is what I would expect.

You can fear the unknown,, or not.

 

[jclay2]

https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/?ref=3

2978 Say they are going!

 

[pcosmar]

5. For example, initially, law enforcement do not know what type of encounter they are walking into, what another’s facilities, intentions, or motivations are. And let’s be honest, the average LEO is not the sharpest tool in the shed. At least when in public they should be permitted a bit of leeway when dealing with unfamiliar people and diverse cultures.

Then perhaps they should not have bullets in their guns.
I would prefer that my neighbors do.