Well THAT will end well...(Armed March On Washington)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Nikolaz72:

TKretts3:
Can your hand guns and rifles shoot down a military drone? No? Yeah, I don't think the government will be too intimidated.

Would the U.S Government use a militarydrone within a heavily populated city which happends to be their nations capital. On a group of armed protestors? No.

The worries are about civilian/policemens deaths that might come from this. Not that the Government would be intimidated. Then again, I think your comment just sounded better in your head.

I think he's mocking the idea that people are suffering any form of tyranny from the Government, which is what the organiser of this bullshit is going on about. If the US government was worried about tyranny it'd be handguns and rifles against tanks, bombers, and professional soldiers. The same way that giving a bunch of Chinese students guns wouldn't stop the PLA from killing them or running them over.

Gold:
Why are you all saying it will turn ugly?

If anything I expect everyone to be on their very best behavior at the armed march.

It's the fact they're marching against such a stupid thing. Tyranny in America? PLEASE. Maybe if you're a muslim or a teacher.

In my experience, the people who are THIS thoroughly convinced America is being subjected to tyranny are not the kind of people who are prone to making rational and well-thought-out decisions. Meaning it could very well turn ugly because it'll essentially be 10,000 riled-up morons, many of which will probably not bother making sure their weapons are empty. In fact, I'm certain many will make absolutely sure the weapon is loaded.

Ah yes, the second amendmend, the most important of them all.
Because clearly, if anyone lacks a strong lobby it's gun owners.

Thank god they're only taking guns with them and not video games. then we'd be at risk of having civilisation wiped out

xDarc:
They should be allowed to do it, but they will probably be stopped before they can cross the bridge.

I can't recall how many pictures I've seen of Black Panthers walking around with guns in cities, but it's a lot. Can you imagine what it means; As racist as the 1960s were, Black Panthers were still able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights- what does that say about 2013? What does that say about the police state that does not exist as people understand the definition?

I understand where Kokesh is coming from. It was pretty shocking to watch so many people in the Boston area just roll over on command, saying sure, you can search my house without a warrant and then throw me out without an opportunity to put my shoes on or get my insulin.

Somebody needs to stand up to people who want to legislate everyone's rights away. If they get rid of the 2nd amendment, what's to stop them from taking the 1st?

I think most people just don't care. They don't care if they ban all the guns, regulate speech, make everyone live in government issued boxes and work construction jobs where 20 guys patch one pothole- like in Player Piano- so long as they are left alone and they aren't bothered. They must not care.

I read the comments on the Salon article and they were atrocious.

What the hell happened in the past 20 years?

Rage Against the Machine; "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me!" ... To "Yes, we can."

It's like the Right is the New left. The left used to be against the state, and now because they put Obama's face on it they love it. I didn't buy it. I was on the left, I was a demonstrator, I was at WTO/TABD protests in the late 90's and early 2000s... seriously I am so turned around.

How did I get out here all by myself? I wonder what the people I used to roll with 15 years ago are into now, the kind of guys who used to scream US NAVY OUT OF VIEQUES! I wonder if they're happy about all this, chanting along, yes, we can.

World's pretty messed up.

cough *Occupy* cough.

You know, those guys who right wingers where attacking. Those guys the right-wing media thought it was okay for the police to violently break up their peaceful demonstrations. It was almost a whole year ago so I can see how that would slip your mind

If I'm honest, sometimes it seems like a section of your society wishes it actually was oppressed so that it could play the hero, in the same way that some people play at living through a zombie apocalypse.

Nikolaz72:

You think too much of the radical gun-owners. They most likely wouldn't bat an eye if the first amendment were touched, considering it already has been and we've seen zero armed resistance.

Throughout American History little armed resistance has actually been shown to examples of what could possibly considered Tyranny, the only cases where it has shown at all would be when proposals of gun-control starts filling the air.

Which really seems to make it kind of .... Stupid.

This is the thing I've been struggling with for a while.

They take away your rights, these people do nothing.
They take away your right that ostensibly exists for you to defend the rights they ignored attacks on, they get mad and pull out their guns.
When you reduce it to "The right to have guns exists to prevent you from taking our right to have guns" it just seems so silly

Dryk:

Nikolaz72:

You think too much of the radical gun-owners. They most likely wouldn't bat an eye if the first amendment were touched, considering it already has been and we've seen zero armed resistance.

Throughout American History little armed resistance has actually been shown to examples of what could possibly considered Tyranny, the only cases where it has shown at all would be when proposals of gun-control starts filling the air.

Which really seems to make it kind of .... Stupid.

This is the thing I've been struggling with for a while.

They take away your rights, these people do nothing.
They take away your right that ostensibly exists for you to defend the rights they ignored attacks on, they get mad and pull out their guns.
When you reduce it to "The right to have guns exists to prevent you from taking our right to have guns" it just seems so silly

Guns are not needed/required able to or will help resist changes in freedom in today's political environment. If you want to keep guns because 'Gunz are teh coolz' or 'I like to shoot empty cans'

Sure, go ahead. It's stupid to own tools of war capable of instant murder for such reasons, but it's still superior for 'We need it to stand up to the tyranny of our government' that a throng of people seem to insist they own guns for.

Disregarding the fact that they could never fight a government using said guns, they really wouldn't need to.

In todays political enviroment, showing up with a gun to a protest invalidates the protest. Showing up with a tent and your kids and a wooden sign, and then proceed to camp in a park where you aren't allowed to camp shows them you mean business.

And if they intend to fight their own over-bloated military using their handguns..... Well.... Ugh, I don't even need to clarify why that wouldn't work. Disregarding the fact that their military is not yet an independent entity (And hopefully never will be) and as such would not side blindly with the government nor stage a coup, meaning that they still wouldn't need the damn guns.

In the case that it did people would be absolutely screwed. Those weapons wouldn't do crap against tanks or bombers, only useful for guerrilla-war and by the time America reaches such a point, well.... Shit's hit the fan to such a degree that the First and Second Amendment are probably minor concerns, with the larger ones being survival.

But if we are going with the logic that the last one is an actual possibility, like. Something we should prepare for, instead of stopping at the risk of the lives of innocents we should also use some of the budget on these concerns, I think we should start preparing fields of civilian-issued tanks and bombers and missile-silo's, bunkers, radars and massive warehouses with rations.

Once you go half-cook you might 'swell go full crazy. If they want to be ready for their government going full-blown Tyrant, well... Why aren't they? Truth of the matter is, they aren't. It's a lie. They aren't prepared, they cannot be arsed preparing, because they know it's not necessary to spend the needless effort to prepare for such an out-there scenario. They just want to have the guns to make up for the fact that not having them would be the equivalent of the government taking away their toys. And a large interest in said toys comes from the fact that they are restricted, just as with teenagers and alcohol. And marketed to all hell (Also as with Teenagers and Alcohol)

While I am a huge gun advocate, and I understand what why this guy is doing this, it just doesn't help the cause any. You're not going to win over the people who are on the fence on the issue and and you're going to push away the people who are already against firearms. Walking around with rifles in a city where people aren't exposed to firearms that much just isn't a very intelligent move. They should just gather and have a rally or something without the rifles so maybe people will approach them and maybe listen to their message without feeling intimidated. This is the exact reason why I carry concealed and not openly, you're just asking for trouble.

The government has laser cannons.

Laser. Cannons.

So even if you managed to get your hands on a weaponized drone (something else they have, and you don't) they would just shoot it down with a fucking laser.

Your fucking magnum ain't doing shit again "tyranny" if they actually wanted to bring some against you.

This gun-fantasy wanky bullshit is so infuriating.

Oh lord, I'll be in Washington when this happens. This will be interesting, the protest going peacefully is a bit of a, dare I say it, long shot.

thaluikhain:

That's not cynical at all. It'd only take one. Hell, you get people shooting up schools to be famous, this'd be much "better".

...

Upon reading the article, it says the guy is "a former marine". Is that former, or former, if you see what I mean?

Don't forget about government provocateurs, a mainstay of cointelpro: infiltrate a group and then pull their strings. Also, to my knowledge Kokesh was kicked out of the marines for being involved in political activities, namely his opposition to the Iraq war. The worst of it happened after his discharge, which was changed from honorable to less than honorable after attending a protest in uniform. This is a guy who fought in Fallujah in 2004. Yeah, I'd pretty pissed too.

itsthesheppy:
The government has laser cannons.

Laser. Cannons.

So even if you managed to get your hands on a weaponized drone (something else they have, and you don't) they would just shoot it down with a fucking laser.

Your fucking magnum ain't doing shit again "tyranny" if they actually wanted to bring some against you.

This gun-fantasy wanky bullshit is so infuriating.

That stuff doesn't win wars. They dropped over 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, more than 3 times what they used during all of world war 2, and it did not win them the war. Also, we are a country filled with veterans who know the tactics, know the capabilities of the equipment, know the weaknesses, etc. If people found themselves in a war with an oppressive government, the people would be stealing any of these advanced weapons that weren't nailed down, and producing homegrown RPGs and anti-tank weapons. But if you can't stand up to boots on the ground, you've lost that war before it's even started.

so you just needs 1000 of people to be on their very best behaviour...or one guy not to.

sounds legit.

xDarc:
*snip*

veterans who've basically not outright won most of the various wars the country has fought in since the 40s...and those were against enemies seen as vastly militarily inferior...rather than the other way round...which is what the situation would be if any uprising in the US tried to take on the US MIC.

i mean seriously how is anyone gonna even really organise such a thing ?
facebook, twitter and mobile phones ?

ye that'll totally work...

and as for vietnam...well i hope you've all been reading and actually understanding and appreciating the finer points of Sun Tzu as well as they culturally did.

i'd learn to play Go if i was you...

ClockworkPenguin:

cough *Occupy* cough.

You know, those guys who right wingers where attacking. Those guys the right-wing media thought it was okay for the police to violently break up their peaceful demonstrations. It was almost a whole year ago so I can see how that would slip your mind

I wouldn't know, I'm not a "right winger." I'm a left winger who opposed globalization in 13-14 years ago, who opposed censorship, wage slavery, and taking our rights away- and now suddenly I'm out here all by myself because I'm not on board with the Obama propaganda of a kinder, gentler government- yes, we can. It's the same people pulling his strings, it's the same groups running things, and people just want to throw you in with the right wingers if you don't buy into it.

The left is the new right.

xDarc:

Don't forget about government provocateurs, a mainstay of cointelpro: infiltrate a group and then pull their strings. Also, to my knowledge Kokesh was kicked out of the marines for being involved in political activities, namely his opposition to the Iraq war. The worst of it happened after his discharge, which was changed from honorable to less than honorable after attending a protest in uniform. This is a guy who fought in Fallujah in 2004. Yeah, I'd pretty pissed too.

I'm sure the government will fire first and just throw accusations around.

xDarc:

That stuff doesn't win wars. They dropped over 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, more than 3 times what they used during all of world war 2, and it did not win them the war. Also, we are a country filled with veterans who know the tactics, know the capabilities of the equipment, know the weaknesses, etc. If people found themselves in a war with an oppressive government, the people would be stealing any of these advanced weapons that weren't nailed down, and producing homegrown RPGs and anti-tank weapons. But if you can't stand up to boots on the ground, you've lost that war before it's even started.

It is worth remembering that North Vietnam had the near limitless support of a superpower and a great power. An alliance of Christian fundamentalists and anarchists in America will find few friends across the globe. Maybe Tehran, although their assistance isn't going to be welcome. Gadaffi would have supported them for sure.

Now I'm curious, for an American civil war, do you know how to produce NBC protection for vehicles and houses?

xDarc:

ClockworkPenguin:

cough *Occupy* cough.

You know, those guys who right wingers where attacking. Those guys the right-wing media thought it was okay for the police to violently break up their peaceful demonstrations. It was almost a whole year ago so I can see how that would slip your mind

I wouldn't know, I'm not a "right winger." I'm a left winger who opposed globalization in 13-14 years ago, who opposed censorship, wage slavery, and taking our rights away- and now suddenly I'm out here all by myself because I'm not on board with the Obama propaganda of a kinder, gentler government- yes, we can. It's the same people pulling his strings, it's the same groups running things, and people just want to throw you in with the right wingers if you don't buy into it.

The left is the new right.

Well, I has holding up Occupy as an example of a left-wing group who still oppose all the things you describe. The left isn't the new right- you just don't have a left in america anymore (or at least not one represented at party level).

xDarc:

itsthesheppy:
The government has laser cannons.

Laser. Cannons.

So even if you managed to get your hands on a weaponized drone (something else they have, and you don't) they would just shoot it down with a fucking laser.

Your fucking magnum ain't doing shit again "tyranny" if they actually wanted to bring some against you.

This gun-fantasy wanky bullshit is so infuriating.

That stuff doesn't win wars. They dropped over 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, more than 3 times what they used during all of world war 2, and it did not win them the war. Also, we are a country filled with veterans who know the tactics, know the capabilities of the equipment, know the weaknesses, etc. If people found themselves in a war with an oppressive government, the people would be stealing any of these advanced weapons that weren't nailed down, and producing homegrown RPGs and anti-tank weapons. But if you can't stand up to boots on the ground, you've lost that war before it's even started.

The reason Vietnam prevailed had nothing to do with the fact that they had guns, and everything to do with the fact that they employed Zap Brannagan tactics. They sent wave after wave of their own men into a meat grinder until the united states got sick of fighting over a sweaty little country that was of little to no real benefit to ourselves.

The 'country filled with veterans' who 'know tactics' and 'weaknesses'... come on man, I know this is a video game forum but you have to be serious for a moment. We spend, as a country, more on 'defense' than the next ten to twenty countries combined. In a purely hypothetical scenario where suddenly the military turns against us, they could reduce any pockets of resistance to a smoky crater without ever having to leave Washington.

Here's why this march is stupid:

a) The gesture is purely symbolic and not representative. 1,000,000 people could march on washington and it wouldn't mean dick if 299,000,000 people vote to enact stiffer gun control. Australia went through the same shit, and their strong gun control got passed, and things are fine and dandy there. This is just petulant kicking and screaming from manchildren who don't want their toys taken away. The public support for stronger background checks is overwhelming. the only reason there's so much resistance is because of the money involved. It's always down to money. If you think your voice counts you need to wake up.

b) The government is never going to turn on the populace in some kind of Orwellian nightmare. Not because they can't (because they certainly can and there would be shit-all we could do to stop them) but because it's not a part of our culture. We're a country moving towards the legalization of pot and gay marriage across the board. These are not the steps towards a dictator state.

c) The government isn't intimidated. At the time of Desert Storm, Iraq had the fourth largest military on the planet. These weren't weekend warriors either; they were battle-hardened soldiers fighting for their home soil, and the U.S. crushed them. That was in the 1990's. How many tanks do you own? It would take me a while to save up for one. The argument that it's necessary for private citizens to own guns in order to oppose a potentially oppressive government might have made sense in the pre-satellite era, but it's a new world. Laser cannons. Just be happy you live in a country where it's the culture protecting you from an oppressive regime, not a little 9mm peashooter.

Aris Khandr:

Yeah, I fully expect that one of them will start shooting to "defend their freedom", and it'll turn into a bloodbath. Maybe, finally, when that is over, America can get past its ridiculous gun fetish.

They try anything at all to try and restrict gun access in the wake of a hypotheical shooting (ESPECIALLY if they try to say "Confiscate and Ban"), and the government gets a front row seat to watch the country burn to the ground. There is no way in HELL gun owners will take that lying down, and contrary to what many on here think, the military will likely JOIN the rebels, and if not, each state has thier own National Guard units that are equipted with somewhat modern equipment (plus civilian owned machine guns and tanks), which would at least be better than nothing even if its the last generation of tanks and jets (because a tank is still a tank).

Also, calling it a "gun fetish." Not really, no, and good luck getting anyone to side with you that wasnt already on your side if you call it that.

(Rant over)

OT: All that said, I Think this is a bad idea from the get go, and will keep my fingers crossed that nothing major happens.

I believe this gif sums up what will happen very well.
image

xDarc:
Snip all three reply posts

First off: I wouldn't discount the possibility of government infiltration, but I sincerely doubt these delusional fucks need any provocation. And angry former marines have a habit of continuing to kill people when they don't get their way. I'd make sure all the clock towers and book depositories are locked-up tight.

Yeah because the war in Vietnam worked out so well for everyone involved. And of course we'll have China to stop us from invading ourself.

Just because you're dissatisfied with Obama doesn't make these fools "right". And the political right was never the left, because there is more to political identity then simply opposing the current administration. Unless you're an anarchist.

itsthesheppy:

The 'country filled with veterans' who 'know tactics' and 'weaknesses'... come on man, I know this is a video game forum but you have to be serious for a moment.

I am serious. I am ex-military. I know how to fight and I know how to hide. There are literally millions of people like me. They'd have to turn the whole country into a big smoking crater to get rid of us, if it happens, it's not going to happen that way.

xDarc:

itsthesheppy:

The 'country filled with veterans' who 'know tactics' and 'weaknesses'... come on man, I know this is a video game forum but you have to be serious for a moment.

I am serious. I am ex-military. I know how to fight and I know how to hide. There are literally millions of people like me. They'd have to turn the whole country into a big smoking crater to get rid of us, if it happens, it's not going to happen that way.

The way I see it, in a future US civil war, the basic level fighting will be done by irregular militias similar to what happened in Yugoslavia. A rebel group targets a town that stayed loyal to the government and the town people form their own militia and go hunting down the rebels. Atrocities on both sides will ensue. You will get a repeat of Bloody Kansas and the guerrilla warfare of Civil War Missouri.

xDarc:

itsthesheppy:

The 'country filled with veterans' who 'know tactics' and 'weaknesses'... come on man, I know this is a video game forum but you have to be serious for a moment.

I am serious. I am ex-military. I know how to fight and I know how to hide. There are literally millions of people like me. They'd have to turn the whole country into a big smoking crater to get rid of us, if it happens, it's not going to happen that way.

I am serious too, I'm an ex-highschooler. I know how to sit at a computer, I know how to type. There are literally millions of people like me. They'd give the media a fieldday, dragging me out of my house while screaming and holding on to my laptop, if it happens, it's not going to happen that way.

Seriously though. Let's not turn this into 4chan dick-waving contest, I swear what you just posted is a copypaste from something I saw on those boards.

If Civil War happened it's not going to be Government vs People. It's going to be Rebels vs Loyalists.

And imo, as it stands right now if something like this was to happen. The Loyalists wouldn't be the extreme ones, and the rebels could not count on much foreign support.

*crosses fingers in the hopes that someone fucks up*

PEOPLE!

There's an armed march/demonstration somewhere in America AT LEAST once a year.

Know what happens?

NOTHING.

The demonstrators aren't interested in killing anybody, and the police DEFINITELY aren't interested in starting a fight. They'll march, say what they have to say, then go home. They're not going to stick around and choke the streets or wreck public parks for weeks on end, they're not going to try to make 'examples' of anyone. This sort of demonstration is so typical as to be pedestrian; there's no need for hand-wringing.

spartandude:
Thank god they're only taking guns with them and not video games. then we'd be at risk of having civilisation wiped out

Exactly! Besides, guns don't kill people. Guns are just tools. Why are people trying to demonise guns? If they really wanted to cause permanent damage they'd play rock'n'roll with suggestive lyrics, play Dungeons and Dragons and take prayer out of schools.

The troll in me wishes I could be at the march just to see what happens if you blow up a paper bag and pop it...

This is going to go so badly its beyond funny. The police aren't going to let them anywhere near the capitol building so they'll probably try to block them on the bridge (easy choke-point). All it'll take is one guy firing a shot and all hell is going to break loose. If there is a crowd of ten thousand there nobody's going to see if someone fires off a shot; both sides will panic, police will launch non lethals, some will think it's a government attack and try fight back, both sides start shooting and with them on a bridge it'll be fish in a barrel.

It doesn't even have to be a member of the protest, an Anarchist using the crowd as cover, or someone who wants to discredit either the gun-rights groups or the police, hell even a gun going off accidentally could set it off - both the protesters and the police are going to be on edge waiting for an attack, the slightest thing could potentially set them off.

They say they'll turn back if they get blocked - yeah right. They'll sit there and make a point for hours, no protesters give up the second they get blocked. Even if Kokesh leaves there will be some that stay and it's just going to end badly.

Lilani:

Gold:
Why are you all saying it will turn ugly?

If anything I expect everyone to be on their very best behavior at the armed march.

It's the fact they're marching against such a stupid thing. Tyranny in America? PLEASE. Maybe if you're a muslim or a teacher.

In my experience, the people who are THIS thoroughly convinced America is being subjected to tyranny are not the kind of people who are prone to making rational and well-thought-out decisions. Meaning it could very well turn ugly because it'll essentially be 10,000 riled-up morons, many of which will probably not bother making sure their weapons are empty. In fact, I'm certain many will make absolutely sure the weapon is loaded.

Their plan actually is for everyone to make sure their gun is loaded. Quoting the Facebook page itself: "We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny". That's part of the reason this scares me so much.

senordesol:
PEOPLE!

There's an armed march/demonstration somewhere in America AT LEAST once a year.

Know what happens?

NOTHING.

The demonstrators aren't interested in killing anybody, and the police DEFINITELY aren't interested in starting a fight. They'll march, say what they have to say, then go home. They're not going to stick around and choke the streets or wreck public parks for weeks on end, they're not going to try to make 'examples' of anyone. This sort of demonstration is so typical as to be pedestrian; there's no need for hand-wringing.

The difference is that they're planning an open-carry rally in a place that open carry is illegal (see links in original post). You know, breaking the law. The DC police chief has already stated that she will not allow protesters who are carrying weapons to break the law and she'll have back-up from US Park Police (who have jurisdiction over the Capitol Mall and monuments). This is, of course, not counting the Capitol police who deal with the other end of the Mall and are charged with protecting the national legislature.

Point is, when these protesters hit the district line, they'll have three choices: (1) discontinue the protest, (2) surrender their weapons or hand them off to family members/friends to continue, or (3) clash with police and possibly get arrested. You only need one paranoid nut dumb enough to think that the rest of the protesters has his back if he resists using his weapon to turn this into a very bad and bloody situation.

The Gentleman:

senordesol:
PEOPLE!

There's an armed march/demonstration somewhere in America AT LEAST once a year.

Know what happens?

NOTHING.

The demonstrators aren't interested in killing anybody, and the police DEFINITELY aren't interested in starting a fight. They'll march, say what they have to say, then go home. They're not going to stick around and choke the streets or wreck public parks for weeks on end, they're not going to try to make 'examples' of anyone. This sort of demonstration is so typical as to be pedestrian; there's no need for hand-wringing.

The difference is that they're planning an open-carry rally in a place that open carry is illegal (see links in original post). You know, breaking the law. The DC police chief has already stated that she will not allow protesters who are carrying weapons to break the law and she'll have back-up from US Park Police (who have jurisdiction over the Capitol Mall and monuments). This is, of course, not counting the Capitol police who deal with the other end of the Mall and are charged with protecting the national legislature.

Point is, when these protesters hit the district line, they'll have three choices: (1) discontinue the protest, (2) surrender their weapons or hand them off to family members/friends to continue, or (3) clash with police and possibly get arrested. You only need one paranoid nut dumb enough to think that the rest of the protesters has his back if he resists using his weapon to turn this into a very bad and bloody situation.

Blocking Traffic is 'breaking the law', yet it happens in peaceful demonstrations all the damn time. Even if they are stopped, in all likelihood they're just going to continue the demonstration where they are and go home.

Again, ostensibly it only takes 'one nut' at any of the armed demonstrations that happen ALL THE TIME in this country to cause problems. Yet, it doesn't happen. Why? Could it be because gun owners aren't the unhinged murderous maniacs folks would like to think they are?

And while we're on the subject, wouldn't it take 'one lone nut' at ANY protest? Just because it may not be an 'armed' protest doesn't mean that one can't be armed *at* a protest.

I'm calling this right now: nothing's going to happen. No one's going to want to get into a firefight; if they are restricted, they will abide by the restrictions. There is no interest or profit in actually using the guns they're bringing.

AlotFirst:

Imperator_DK:
What gets organized on Facebook has a tendency to remain on Facebook.

Or you could get this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/project-x-haren-creates-riots-in-holland-2012-9

I can't imagine this march being successful at all.

Well, given the millions upon millions of parties announced which didn't turn into mass rioting, that's hardly a noteworthy example.

Though of course, the more attention this gets, the greater the likelihood it'll actually happen on real life. It's quite refreshing to see citizens actually care about their civil rights, the EU could certainly use some of that. As it seems only self defense and other lawful use of a gun that has a point to it is protected, running around with it in the streets might not the be the best of ideas for a protest though.

Can't see why so many here are apparently scared shitless. Worst come to worst, some of them will simply get themselves killed. Each winning a Darwin Award for trying to take on the most powerful centralized state currently in existence with their hunting rifle.

senordesol:
Blocking Traffic is 'breaking the law', yet it happens in peaceful demonstrations all the damn time. Even if they are stopped, in all likelihood they're just going to continue the demonstration where they are and go home.

Except when you don't tend to advertise that you're going to break the law in other protests.

Again, ostensibly it only takes 'one nut' at any of the armed demonstrations that happen ALL THE TIME in this country to cause problems. Yet, it doesn't happen. Why? Could it be because gun owners aren't the unhinged murderous maniacs folks would like to think they are?

When you go out of your way to break the law as a planned part of a protest, you're going to get a different crowd than those who would protest in a legal manner, mainly those who are more inclined towards conflict, which is a less of a problem when the people in the crowd are armed with sticks rather than with guns.

And while we're on the subject, wouldn't it take 'one lone nut' at ANY protest? Just because it may not be an 'armed' protest doesn't mean that one can't be armed *at* a protest.

Again, one lone nut in a protest without guns acting out is going to have a very different effect than a lone nut in a protest where everyone has a gun and seeped in the "stand your ground" mythos that your gun culture likes to promote.

Plus, if something happens here, do you think the police are going to respond with the standard tear gas and pepper spray?

I'm calling this right now: nothing's going to happen. No one's going to want to get into a firefight; if they are restricted, they will abide by the restrictions. There is no interest or profit in actually using the guns they're bringing.

I don't think anything is going to happen here (as I noted above). The problem is that this may be a needless confrontation involving firearms that could escalate very quickly and lethally. At a certain point, reason has to take over and say "hey, this might be a bad idea."

senordesol:
Blocking Traffic is 'breaking the law', yet it happens in peaceful demonstrations all the damn time. Even if they are stopped, in all likelihood they're just going to continue the demonstration where they are and go home.

Peaceful marches often clear it with the community before they begin, if I'm not mistaken. Get police to block the street and redirect traffic for them, that sort of thing. Not always, but when it comes to big marches these days that interfere with traffic you'll see local authorities around making sure everything runs smoothly. And, of course, this means they aren't doing anything illegal because the community has approved of it ahead of time.

I think if a bunch of people were to just one day decided to march down the busiest streets in New York, interrupting commerce in a massive way, it would not be stood for by local authorities. Hell even the occupiers got swept out of places because even though they were perfectly "peaceful," they were breaking city ordinances and setting up campgrounds and residential areas in places that were neither campgrounds nor residential zones.

The Gentleman:

Except when you don't tend to advertise that you're going to break the law in other protests.

What are you talking about? Occupy was ALL ABOUT civil disobedience. Most protests are about some form of civil disobedience. And again, the protesters state that they will not engage in confrontation; meaning that all intents will be superseded by the enforcement of legal restrictions.

When you go out of your way to break the law as a planned part of a protest, you're going to get a different crowd than those who would protest in a legal manner, mainly those who are more inclined towards conflict, which is a less of a problem when the people in the crowd are armed with sticks rather than with guns.

Again, even 'peaceful' protests often involve acts that would be considered 'breaking the law' on any other day of the week. Again, for MANY, MANY armed protests that have occurred in this country -they don't escalate into armed revolts. I would argue that those who seek to provoke during protests are more interested in being seen as 'victims'. You can't really be a victim with a firearm.

Again, one lone nut in a protest without guns acting out is going to have a very different effect than a lone nut in a protest where everyone has a gun and seeped in the "stand your ground" mythos that your gun culture likes to promote.

Plus, if something happens here, do you think the police are going to respond with the standard tear gas and pepper spray?

The point is 'one lone nut' can come from anywhere, but their appearance is historically negligible. My issue with the conversation isn't the notion that it *might* happen, but all of the people on this thread who are salivating and rubbing their hands in anticipation of it happening...even when all evidence points to it being extremely unlikely. THAT, my friend, is unhinged. THEY, my friend, are the last people I want anywhere near a firearm.

I don't think anything is going to happen here (as I noted above). The problem is that this may be a needless confrontation involving firearms that could escalate very quickly and lethally. At a certain point, reason has to take over and say "hey, this might be a bad idea."

'Could be', or 'might be' are very different from the 'will be' assumptions that are being made. Any demonstration 'could' result in a lethal riot, yet the right to stage a demonstration is still affirmed. I haven't said one word of support for the protest. Frankly I think more is accomplished by speaking directly to your representatives than shouting en mass in front of their office, regardless of the nature of the grievance.

My point here is that all of eager and excited and perverse assumptions that something will go wrong -that something MUST go wrong- is not only statistically inconsistent, but is in fact FAR MORE FRIGHTENING than 10,000 people with guns.

senordesol:

The Gentleman:

Except when you don't tend to advertise that you're going to break the law in other protests.

What are you talking about? Occupy was ALL ABOUT civil disobedience. Most protests are about some form of civil disobedience. And again, the protesters state that they will not engage in confrontation; meaning that all intents will be superseded by the enforcement of legal restrictions.

There is a lot of room for debate as to whether or not marching down streets en masse with loaded weapons is "civil." I think the March on Washington would be regarded very differently if everybody who participated had a knife out.

Lilani:

senordesol:
Blocking Traffic is 'breaking the law', yet it happens in peaceful demonstrations all the damn time. Even if they are stopped, in all likelihood they're just going to continue the demonstration where they are and go home.

Peaceful marches often clear it with the community before they begin, if I'm not mistaken. Get police to block the street and redirect traffic for them, that sort of thing. Not always, but when it comes to big marches these days that interfere with traffic you'll see local authorities around making sure everything runs smoothly. And, of course, this means they aren't doing anything illegal because the community has approved of it ahead of time.

I think if a bunch of people were to just one day decided to march down the busiest streets in New York, interrupting commerce in a massive way, it would not be stood for by local authorities. Hell even the occupiers got swept out of places because even though they were perfectly "peaceful," they were breaking city ordinances and setting up campgrounds and residential areas in places that were neither campgrounds nor residential zones.

This is correct. A permit is required for a public demonstration, but Kokesh has stated that he will not be seeking one. So it's all very illegal.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked