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

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

Lilani:

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 And again, the protesters state that they will not engage in confrontation; meaning that all intents will be superseded by the enforcement of legal restrictions.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.

What we can't debate is that there have been SCORES of armed protests in this country -armed people marching down the street- where no one, NO ONE, ever got hurt. So to assume that this will be any different -to anticipate wanton bloodshed- and to have any level of excitement at the prospect (as a few of the people on this very thread have expressed) merely *because* it is an armed protest is sick.

senordesol:
What we can't debate is that there have been SCORES of armed protests in this country -armed people marching down the street- where no one, NO ONE, ever got hurt. So to assume that this will be any different -to anticipate wanton bloodshed- and to have any level of excitement at the prospect (as a few of the people on this very thread have expressed) merely *because* it is an armed protest is sick.

Do we have any record of a protest done this:

- Openly (When your bar of entry is being in Washington and having a gun you're willing to wield illegally, you're bound to attract a few unstable nitwits)
- Illegally (marches require a permit from the community, this guy is not seeking one, and open carry is illegal in this community)
- Based on wanton grievances (all of the recent gun legislation has pretty much failed, if anything they should be celebrating not protesting).

Lilani:

senordesol:
What we can't debate is that there have been SCORES of armed protests in this country -armed people marching down the street- where no one, NO ONE, ever got hurt. So to assume that this will be any different -to anticipate wanton bloodshed- and to have any level of excitement at the prospect (as a few of the people on this very thread have expressed) merely *because* it is an armed protest is sick.

Do we have any record of a protest done this:

- Openly (When your bar of entry is being in Washington and having a gun you're willing to wield illegally, you're bound to attract a few unstable nitwits)
- Illegally (marches require a permit from the community, this guy is not seeking one, and open carry is illegal in this community)
- Based on wanton grievances (all of the recent gun legislation has pretty much failed, if anything they should be celebrating not protesting).

The real question is: what record do we have that makes us suspect the result so quickly and excitedly predicted by those on this board?

They are expecting a bloodbath. Plain and simple. While there have been protests in this nation that have gotten out of hand, the 'bodies' lining the street scenario is specious.

And don't be so quick to think that the demonstrators don't have a legitimate grievance; the entire tone of this conversation illustrates that they do. Yes, the legislation failed *this time* and barely at that. The entire narrative that states that the mere fact that they're armed precludes their ability to be peaceful *and* disgruntled, suggests and underlying belief that these otherwise law abiding citizens are an 'unstable' and (based on some of the comments here) 'expendable' element.

Now is threatening an illegal -albeit peaceful- protest the best way to counter that narrative? Probably not. But, again, that's not my beef. However, the anticipation and hope expressed here that some of these demonstrators be gunned down, merely for protesting with their guns, is shameful.

senordesol:
The real question is: what record do we have that makes us suspect the result so quickly and excitedly predicted by those on this board?

A bunch of people who are already angry with authority going into a situation with armed weapons which, due to its flagrant illegality, will lead to a confrontation with the law. History or not, there is absolutely no way you can argue any aspect of that is "safe." Even if nobody intentionally fires a shot, there is a big chance of something "accidentally" happening whilst things are being confiscated and people are being arrested. For people who claim to love their country so much, they sure are willing to put a lot of officers at risk just to very poorly prove a point.

Adam Kokesh: "When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery."

Yah the guy don't seem very.... there you know?

Lilani:

senordesol:
The real question is: what record do we have that makes us suspect the result so quickly and excitedly predicted by those on this board?

A bunch of people who are already angry with authority going into a situation with armed weapons which, due to its flagrant illegality, will lead to a confrontation with the law. History or not, there is absolutely no way you can argue any aspect of that is "safe." Even if nobody intentionally fires a shot, there is a big chance of something "accidentally" happening whilst things are being confiscated and people are being arrested. For people who claim to love their country so much, they sure are willing to put a lot of officers at risk just to very poorly prove a point.

Again, there have been armed demonstrations and illegal demonstrations where NO ONE died. Armed illegal ones? That'll take some research, but I'm fairly certain those have happened as well to the same effect.

Look, all demonstrations exhibit some degree of puffery. And when it comes down to it, when a line of Riot officers stand before you and say "Proceed no further.", unless you are ready to die or go to jail for this demonstration (and I highly doubt anyone is), you shall -indeed- proceed no further.

Also, the idea of a 'Lexington & Concord' situation is too freaking funny. Chances are if anyone shoots first it'll be the officers and -if and when they do- the demonstrators will immediately run or hit the deck. Additionally, given that the weapons will be holstered or backstrapped, anyone attempting to produce one will be immediately spotted and stopped by other demonstrators (who will be well equipped to do so).

The assumption that this can only end in bloodshed is a faulty one, and any desire that it ends in bloodshed is a sick and twisted one. Further the most likely scenario is that some protested show up, march, are stopped, organizer takes a moment to denounce the 'cowardice' of the state, everyone goes home. That's it.

senordesol:
-snip-

I'm sorry, but there is nothing you can say to convince me that creating a situation in which police are forcibly disarming loaded weapons from a large crowd of angry protesters is in any way safe or a good idea for a demonstration. Especially a demonstration which is dedicated to making people feel safer. I don't care who they are or why they're doing it, it's just a terrible idea. Just like walking a pet lion down the street on a leash would be a terrible way to demonstrate that exotic animals can be pets, too much can go wrong, and nothing has to be intentional in order for somebody to get hurt.

senordesol:
-snip-

And there's one more thing I would like to make abundantly clear. I'm not saying the crowd is going to intentionally open fire on officers. Maybe others are, but I'm not, so I'd rather you stop telling me that's what I expect. Because it isn't. What I'm most concerned about is the most logical concern when thinking about a loaded gun being forcibly removed from somebody--the gun going off and hurting somebody.

For that reason alone this is the most ridiculous demonstration I've ever heard of. What do they want? They want a safe country and to abate tyranny. Okay, well if that's the case, why are they intentionally putting officers--other honest citizens of this same country--in such a dangerous situation? The safest course of action would probably be for the officers to leave them alone, but what does that mean? That means a bunch of bullies won out because they were better armed and they intimidated the opposition into not acting against them. Yeah, that's a wonderful anti-tyranny message there. No stones being thrown in this house of glass, no sir.

Lilani:

senordesol:
-snip-

I'm sorry, but there is nothing you can say to convince me that creating a situation in which police are forcibly disarming loaded weapons from a large crowd of angry protesters is in any way safe or a good idea for a demonstration. Especially a demonstration which is dedicated to making people feel safer. I don't care who they are or why they're doing it, it's just a terrible idea. Just like walking a pet lion down the street on a leash would be a terrible way to demonstrate that exotic animals can be pets, too much can go wrong, and nothing has to be intentional in order for somebody to get hurt.

Good thing I never tried to convince you of that, then.

I've not suggested that this was a good idea for a demonstration or even an effective one. My one sticking on this has been that the assumption that this will turn into a blood bath is a faulty assumption, and that the hope for something to go wrong is a sick one.

EDIT:

And there's one more thing I would like to make abundantly clear. I'm not saying the crowd is going to intentionally open fire on officers. Maybe others are, but I'm not, so I'd rather you stop telling me that's what I expect. Because it isn't. What I'm most concerned about is the most logical concern when thinking about a loaded gun being forcibly removed from somebody--the gun going off and hurting somebody.

For that reason alone this is the most ridiculous demonstration I've ever heard of. What do they want? They want a safe country and to abate tyranny. Okay, well if that's the case, why are they intentionally putting officers--other honest citizens of this same country--in such a dangerous situation? The safest course of action would probably be for the officers to leave them alone, but what does that mean? That means a bunch of bullies won out because they were better armed and they intimidated the opposition into not acting against them. Yeah, that's a wonderful anti-tyranny message there. No stones being thrown in this house of glass, no sir.

I never said *you* were the one saying, merely reiterating over, and over, my vehement disagreement and distaste for those who *are* saying it, pairing it with the evidence that this is not how armed protests go in this country.

If you want to talk about whether or not this protest is stupid: fine. But we're not going to get very far, because I happen to agree with you.

senordesol:
I've not suggested that this was a good idea for a demonstration or even an effective one. My one sticking on this has been that the assumption that this will turn into a blood bath is a faulty assumption, and that the hope for something to go wrong is a sick one.

I would call a gun accidentally going off in a crowd and leading to God knows what else to be a blood bath. Again, nothing intentional has to happen in order for people to get hurt. The very fact that they are manufacturing the situation is the risk, not the mental state of the people involved.

senordesol:
I never said *you* were the one saying, merely reiterating over, and over, my vehement disagreement and distaste for those who *are* saying it, pairing it with the evidence that this is not how armed protests go in this country.

If you want to talk about whether or not this protest is stupid: fine. But we're not going to get very far, because I happen to agree with you.

By quoting me and saying it over and over again, you're sort of implying that I am saying it. If I quoted you three times and insisted you should like pickled beets more, would you not assume that I'm saying YOU should like pickled beets and not everyone else who happens to be in the thread?

Though since we seem to agree on the stupidity and (I assume) the extreme unsafeness of the situation they want to create, I guess this should stop.

Lilani:

senordesol:
I've not suggested that this was a good idea for a demonstration or even an effective one. My one sticking on this has been that the assumption that this will turn into a blood bath is a faulty assumption, and that the hope for something to go wrong is a sick one.

I would call a gun accidentally going off in a crowd and leading to God knows what else to be a blood bath. Again, nothing intentional has to happen in order for people to get hurt. The very fact that they are manufacturing the situation is the risk, not the mental state of the people involved.

And that argument would carry itself a little further with me if not for the other scores of armed protests that have proceeded without a hitch. Again, it is the assumption, not the possibility I have a problem with.

Assuming and hoping for a bloodbath = my problem
Admitting the possibility and hoping against an accident occurring = my agreement

Zef Otter:
Adam Kokesh: "When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery."

Yeah the guy doesn't seem very.... there you know?

Yeah you would think he would be the last guy to want to march up directly to the government when he holds the "The government is gonna take all our guns" attitude.

This kind of reminds me of the bonus marches in the early 30's when WW1 vets marched on Washington and well that ended badly with the US Army being called out on the vets led by "blood and guts" Patton.

Lilani:

senordesol:
I never said *you* were the one saying, merely reiterating over, and over, my vehement disagreement and distaste for those who *are* saying it, pairing it with the evidence that this is not how armed protests go in this country.

If you want to talk about whether or not this protest is stupid: fine. But we're not going to get very far, because I happen to agree with you.

By quoting me and saying it over and over again, you're sort of implying that I am saying it. If I quoted you three times and insisted you should like pickled beets more, would you not assume that I'm saying YOU should like pickled beets and not everyone else who happens to be in the thread?

Though since we seem to agree on the stupidity and (I assume) the extreme unsafeness of the situation they want to create, I guess this should stop.

Perhaps we should, yet before that happens you should know that I was quoting you because you were quoting me (Hey, you started it). We were having a conversation, I wasn't picking on you. I kept repeating and clarifying myself because you seemed to be under the impression that I was for the message and method of this protest. This was an impression I needed to correct by stating that while I was not necessarily for the protest itself, I was against those who assumed and hoped it would end in bloodshed.

That's all.

That was my whole point. That when July 4th comes and goes, and the only people who died where the idiots fooling around with fireworks, these assumptions and desires of bloodshed are going to be proven foolish as well as fiendish.

Lilani:

senordesol:
I've not suggested that this was a good idea for a demonstration or even an effective one. My one sticking on this has been that the assumption that this will turn into a blood bath is a faulty assumption, and that the hope for something to go wrong is a sick one.

I would call a gun accidentally going off in a crowd and leading to God knows what else to be a blood bath. Again, nothing intentional has to happen in order for people to get hurt. The very fact that they are manufacturing the situation is the risk, not the mental state of the people involved.

I would think that the police would be disciplined enough to not to open fire on the protestors if there is an accidental discharge. However, something like that occurring will probably mean that the police will have to move into the crowd and start detaining people. If that happen they will require the protestors involved to surrender their guns. Not sure how that would play out in a group that prides itself on the fact that they are willing to shoot cops who try to take their guns away.

This type of protest can remain peaceful if both sides maintain discipline and do not act in an overly threatening matter.

xDarc:

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?

See ive never understood this. Its so... bizarre.

You see in the rest of the world we all have rights too. But they are not given to us JUST because we wrote them down and declared that piece of paper, and EVERYTHING on it, infallible and perfect. Forever. And then proceeded to worship that ancient paper with a fervency to rival any fundamentalist christian. We have them because we decided, fluidly over thousands of years as a nation, what rights a person should and shouldnt have. And with an evolving world of medicine and weapons its important to keep asking these questions in mind. We changed our nations fundamental rights in the last decade to allow open healthcare for all. Im pretty happy for it.

Some Americans seem to piss themselves and weep at the idea that their infallible bit of paper is even for a moment doubted on any level because without it, well its just absolute anarchy everywhere all the time. Without the bit of paper, no one has rights and up is down. Murder is legal. Baby blood restores vision to the blind. Its exceptionally odd. Like really freaking odd. The entirety of Europe gets on fine without a sacred bit of paper and i dont understand why its important to keep yours, ALL of yours, in tact as if changing a single thing invalidates all of it. It doesnt. And lets face it, youre true left too like me, the idea we should reject change just because its change is a pretty anti liberal idea. Its so freaking bizarre and i think your rights are worth a lot less than mine because of it. I get my rights because the government knows i deserve them and doesnt WANT to remove mine and knows if they did we would vote them out or riot so goddam fast. You get yours because a bit of paper has been declared, in effect, infallible and flawless (which is ALWAYS a thing that leads to disaster in general). It seems a little backwards.

It also allows for "But the document says so!" as an argument which is utter bullshit. You need better justifications than pointing at the infallible paper and saying its written on it.

BiscuitTrouser:

xDarc:

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?

See ive never understood this. Its so... bizarre.

You see in the rest of the world we all have rights too. But they are not given to us JUST because we wrote them down and declared that piece of paper, and EVERYTHING on it, infallible and perfect. Forever. And then proceeded to worship that ancient paper with a fervency to rival any fundamentalist christian. We have them because we decided, fluidly over thousands of years as a nation, what rights a person should and shouldnt have. And with an evolving world of medicine and weapons its important to keep asking these questions in mind. We changed our nations fundamental rights in the last decade to allow open healthcare for all. Im pretty happy for it.

Some Americans seem to piss themselves and weep at the idea that their infallible bit of paper is even for a moment doubted on any level because without it, well its just absolute anarchy everywhere all the time. Without the bit of paper, no one has rights and up is down. Murder is legal. Baby blood restores vision to the blind. Its exceptionally odd. Like really freaking odd. The entirety of Europe gets on fine without a sacred bit of paper and i dont understand why its important to keep yours, ALL of yours, in tact as if changing a single thing invalidates all of it. It doesnt. And lets face it, youre true left too like me, the idea we should reject change just because its change is a pretty anti liberal idea. Its so freaking bizarre and i think your rights are worth a lot less than mine because of it. I get my rights because the government knows i deserve them and doesnt WANT to remove mine and knows if they did we would vote them out or riot so goddam fast. You get yours because a bit of paper has been declared, in effect, infallible and flawless (which is ALWAYS a thing that leads to disaster in general). It seems a little backwards.

It also allows for "But the document says so!" as an argument which is utter bullshit. You need better justifications than pointing at the infallible paper and saying its written on it.

The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is more than a bit of legalese. It is an agreement that our government will limit its power, and affirm the rights of its people to be free. There is always intense debate when the Constitution stands to be amended but to have an amendment that would invalidate a piece of the Bill of Rights -the document that says the good, law abiding people are to have these things no matter what- is unprecedented.

Skeleon:

xDarc:
I can't recall how many pictures I've seen of Black Panthers walking around with guns in cities, but it's a lot.

Were the Black Panthers carrying guns in DC, though? In the gun free zones? And did they march with their guns to the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court in a display of intimidation? "In cities" =/= Washington DC.

Not in DC, but they sure did that shit in Sacramento, the Capital of California. They just walked in with a bunch of shotguns and rifles, took a whole bunch of pictures too. If I recall, nothing to unkosher happened besides a bunch of really nervous politicians. Some say thats where California's ridiculous gun laws stemmed from.

I support the right to own firearms.

I support the right to carry those firearms on your person.

I also think this group is a bunch of morons.

Becoming a felon, or getting shot by the police is only going to hurt gun rights, if nothing else that is 10,000 people who will not be allowed to vote on the issue anymore.

Unless they all are trying this as some attempt to force the Supreme Court to decide on the right to Open Carry, but they could easily side with DC in that case.

senordesol:

The real question is: what record do we have that makes us suspect the result so quickly and excitedly predicted by those on this board?

Let's see...well the peaceful protest is a fairly recent invention - historically speaking, so I guess it's unfair to look too far back in time here, so we're looking at a 20th Century+ view.

March 1968, Anti-Vietnam Demonstration in London turns violent. 86 injured, 50 hospitalized. Mood noted to be good humored until protestors marched on the US Embassy, leading to conflict with the police when the protestors refused to back off and forced their way into a section the police had blocked off.

May 1969, Greensboro Uprising, in response to a perceived civil right issue at a segregated highschool, students rose up in protest, eventually leading to violent confrontation between them, the police and the National Guard. One killed, and at least a dozen injured.

May 1970, Students at Kent State University gather in protest of President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. 4 killed, 8 injured. 450 campuses closed shortly after due to both violent and nonviolent protests in direct response to the incident, with a particularly famous rallying cry resulting from it being "They can't kill us all". Five days after the event, 100,000 marched on Washington in response to the event, "smashing windows, slashing tires, dragging parked cars into intersections, even throwing bedsprings off overpasses into the traffic down below".

Related to the above, the Jackson State Killings, which occurred 11 days after the Kent State Shootings. 2 students killed, 12 injured.

Mind you, in none of the above were the protestors actually armed and I'm limiting this to a few recognizable tragedies wherein people actually died.

Is this to say that there definitely will be blood? No. In fact nothing would make me happier right now than to see the day go by without incident. However, given the rhetoric** used by those orchestrating this, the fact that they are deliberately avoiding the proper channels and the fact that they are armed with loaded weapons and marching directly by Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House with anywhere from a regiment to a division's worth of protestors (Assuming few more than those already listed as 'attending' actually participate and they reach their 10000 goal, respectively), it seems to me that tensions are going to be very high and the chance of violence similarly higher than normal.

This isn't just "oh they have guns, they're going to kill someone" as far as I'm concerned. This is "They're deliberately breaking the law. They've got more than enough people for mob mentality to kick in. They've got more than enough people to make the police nervous. They are being told that they are opposing a tyrannical regime. They are being told that attacking the government would be a virtue. AND they are being told to bring loaded guns. That is NOT a good combination." Does this mean violence will break out? Again, no. But the situation definitely seems like a powderkeg ready to blow if a spark hits it, at least more so than most peaceful protests.

**For the sake of illustration, here are a few statements from Kokesh over the last few days:

This is now a call for mass civil disobedience on July 4th anywhere in Washington, DC. Break whatever unconstitutional law you choose. "Law Enforcement" has made it clear they have no respect for the Constitution and so we will shut them down by overwhelming them. I will still be crossing the line on the Memorial Bridge and facing up to 5 years in jail.

(Kokesh, Facebook, May 8, 2013)

If the Troops Were Defending Freedom, They'd Be Attacking the Government.

(Kokesh, Twitter, May 7, 2013)

When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery.

(Kokesh, Twitter, May 3, 2013)

Now, call me crazy, but I don't think that those lines exactly foster the peaceful attitude Kokesh maintains that this protest will have.

Edit: Somehow missed that my final line was incomplete. Whoops.

Asita:
snip

The "rhetoric" you provided, while I can understand how it can be alarming in certain context, is not all that surprising, revolutionary or disturbing.

You'll get talk like that all day every, day on KSFO (who have led bloodless armed demonstrations as well). And that's what it is: talk.

Again, my beef is with those expecting or hoping for bloodshed. I just don't see that happening. He's being a prick about it, but Kokesh has agreed to 'work with' law enforcement and has encouraged his demonstrators to turn around if they're impeded, to submit to arrest if it comes to that, and to not endanger anybody.

This is nothing that the TEA Party didn't already do (and those were dull as well).

Instead of walking from VA they should walk from Maryland through the burbs. There they will find a bunch of people that also adhere to similar beliefs towards gun ownership and restrictive gun laws. And hey might actually add some color to the whole protest.

Can the Memorial Bridge even withstand 10,000 people marching across it in unison?

I know it was designed to withstand more weight than 10,000 people, but funny things can happen to bridges with the vibrations caused by lots of pairs of feet stepping on and off the bridge simultaneously, not to mention the lateral movement caused by each person's natural sway, which will increase as they subconsciously compensate for the swaying of the bridge.

The Albert Bridge in London had a ruling that ordered marching soldiers to break step because of the effect their marching had on the bridge, so lets hope this march on Washington is conducted with less than military precession, otherwise there could be a disaster of an entirely different nature than expected.

senordesol:
Snip

Thousands of wanna-be patriot fanatics marching straight in against the Washington law enforcement armed with guns and ammunition.

.... I'll wait a minute for that to sink in.

How can we count on this 'not' going wrong?

Incase you hope for a calm soul of a leader to calm down his followers, here's a statement from him -

Adam Kokesh: "When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery."

I'll hope nothing goes wrong.

Jamash:
Can the Memorial Bridge even withstand 10,000 people marching across it in unison?

I know it was designed to withstand more weight than 10,000 people, but funny things can happen to bridges with the vibrations caused by lots of pairs of feet stepping on and off the bridge simultaneously, not to mention the lateral movement caused by each person's natural sway, which will increase as they subconsciously compensate for the swaying of the bridge.

The Albert Bridge in London had a ruling that ordered marching soldiers to break step because of the effect their marching had on the bridge, so lets hope this march on Washington is conducted with less than military precession, otherwise there could be a disaster of an entirely different nature than expected.

I seriously doubt that he intends to literally march anywhere. Its a general term for any kind of protest involving walking around places.

dmase:
Instead of walking from VA they should walk from Maryland through the burbs. There they will find a bunch of people that also adhere to similar beliefs towards gun ownership and restrictive gun laws. And they might actually add some color to the whole protest.

I think adding people of color to an armed protest is the last thing you want to do. Especially if you might run into any cops along the way.

And heaven forbid if they're wearing hoodies too.

The fact that this is probably going to be 99.9% white guys is the only thing thats going to keep it from getting ugly.

(note that this is nothing against any people of color that might attend. It's just..Cops + guns + not-white people isn't exactly the greatest combination of things)

A hilariously stupid idea. Protesting fear and intimidation by trying to intimidate? Lolwut? I think it was already mentioned somewhere earlier, Americans are less concerned with 'protecting freedom' with guns than they are protecting their guns. I'm willing to bet you could erode every other civil right to the point of the US being a hardcore authoritarian state and most gunowners wouldn't bat an eye so long as they got to keep their guns. A security blanket so far as I'm concerned.

BiscuitTrouser:

xDarc:

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?

See ive never understood this. Its so... bizarre.

...

I get my rights because the government knows i deserve them and doesnt WANT to remove mine and knows if they did we would vote them out or riot so goddam fast.

The UK has been taking your rights away for years. Torrent sites are censored, your speech is regulated, and not just hate speech or harassing speech or any other number of things that could fall arbitrarily under the law- but you have some of the worst libel laws in the world to shut people up with lawsuits. There's also the cameras up the wazoo and complete lack of privacy.

I know you won't think it's that big a deal, but on the surface it's less freedom than Americans could conceivably enjoy- but in America, the oppression is much more sophisticated and has more to do with a market society and income inequality... You see, in America- we never tell people you can't say that; but if you're too poor no one cares what you say anyway... so what are you gonna say except, I guess the system works? lol.

On the surface level though, on paper, you are less free than I am. Whether or not that is true is very complicated by design.

thaluikhain:

Witty Name Here:
This may sound cynical of me, but I'm almost worried someone will go to the protest just so they can be the one to fire the next "shot heard 'round the world"

If this protest devolves into violence, and I mean major violence, I can either see a new quickly put down "civil war" occurring (similar to the "Whiskey Rebellion" in a sense) or the backlash from gun protesters pretty much attempting to sack a city like medieval vikings will lead to the harshest gun laws yet.

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?

Yea, because putting loaded weapons in the hands of former marines in crowds has always been a fucking great idea.

I sure hope there arent any clock towers in DC.

Jayemsal:

thaluikhain:

Witty Name Here:
This may sound cynical of me, but I'm almost worried someone will go to the protest just so they can be the one to fire the next "shot heard 'round the world"

If this protest devolves into violence, and I mean major violence, I can either see a new quickly put down "civil war" occurring (similar to the "Whiskey Rebellion" in a sense) or the backlash from gun protesters pretty much attempting to sack a city like medieval vikings will lead to the harshest gun laws yet.

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?

Yea, because putting loaded weapons in the hands of former marines in crowds has always been a fucking great idea.

I sure hope there arent any clock towers in DC.

IIRC, if a marine gets an honourable discharge, they are a retired or veteran marine. If they get a dishonourable discharge, they are a former marine, and the former don't like being called the alter, for obvious reasons.

Do I support Mr. Kokesh's ideas on the Second Amendment? Yes. Should he be able to protest in D.C.? Yes. Armed? Only if he knows the people he's with and he is taking the highest precautions possible. Maybe have a practice march in Texas just so they know exactly what their doing. If anything goes wrong, I'll be one of the first to know. I live right outside of D.C. and I'll probably hear the gunshots. Most likely he and his followers will be stopped and the bridge and be disarmed there to avoid any action in D.C.

undeadsuitor:

dmase:
Instead of walking from VA they should walk from Maryland through the burbs. There they will find a bunch of people that also adhere to similar beliefs towards gun ownership and restrictive gun laws. And they might actually add some color to the whole protest.

I think adding people of color to an armed protest is the last thing you want to do. Especially if you might run into any cops along the way.

And heaven forbid if they're wearing hoodies too.

The fact that this is probably going to be 99.9% white guys is the only thing thats going to keep it from getting ugly.

(note that this is nothing against any people of color that might attend. It's just..Cops + guns + not-white people isn't exactly the greatest combination of things)

I'm actually joking about this all white protest going through one of the most dangerous areas in the US. Not a single person of color would join them however I could see this group getting shot at walking through those neighborhoods, through the former murder capital of the US.

Just me making a statement about a gun rights march in a city that has in past decades suffered from epidemic gun violence.

xDarc:

BiscuitTrouser:

xDarc:

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?

See ive never understood this. Its so... bizarre.

...

I get my rights because the government knows i deserve them and doesnt WANT to remove mine and knows if they did we would vote them out or riot so goddam fast.

The UK has been taking your rights away for years. Torrent sites are censored, your speech is regulated, and not just hate speech or harassing speech or any other number of things that could fall arbitrarily under the law- but you have some of the worst libel laws in the world to shut people up with lawsuits. There's also the cameras up the wazoo and complete lack of privacy.

I know you won't think it's that big a deal, but on the surface it's less freedom than Americans could conceivably enjoy- but in America, the oppression is much more sophisticated and has more to do with a market society and income inequality... You see, in America- we never tell people you can't say that; but if you're too poor no one cares what you say anyway... so what are you gonna say except, I guess the system works? lol.

On the surface level though, on paper, you are less free than I am. Whether or not that is true is very complicated by design.

Well let's see;

Torrent sites are getting fucked mostly by America, since it's their corporations who are launching lawsuits up the wazoo to stop people from sharing copyright material, and it's the American government who is putting pressure on other countries to cave into corporate pressure.

Speech is regulated everywhere; just because you can say something doesn't mean you are protected from the consequences of that speech. If you yelled fire in a movie theare you will get arrested for it, you can get arrested for violating gag orders, etc. etc. etc.

There's hardly a lack of privacy when you're in a public area. All the cameras do is add one more set of eyes in a location where you can have dozens looking at you, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy whilst in public.

xDarc:
There's also the cameras up the wazoo and complete lack of privacy.

I under understood this grievance. Like...yeah, and? So what? Are you honestly so arrogant that you think there are hundreds of thousands of people watching video banks and tracking individuals like a bunch of private investigators? The government has better ways to be spending their time. The only reason they'll ever even bother to look at that footage is if something illegal happens.

Or are you worried about the government tracking you as an individual? That's also rather presumptuous, but even given you are that important to them and they want to track you between Starbucks and work do you honestly think a lack of cameras is going to prevent them from investigating you? With the kind of resources they have? Please. I don't get this "big brother is watching me" paranoia. Even if you are the most important peon out of millions of peons, you think a few cameras are your biggest threat? Last time I saw this type of argument, the person was saying they only voted in booths with curtains because they were afraid the government was going to smite them with lightning or something if they voted for the "wrong person." But seriously, if the government were to go around punishing people for who they vote for, do you think they're going to let a curtain thwart them? It's just so naive, and I thought people who were this paranoid were supposed to have thought of every possibility.

So, yeah. I don't get it. When you're in public, that sort of means you've opted to sacrifice a bit of privacy anyway. And fuck, if a few cameras around makes it easier to identify somebody who might try to mug or rape me, I say let 'em watch.

xDarc:

BiscuitTrouser:
[quote="xDarc" post="528.407475.17000055"]
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?

Snip

You can still say whatever you want, you just have to suffer the consequences for it.

Also, what he said was that if they had removed rights to a degree in which people would object, they would have been voted out.

The reasons for the hundreds of countries with slightly-very different rights from the US in the West have not had such politicians voted out immediately, is that often people -agree- with these changes. Having certain things be rights is not always superior to the contrary.

Freedom of Speech is the certain issue that gets a lot of attention on this, in the US the pastor whom commited an action protected by free speech resulting in two dozen deaths in the middle-east went unpunished, in Europe he would have gotten jail-time.

Your freedom of speech is/should end at what will inevitably bring harm to others. Using your freedoms to limitt the freedoms of others is not a -right- and it most certainly should be illegal.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked