Adam Kokesh plans July 4th Gun March on DC w/ loaded guns..

[piasabird]

I think the .30 carbine was considered a military weapon.

 

[Fern]

Well, if this happens I hope it's televised. I intend to watch.

Fern

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Well, if this happens I hope it's televised. I intend to watch.

Fern

Guaranteed to be more entertaining than Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

He said:

No, it actually wouldn't start there. But given his allegiance to the Violence Policy Center it would certainly serve his purposes for it to start there.

It would, as it relates to the sale of military weapons to American civilians, which is what he's talking about. I understand you don't agree with the Violence Policy Center, but I fail to see how this kind of semantic argument moves the ball in your direction at all.

 

[Doppel]

Pretty obvious that, as mentioned, if this happens, there will just be some cops on the border with DC advising that they will arrest people. At this point maybe a few people cross, but most don't and that's that.

 

[zinfamous]

An armed group of people marching on DC would be like Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his army. Congress would go into a panic.

And Caesar was rightfully murdered for turning Rome into an Imperial dictatorship.

 

[zinfamous]

Tell me why we have the right to keep and bear arms?

apparently because you think you have the right to aim a gun at a police officer if you disagree with them doing their job?


...that's basically what you are suggesting, here.

 

[irishScott]

It would, as it relates to the sale of military weapons to American civilians, which is what he's talking about. I understand you don't agree with the Violence Policy Center, but I fail to see how this kind of semantic argument moves the ball in your direction at all.

Oh right, I forgot we're using the co-opted definition of "assault weapon" now.

 

[irishScott]

Fine. It's about the same price as .45 long colt which is what I would consider to be a popular carbine round due to cowboy action shooting.

http://ammoman.com/45-colt

My point is, it's not as expensive or rare as people think.

No, but it's more expensive and more rare than a lot of calibers you can buy. Criminals typically don't spring for the top shelf. If they wanted a semi-automatic rifle, they could pick up a used AK for cheaper, with more effective and less expensive ammunition, as well as a wider variety of accessories if they really wanted.

Buying an M1-carbine to commit a crime just doesn't make sense. It's too big to readily conceal on one's person and more expensive and less powerful than other offerings of similar size.

 

[irishScott]

Well, if this happens I hope it's televised. I intend to watch.

Fern

I doubt it. When was the last time a pro-2nd amendment protest was televised?

 

[Absolution75]

I doubt it. When was the last time a pro-2nd amendment protest was televised in a positive fashion?

fixed

 

[berzerker60]

When was the last time ANY protest was televised in a positive fashion?

 

[highland145]

And Caesar was rightfully murdered for turning Rome into an Imperial dictatorship.

Nice. Could have sworn you were a leftie except for Moms and Dad.

 

[zinfamous]

Nice. Could have sworn you were a leftie except for Moms and Dad.

silly south carolinian, there are no lefties in the USA.

 

[Screech]

This sounds like one of those things called a "bad idea".


....doesn't mean I wouldn't watch on tv, though....

 

[CitizenKain]

So a half dozen fat guys will show up, and then instantly run home after wetting themselves.

 

[Steeplerot]

Just think...one drone strike and the collective average pen0r size of the USA goes up by at least 3 inches!

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Agent Provocateurs, ASSEMBLE!!!

 

[BrayD]

I see a lot of people saying how this is illegal and would end badly for those involved. I don't see that at all. I see this as a 1st Amendment issue more than anything. This is a group of people who wish to express themselves peacefully while carrying a firearm. The firearms themselves is the form of speech in this instance, not the voices of those marching. While openly carrying a loaded firearm may be illegal where they wish to protest, freedom of speech is not. This is clearly a political protest protected by the Constitution.

I believe that if this does take place and the police step in and arrest those involved, this would end up in courts as a 1st Amendment issue rather than a 2nd Amendment issue. I believe it would also set a precedent that expands 1st Amendment protections.

Do not let your opinions of the 2nd Amendment restrict the freedom of others to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, it will only end negatively for ALL Americans.

Edit: May I also add that at one point there was lawful segregation on buses in a little town in Alabama. That is, until a lady named Rosa Parks broke that law in a form of protest. Is there any form of legal racial segregation in the US today? Sometimes unjust laws need to be broken in order for freedom to prevail.

 

[brycejones]

So a half dozen fat guys will show up, and then instantly run home after wetting themselves.

Why you have talk about the dc police that way?

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

I see a lot of people saying how this is illegal and would end badly for those involved. I don't see that at all. I see this as a 1st Amendment issue more than anything. This is a group of people who wish to express themselves peacefully while carrying a firearm. The firearms themselves is the form of speech in this instance, not the voices of those marching. While openly carrying a loaded firearm may be illegal where they wish to protest, freedom of speech is not. This is clearly a political protest protected by the Constitution.

I believe that if this does take place and the police step in and arrest those involved, this would end up in courts as a 1st Amendment issue rather than a 2nd Amendment issue. I believe it would also set a precedent that expands 1st Amendment protections.

Do not let your opinions of the 2nd Amendment restrict the freedom of others to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, it will only end negatively for ALL Americans.

Edit: May I also add that at one point there was lawful segregation on buses in a little town in Alabama. That is, until a lady named Rosa Parks broke that law in a form of protest. Is there any form of legal racial segregation in the US today? Sometimes unjust laws need to be broken in order for freedom to prevail.

It IS illegal. That's not opinion, that's fact. Open carry in DC is illegal. Unregistered guns in DC are illegal and the hi-cap mags that some would undoubtedly have are illegal. Now saying the laws are unjust is an opinion. It also happens to be an opinion that I agree with.

Imagine how your Rosa Parks example would have turned out had she been packing a heater. I guarantee she would be thought of as a crazy nutter instead of the civil rights hero that she is today.

They would be better off getting 10,000 people to march on DC with empty holsters as a sign of protest. Getting 10,000 people to march on the nations capitol with loaded guns does not strike me as a peaceful protest.

They WILL be arrested for committing crimes. With heated tempers and AR-15's on both sides, someone is bound to get hurt.

Edit: I also want to add a note about Kent State. That was a horrible incident, but imagine what would have happened had the protesters started to fire back. That would have turned into an even bigger blood bath than it already was. And honestly, as bad of a situation as it was, it helped gain a lot of traction for the anti-war movement as the peaceful (unarmed) protesters were gunned down by overzealous National Guard.

 

[BrayD]

It IS illegal. That's not opinion, that's fact. Open carry in DC is illegal. Unregistered guns in DC are illegal and the hi-cap mags that some would undoubtedly have are illegal. Now saying the laws are unjust is an opinion. It also happens to be an opinion that I agree with.

Imagine how your Rosa Parks example would have turned out had she been packing a heater. I guarantee she would be thought of as a crazy nutter instead of the civil rights hero that she is today.

They would be better off getting 10,000 people to march on DC with empty holsters as a sign of protest. Getting 10,000 people to march on the nations capitol with loaded guns does not strike me as a peaceful protest.

They WILL be arrested for committing crimes. With heated tempers and AR-15's on both sides, someone is bound to get hurt.

Edit: I also want to add a note about Kent State. That was a horrible incident, but imagine what would have happened had the protesters started to fire back. That would have turned into an even bigger blood bath than it already was. And honestly, as bad of a situation as it was, it helped gain a lot of traction for the anti-war movement as the peaceful (unarmed) protesters were gunned down by overzealous National Guard.

I never once said that it isn't illegal to carry like that. I was stating that political protest is protected by the Constitution. That is fact.

Now, these people are clearly establishing this is a protest. Again, protest is a form of speech. LEGAL. These people's form of speech is the firearm they are carrying. So while I do not agree with any regular schmoe walking around packing like that in an area that where its illegal (though I do believe it should be legal), this is an organized protest. It is very different when one guy is doing it to be an ass, as compared to thousands of people protesting.

So like I said before, I believe this is a 1st Amendment issue rather than a 2nd Amendment issue. In my opinion, preventing this will be an infringement upon their 1st Amendment rights. While I do not agree with how they are protesting, I support their right to protest in this manner.

I am not trying to debate the legalities of the 2nd Amendment in various States. I am trying to debate whether this is a form speech and if it is allowed under the 1st Amendment. I see the firearm as the expression and I believe that it should be allowed.

 

[berzerker60]

Not all political protests are created equal. Assassination of a public figure could be argued as "political protest," and that's not allowed. Violence can be a "form of speech." Or if your problem is with it just being one person, is a mob lynching better?

Hell, even a non-violent blockade of DC streets to protest taxation without representation leads to arrests and is immediately broken up. That's a good cause without violence, but still gets broken up almost immediately.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Not all political protests are created equal. Assassination of a public figure could be argued as "political protest," and that's not allowed. Violence can be a "form of speech." Or if your problem is with it just being one person, is a mob lynching better?

Hell, even a non-violent blockade of DC streets to protest taxation without representation leads to arrests and is immediately broken up. That's a good cause without violence, but still gets broken up almost immediately.

This.

Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are limits to free speech. You can't commit a felony and try to hide behind the first amendment.

 

[BrayD]

Not all political protests are created equal. Assassination of a public figure could be argued as "political protest," and that's not allowed. Violence can be a "form of speech." Or if your problem is with it just being one person, is a mob lynching better?

Hell, even a non-violent blockade of DC streets to protest taxation without representation leads to arrests and is immediately broken up. That's a good cause without violence, but still gets broken up almost immediately.

Umm, ok. Assassination is murder, not protest. You are denying the rights of another by taking their life. That is where protest ends and crime begins. That is something I do not support.

While it can be argued that violence is a form of speech, again, it is something that denies the rights of others. The 1st Amendment does not allow one to infringe upon the rights of another, It merely lets you express yourself. That is what these people are doing. They are expressing themselves in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of others or damage property.

This.

Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are limits to free speech. You can't commit a felony and try to hide behind the first amendment.

Again, this infringes upon the rights of others. That is something I do not support. Yelling fire when there is no fire is a fraudulent statement that creates immediate panic and puts others in danger, something the 1st Amendment does not protect. Just like you cannot knowingly make false statements about another person.

Tell me, how does marching in a peaceful manner infringe upon the rights of others?