Armed March on DC on July 4th
puremagic
Posts: 1,907
Armed March on DC- REASON- Someone has to die to validate the NRA
Adam Kokesh --This will be a non-violent event “unless the government chooses to make it violent.” Really!!!, that’s like Philly fans going to a Redskin football game with the intent to enjoy the game unless they see anyone in a Redskin jersey. They’re not looking for a fight, they are going there to fight.
This isn’t about the 2nd Amendment, it’s about a fanatic group of people being lead by a radical person looking for a fight.
Sadly, the NRA needs a Killing event, and, just like the thinking of the Boston terrorists, what bigger event than the 4th July celebration in DC to create the perfect Killing Field. The bloodshed would become the NRA’s rallying cry against the government to be memorialize year-after-year. More importantly it would serve as political marker against any future gun control talks.
To the Rolling Thunder, you are an awe inspiring, breathtaking sight that makes people remember that we must take the time to look behind the Flag that covers thousands of US coffins. The reasons must be just and not self-serving, the honor true and not self-professed or manipulated. Please do not support Kokesh’s march.
Adam Kokesh --This will be a non-violent event “unless the government chooses to make it violent.” Really!!!, that’s like Philly fans going to a Redskin football game with the intent to enjoy the game unless they see anyone in a Redskin jersey. They’re not looking for a fight, they are going there to fight.
This isn’t about the 2nd Amendment, it’s about a fanatic group of people being lead by a radical person looking for a fight.
Sadly, the NRA needs a Killing event, and, just like the thinking of the Boston terrorists, what bigger event than the 4th July celebration in DC to create the perfect Killing Field. The bloodshed would become the NRA’s rallying cry against the government to be memorialize year-after-year. More importantly it would serve as political marker against any future gun control talks.
To the Rolling Thunder, you are an awe inspiring, breathtaking sight that makes people remember that we must take the time to look behind the Flag that covers thousands of US coffins. The reasons must be just and not self-serving, the honor true and not self-professed or manipulated. Please do not support Kokesh’s march.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Could be a money maker the local jails.
Do not issue a permit to march on the grounds that there is not enough security to ensure public safety due to Federal Budget cuts.
Case closed. Problem solved.
...
You're welcome.
Hail, Hail!!!
No loaded guns allowed within city limits.
Not hard to understand. March armed with a sign only.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and by funny i mean stupid
"I need a permit to raft on the river?"
Permits. Lol.
I think this is a bad idea, as much as he should have the right to do so. Kokesh is an Alex jones-lite.
https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/
A few paragraphs worth highlighting:
"This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free."
"There's a remote chance that there will be violence as there has been from government before, and I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting. We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."
To me, the 2nd paragraph sounds like legitimate civil disobedience.
It is also worth noting that Adam is not a fan of the NRA. He falls much more in line with the platform of Gun Owners of America.
His entire ideology is 100% non-violence by advocating a completely voluntary, stateless society. It's hard to imagine currently but technology may allow it to be possible someday. For every pro-gun rally this guy has been to, he has been to countless others that have denounced war and central banking. He's fought in favor of pro-cannabis legalization (because throwing people in cages to sell or smoke a plant, destroy families, and taking money from the rest of us to pay for it is certainly violent and a dumb idea). He has fought against intellectual property, which probably has cornered profits for major corporations and has stifled competition in all means of production from fuel to food... to think, how different this world might look if ideas were allowed to flow as freely in practice as they are in our minds... I don't think he's an Alex Jones light. I do think they have a lot in common, but Adam is much more civil, calm, level-headed, less prone to wild assumptions about the motives of "the elite," and much more focused on ridding our lives of force and coercion. I think he's very well versed in debate, and have never seen him not be able to hold his own against anyone in a reasonable discussion.
Do I think this a great idea? Eh... It probably will turn out to be a non-event. I'm sure there will be numbers, but they're probably just going to turn right around when they meet an entire wall of federal officials entering DC. I also think it would be very easy to either attract a legitimate crazy person with a gun to this event, or an agent provocateur posing as a protester. This is a great way for the DHS to have several thousand "militia types" that they're so worried about all in one spot. The best way to make the participants in this event look totally crazy would be to leave them alone.
It all depends... are you going to have 2,999 other people on that raft?
...
When do you need a permit?
Protests of 25 people or more on the National Mall require a permit, as does any event that requires streets to be closed. The Metropolitan Police, because they lost an important court case, are required to allow permit-less marches in the street as long as they stay within a single lane. Demonstrations on public sidewalks are legally permissable without a permit so long as they don't block the walkway and fewer than 100 people are expected. If expecting more than 100 people, you can find the permit application at the Metropolitan Police Department's Special Operations Division Page. Sidewalks are supposedly public property, but some activists have experienced severe police harassment for protesting outside of private businesses.
Hail, Hail!!!
They need to stop hiding behind the word ‘government’ to justify criminal actions. Kokesh and his followers know the VA/DC laws, ok.
So, in all FAIRNESS, to the thousands of visitors on the streets of DC for the 4th of July events, given Kokesh’s ‘SUBTLEST’ call for kill or be killed,
--Do you believe Kokesh’s ideology will allow him and his followers to surrender their weapons to the so-called government?
This sounds a lot like a publicity stunt for someone looking to get his name out there in order to land a book deal and parlay it into an on-air job with FOX News.
Hail, Hail!!!
Maybe their actions are not "criminal" as you put it-- it all depends on interpretation of the law. If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, does it not super-cede local governance in the city of DC, if the second amendment is to be taken literally? I would also say that the first amendment does not require them to get any permits to protest either. Maybe the city of DC is in the wrong for writing laws that according to one interpretation of the Supreme Law, shall not ever be written. If those principles are out-dated or no longer apply, then it is time to amend the Constitution dictating local governance to prevail in the cases of protecting oneself, and freedom of expression. This is all about the law and what the law actually permits. Which law prevails? The federal law that pretty much stated no restrictions on guns and protesting shall ever be written, or the local law which does exactly the opposite?
Does it even matter? In the end, which side wins? The side with the biggest guns who is willing to use them.
The people participating in this protest here see any prohibition of guns as unjust. Civil disobedience is all about disobeying unjust laws, with full knowledge of those "laws" intentionally. Just because someone breaks a law, does that make it "criminal" in every case? If 2 gay people decide to marry in a state that doesn't permit it, are they criminals? Let's say someone smokes a joint, putting THC and smoke into their own body, and no one else's, chills out, plays guitar and eats nachos... are they a Criminal? Shouldn't criminality be limited to acts that directly infringe on others' life and/or property? Why not limit criminal behavior to: murder, assault, rape, vandalism, theft, fraud, extortion and coercion? While carrying loading guns can certainly appear threatening to some, who is being hurt unless one of them are used? If the police and other officials decide to draw their weapons and use them to neutralize an otherwise peaceful march, who is acting "criminally" at that point? There's the irony. The state, and only the state has a monopoly on force against others, and that can be a very dangerous thing.
And to answer your last question, if they were to take this protest to the Gandhi level, which is what I hope they do, they probably would have to surrender their weapons, and certainly risk arrest. Last year Kokesh got arrested for dancing with his headphones on at The Jefferson Memorial, pointing out the absurdity of some of the "law enforcement" in DC. This activity is much riskier, of course.
Again, I'm not even saying I agree with this move or this protest. I do agree with the sentiment, and would like to think that there's probably a better way to make this point. I have followed Kokesh for a while. I do believe he's more than just someone after a book deal. I don't see any references to "kill or be killed," as part of the reason for doing this march. I do feel like I understand where he is coming from here, and not just on this issue, but on many issues.
People fear guns, people with guns, and gun violence, but then beg for guns, people with guns, and gun violence to stop it from happening. The single greatest thing the government can actually do to stop the slaughter of innocent people with guns and other weapons would be to END WAR. Don't see that happening any time soon, do you?
The Supreme Court and subsequent federal court decisions did not take away from the States or DC the RIGHT of the individual STATES and DC to establish a gun policy within their respective States for their respective citizens. Policies vary from State to State as is their Right.
You can check some of my prior posting, I’m gun owner, I understand your sentiment, and I get it. When I’m on I-10, I-40, I-25 or I-17, I get it even more. Yet, I respect each State’s right to set their own gun policy and not have the federal government have to issue a federal policy for the entire Nation to follow and that is the path Kokesh and his followers is walking.
It’s like you smoking in a non-smoker’s home and telling them to deal with it, because it’s a free country. Yes, it’s a free country but that property owner has individual rights, just like the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Kokesh and his followers would be committing a criminal act, and, the only beneficiary will be the NRA because no STATE is going to give up its Rights and let the federal government dictate its gun policy. If Congress steps in to force DC to change its gun policy then Congress, in effect, opens the door for a renewed challenge on the constitutionality of the overall gun laws which could, again, lead to another long battle over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.