Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles[W:63: W411]

[Bigfoot 88]

A march on Washington with loaded rifles - Salon.com

Let's see if D.C. initiates violence on the peaceful group, simply exercising their 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Very BAD and crazy idea. It's that kind of lunacy that gives law abiding gun owners a bad name. All they will accomplish is getting charged with a felony and losing the right in the process to even own a gun.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Very BAD and crazy idea. It's that kind of lunacy that gives law abiding gun owners a bad name. All they will accomplish is getting charged with a felony and losing the right in the process to even own a gun.

We have the right to bear arms. How the heck is it acceptable to have a law that prohibits that?

 

[Goshin]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Not a good idea. He will be met at the line between DC and VA by a whole lotta armed police and agents, and the potential for someone to do something stupid is way too real.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

We have the right to bear arms. How the heck is it acceptable to have a law that prohibits that?

IMO it is NOT acceptible that US Citizens cannot go armed into the District of Columbia, home of our federal government.... but this is not a good way to go about making that point IMO. Too much potential for disaster.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

We have the right to bear arms. How the heck is it acceptable to have a law that prohibits that?

We do have the right I absolutely agree. We do not however have the right to openly bear arms in every state. Some states issue CCW permits for those who would still like to carry. This however comes into conflict with the public safety which government Fed, state and local are responsible for. An armed group marching into the capitol where it is illegal to do so represents a clear and present danger to the public safety. You are talking about an armed group openly marching on the capitol. If that does not affect the public welfare and safty, I don't know what does.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

We do have the right I absolutely agree. We do not however have the right to openly bear arms in every state. Some states issue CCW permits for those who would still like to carry. This however comes into conflict with the public safety which government Fed, state and local are responsible for. An armed group marching into the capitol where it is illegal to do so represents a clear and present danger to the public safety. You are talking about an armed group openly marching on the capitol. If that does not affect the public welfare and safty, I don't know what does.

Are you serious? How can you have 2nd amendment rights and NOT have the right to open carry?

That is what the "bearing arms" part is about.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

This might have worked 100 years ago, but today?

They will be labeled a violent threat by all media outlets and the riot police will disband them, probably even confiscating their weapons. Open carry is not allowed in DC.

I'm just hoping that when they are suppressed, no one makes a stupid move and actually fires on police.

I'm pro-2nd but this is idiotic.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Are you serious? How can you have 2nd amendment rights and NOT have the right to open carry?

That is what the "bearing arms" part is about.

Yessir, I agree that's the THEORY.


The REALITY on the ground-level is that you can't stroll into DC with a loaded rifle, legally as the current law is written, and the DC police are gonna view ~1,000 men with loaded rifles as a major threat to public order, and they're going to stop them.


If they actually go thru with this I pray nobody does anything stupid when that confrontation happens.


IMHO open carry should be legal everywhere US law holds sway... but that isn't true today, and I don't think this is the way to make it happen.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

I agree, I don't want any violence.

But Kokesh has said that if confronted they will turn around and march back to Virginia.

Now if they refuse to let them march back, that is where things will get interesting.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

We do not however have the right to openly bear arms in every state.

Yes, we absolutely do. That many states, as well as the federal government, illegally refuse to uphold and acknowledge this right does not mean that we do not have it.

 

[Utility Man]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

"....This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event."

One could only hope the beat down these people would get is far far worse than any beating the unarmed OWS crowd received.

eace

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

This person could make the same political statement with unloaded rifles which make clear there is no threat suggested. Marching in military fashion into the nation's capital armed with loaded rifles because you oppose what some of our elected leaders support is borderline terrorism/threatening hostile action against the government.

I sincerely hope, for everyone's sake, they re-think the "loaded" part of their scheme.

 

[Utility Man]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

This person could make the same political statement with unloaded rifles which make clear there is no threat suggested. Marching in military fashion into the nation's capital armed with loaded rifles because you oppose what some of our elected leaders support is borderline terrorism/threatening hostile action against the government.

I sincerely hope, for everyone's sake, they re-think the "loaded" part of their scheme.

Sorry, no permit, no protest...try again ?

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Sorry, no permit, no protest...try again ?

I feel like you feel you made a point, but I do not know what it was. Could you clarify?

 

[Black Dog]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Are you serious? How can you have 2nd amendment rights and NOT have the right to open carry?

Because your right to carry openly ends when it conflicts with the public safety.

That is what the "bearing arms" part is about.

It is not about carrying weapons around openly, and was not in any way intended.

Bear:

1. To support; to sustain; as, to bear a weight or burden.
2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."
3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.
4. To keep afloat; as, the water bears a ship. - Search => [word] => sample :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

According to Websters 1800's dictionary it has nothing at all to do with open carry.

I only used the first 4 since the rest do not apply at all.

 

[Utility Man]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

I feel like you feel you made a point, but I do not know what it was. Could you clarify?

I am under the impression that people need a permit to protest here in the US.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Yes, we absolutely do. That many states, as well as the federal government, illegally refuse to uphold and acknowledge this right does not mean that we do not have it.

No we don't. Go ahead and try it and see what happens.

We have the right to have and bear weapons, not carry them in any way or shape we would like as it conflicts with other rights.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

I am under the impression that people need a permit to protest here in the US.

I must say, that situation would be rather amusing...

"1,000 armed men arrested for protesting without a permit."

 

[Gina]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

IMO it is NOT acceptible that US Citizens cannot go armed into the District of Columbia, home of our federal government.... but this is not a good way to go about making that point IMO. Too much potential for disaster.

Goshin, I have to point out, that as DC is the seat of power for our nation, allowing armed people, around our elected leaders, on the face of it, sounds dangerous and foolhardy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

No we don't. Go ahead and try it and see what happens.

Yes, I know what will happen if I try. The government will illegally arrest me and prosecute me for a “crime”*that consists of nothing more than legitimately exercising a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms that I have, and on which the Constitution explicitly prohibits government from infringing. This doesn't prove that I do not have that right; it only proves that the government which exists to uphold this and other rights has become corrupt and criminal.

We have the right to have and bear weapons, not carry them in any way or shape we would like as it conflicts with other rights.

Nobody, by merely possessing or carrying a loaded firearm, in any way violates or threatens any other person's rights. It is nonsense to claim that it does. Nobody else's rights are threatened or violated until the one carrying the weapon chooses to use it to violate another's rights, at which point he is now acting outside of the right merely to keep and bear that arm.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Goshin, I have to point out, that as DC is the seat of power for our nation, allowing armed people, around our elected leaders, on the face of it, sounds dangerous and foolhardy.

To me, this seems like an important part of the point. Too long has the government been able to rule over us, by keeping us in fear of it. The government should be afraid of the people, and not the other way around. Our public servants need to be forcefully reminded, from time to time that they are our servants, and not our masters.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Goshin, I have to point out, that as DC is the seat of power for our nation, allowing armed people, around our elected leaders, on the face of it, sounds dangerous and foolhardy.

I don't think this is the time for an armed protest, but this is more a commentary on the city of D.C. than the gun owners, that town tends to be pretty statist, and suffers from some real rot. I do like the idea of a friendly reminder to some of these arrogant politicians that they aren't invincible simply because they won a seat of power. I also like the reminder that armed voters put them there but that is not to say I think the idea was particulary good and certainly hope there is no violence.

A better idea would be having a sign that says something like "You suck, I vote, and I exercise my second amendment rights". It's not my ass on the line though, so..............

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

To me, this seems like an important part of the point. Too long has the government been able to rule over us, by keeping us in fear of it. The government should be afraid of the people, and not the other way around. Our public servants need to be forcefully reminded, from time to time that they are our servants, and not our masters.

I think the point is good, the theory is good, but we're at a point where the idiots in D.C. will look for a way to make it someone else's fault, and it could end badly.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Re: Adam Kokesh to lead march of at least 1,000 on D.C. with loaded rifles

Because your right to carry openly ends when it conflicts with the public safety.

No, it ends when it violates somebody elses right. There are no "public" rights.

It is not about carrying weapons around openly, and was not in any way intended.

Bear:

1. To support; to sustain; as, to bear a weight or burden.
2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."
3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.
4. To keep afloat; as, the water bears a ship. - Search => [word] => sample :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

According to Websters 1800's dictionary it has nothing at all to do with open carry.

I only used the first 4 since the rest do not apply at all.

Did you even read what you highlighted? It says "to carry".