Gun Protesters Plan March On D.C. With Loaded Rifles To ‘Put Government On Notice'

[bodecea]

It's an attempt by the left to suck in pro second amendment people to either prosecute or kill them. They're counting on gun advocates to be stupid hicks who will fall for their trap.

I am sure your fellow 'Conservatives' on this board appreciate your description of them.

It's no MY description, it's YOUR'S. Nice try.

Seems to be YOUR words in YOUR post, S.J. What happened to taking responsibility for your own words?

 

[legaleagle_45]

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize public carry.

Some courts would disagree.... Including Moore v. Madigan US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit.

 

[Cuyo]

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize public carry.

And "bear" means WHAT to you, sparky?

Bear:
a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)

To Bear Arms, to move (often March) while holding weapons.

Actually the term "to bear arms" was almost exclusively a military idiom in the 18th century...

But do be sure to tell these idiots to explain that interpretation to SWAT when they're tackled, cuffed, and booked if they do in fact go through with this hairbrained scheme.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually the term "to bear arms" was almost exclusively a military idiom in the 18th century...

But do be sure to tell these idiots to explain that interpretation to SWAT when they're tackled, cuffed, and booked if they do in fact go through with this hairbrained scheme.

We live in a police state.

The place to challenge unconstitutional acts by the state is in the courts.

First off, LOADED weapons are stupid. Anyone carrying a loaded weapon is asking for trouble. If it's loaded, keep it holstered - unless you're planning to discharge the weapon. I have no problem with concealed carry, and in fact it makes everyone safer - BUT that weapon stays in it's holster unless there is a need to fire it.

Leftists are stupid - it's why they're leftists. But the reason that rifles with detachable mags are SAFER than those with internal magazines is that a loaded mag may be carried OUT OF THE WEAPON. If one is going to carry an AR15, keep the mag out of it.

 

[Cuyo]

Actually the term "to bear arms" was almost exclusively a military idiom in the 18th century...

But do be sure to tell these idiots to explain that interpretation to SWAT when they're tackled, cuffed, and booked if they do in fact go through with this hairbrained scheme.

We live in a police state.

The place to challenge unconstitutional acts by the state is in the courts.

First off, LOADED weapons are stupid. Anyone carrying a loaded weapon is asking for trouble. If it's loaded, keep it holstered - unless you're planning to discharge the weapon. I have no problem with concealed carry, and in fact it makes everyone safer - BUT that weapon stays in it's holster unless there is a need to fire it.

Leftists are stupid - it's why they're leftists. But the reason that rifles with detachable mags are SAFER than those with internal magazines is that a loaded mag may be carried OUT OF THE WEAPON. If one is going to carry an AR15, keep the mag out of it.

I think calling it a "Police State" is more than a little dramatic; However you are correct that any challenge to the law has to take place judicially, or more appropriately, legislatively.

If these people really do march on the Capital? With GUNS? They're gonna find their lives in a world of hurt for that decision, as they damn well should.

 

[PaulS1950]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

It is the right and duty to confront the injustices of a government that restricts the individual rights of the people.

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think calling it a "Police State" is more than a little dramatic; However you are correct that any challenge to the law has to take place judicially, or more appropriately, legislatively.

If these people really do march on the Capital? With GUNS? They're gonna find their lives in a world of hurt for that decision, as they damn well should.

It's a publicity stunt by a doofus on the radio. Less than 10 people will show up, and they'll back down because of lack of numbers.

But we are a police state. You can and will be stopped, asked for papers and searched at random. The old movies of Nazi occupation were a warning that is every day in America.

Land of the not so free.

 

[PaulS1950]

They already have thousands signed up - I don't think it will be called for lack of participation. It may not march into DC if there is a strong force telling them to stay away - Kokesh already stated that if they met with resistance he would not endanger the participants. He is a war vet, an ultra-conservative constitutionalist and a radio host who is also a participatory activist who stands by his word.
He may be a lot of things but I would not call him "a doofus on the radio" nor would I call any action that reminds the federal government that our rights remain valid no matter what they do a "publicity stunt".

 

[Uncensored2008]

They already have thousands signed up - I don't think it will be called for lack of participation. It may not march into DC if there is a strong force telling them to stay away - Kokesh already stated that if they met with resistance he would not endanger the participants. He is a war vet, an ultra-conservative constitutionalist and a radio host who is also a participatory activist who stands by his word.
He may be a lot of things but I would not call him "a doofus on the radio" nor would I call any action that reminds the federal government that our rights remain valid no matter what they do a "publicity stunt".

An armed force marching into the federal seat of power would be a very, very stupid move.

This can only hurt the cause of civil rights. Those of use who support individual liberty must be smart about how we proceed. The media is quick to portray us as "nuts" and "dangerous." This kind of crap plays right into that meme.

 

[PaulS1950]

This is not an "armed force". It is a group of citizens practicing their right to bear arms and to redress the government for grievences in a peaceful assembly.

The guns will not be "in their hands" but worn on their backs with no need to hold or support the guns. There is no threat intended - unless the government is affraid of a bunch of folks wearing guns in public as stated in the second amendment. I guess we will see if the first and second amendments are actually supported and protected by our government as they are supposed to be.

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...

 

[Cuyo]

They already have thousands signed up - I don't think it will be called for lack of participation. It may not march into DC if there is a strong force telling them to stay away - Kokesh already stated that if they met with resistance he would not endanger the participants. He is a war vet, an ultra-conservative constitutionalist and a radio host who is also a participatory activist who stands by his word.
He may be a lot of things but I would not call him "a doofus on the radio" nor would I call any action that reminds the federal government that our rights remain valid no matter what they do a "publicity stunt".

Well he's definitely a doofus, and I have no reason to disbelieve that he's "on the radio."

Guess we'll see, I tend to agree with Uncensored that it just won't happen... But if it does, he and his ilk will be incarcerated doofii, and rightfully so.

 

[PaulS1950]

What unlawful act would they be arrested for?
It is completely lawful to assemble as a group to have grievences heard.
It is comletely lawful to bear arms.
You don't need permits for any of that - they are rights constitutionally protected.
If they are arrested the only outcome will be that the laws against open carry in DC are still found unlawful.

AGAIN

 

[Missourian]

Personally, I think this march is a very, very bad idea.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They already have thousands signed up - I don't think it will be called for lack of participation. It may not march into DC if there is a strong force telling them to stay away - Kokesh already stated that if they met with resistance he would not endanger the participants. He is a war vet, an ultra-conservative constitutionalist and a radio host who is also a participatory activist who stands by his word.
He may be a lot of things but I would not call him "a doofus on the radio" nor would I call any action that reminds the federal government that our rights remain valid no matter what they do a "publicity stunt".

I would not call him an "ultra-conservative."

 

[PaulS1950]

You know, this is America, you have the RIGHT to your opinions - at least for now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Personally, I think this march is a very, very bad idea.

Why's that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why's that?

Stop me if you've heard this one;

You walk into a bar; and an 84 pound guy reaching all of 5' 1" walks over to a 6' 8" brute tipping the scale at about 260 - arms like tree trunks.

The little guy screams "You're UGLY, and punches him in the nose."

Now, even if you agree that the big guy is ugly, you think to yourself "this is a very, very bad idea."

 

[Missourian]

Personally, I think this march is a very, very bad idea.

Why's that?

IMO, it's an accident or sabotage waiting to happen, and it does more harm than good.

The two thing, more than any others, that I want to see from gun owners is good judgement and abiding by the law...this march violates both.

Want to march on Washington...let's march...but leave the loaded guns at home.

 

[PaulS1950]

Personally, I think this march is a very, very bad idea.

Why's that?

IMO, it's an accident or sabotage waiting to happen, and it does more harm than good.

The two thing, more than any others, that I want to see from gun owners is good judgement and abiding by the law...this march violates both.

Want to march on Washington...let's march...but leave the loaded guns at home.

See this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-put-government-on-notice-20.html#post7240617

There is nothing unlawful about what they want to do.

 

[Missourian]

Why's that?

IMO, it's an accident or sabotage waiting to happen, and it does more harm than good.

The two thing, more than any others, that I want to see from gun owners is good judgement and abiding by the law...this march violates both.

Want to march on Washington...let's march...but leave the loaded guns at home.

See this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-put-government-on-notice-20.html#post7240617

There is nothing unlawful about what they want to do.

Kokech himself admits it is illegal.

"I've been a passionate defender of the right to self-defense since I've been involved in politics," said Kokesh, who served in Iraq in 2004 but later became an ardent critic of the war. He said that he doesn't worry about the legal repercussions of the protest, despite D.C.'s restriction on carrying guns outside of the home.




"It's illegal, but it's not unlawful," he said. "If the Second Amendment is still in effect, then what we're doing should unquestionably be allowed. I'm actually recommending that the response from law enforcement be to provide us with an escort. It may be provocative, but only because it's become the norm to cower before government."



Activist Plans To Carry Guns In D.C. For July 4 Open Carry Protest | WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio

​