July 4 armed march in DC...???

[TXAZ]

I have to believe that the DC government cannot afford politically for this proposed armed march to happen.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...ice-we-wont-be

Would the federal "travel exemption" for carrying a weapon apply in DC?

[GunByte]

Nothing like breaking the law to show your support for the constitution. If this male fantasy occurs it is sure to make an unfavorable impression on the two thirds of Americans who do not own guns. Personally I do not think it beneficial to feed the gun nut stereotype that many have about gun owners. Being an intelligent person I am against the show of force approach as it only will end up scaring the general public and turning them against us. This whole thing is like a self fulfilling prophecy. We say guns are necessary to protect us from a corrupt government so we do things to provoke the government to take action so that when we fight back we can say that we were right in our beliefs as to why we need guns.

[Aguila Blanca]

You mean the FOPA? That applies to "transporting" an UNloaded firearm THROUGH jurisdictions where transporting an UNloaded firearm would otherwise be prohibited. It also applies to transport in a vehicle.

I see no way at all that the FOPA could possibly apply to marching into Washington, DC, with a loaded rifle on your shoulder.

[Tom Servo]

This is a horrifically bad idea, with the potential to create real problems for the RKBA as a whole. What they're doing is patently illegal in the District. Right or wrong, like it or not, it is illegal.

The organizer, Adam Kokesh, has had his share of problems with authority. He has had his share of issues with the law, and now he's organizing and recruiting for a large-scale act of law-breaking under the aegis of the 2nd Amendment.

This isn't about the 2A. This is about Kokesh getting arrested so he can get his face on television, and he's going to hurt all of us in the process.

[Evan Thomas]

Tom is correct. Really, really bad idea.

I'm leaving this open for the time being, but I'll remind anyone posting in this thread to keep TFL's rules in mind:

5. Topics and conduct that will not be tolerated:
h. Knowingly and willfully advocating violation of a standing federal or state law (any state)

[Alabama Shooter]

After decades of futiley presenting the RKBA community as law abiding citizens in the face of numerous false accusations and characterizations to the contrary somone has figured out how to cause untold amounts of damage to our image. Anyone who joins this fool's crusade is going to end up as a convicted felon and lose all their rights.

[Dalek]

While emotionally satisfying as some manner of thumb in the eye to "Da Man", I have to agree that this is truly a bad idea. There are other means to express the rising frustration with the detachment and social bankruptcy of D.C. than to march on them while armed.

This action is begging for a tragic outcome on the level of the "Bonus Army" of 1932.

[TXAZ]

I was not aware of the subjects background. Thanks. Conversely, just as an adult can't back down from a defiant child, I don't see how DC could let such a group to take a second step inside the District. (as in arresting them on the first step inside their border). And hope cooler heads near the subject prevail.
And agreed, it tends to cast the rest of lawful gun owners as "gunnuts" (as a neighbor calls them), in an unfortunate light.

[orangello]

I hope nobody gets hurt. I hope they, at least, pocket their magazines and keep bolts visibly open and safe before and during their assembly. I hope they find a way to have their demonstration without A)it being illegal and B)making the rest of us firearms owners look like idiots.


"Kokesh"? Does that not seem eerily reminiscent of "Koresh" & the Waco incident?

[Plumbnut]

The actions of a few will not make me look like an idiot just like these people who choose to go on shooting sprees have nothing to do with me.

My guns are used responsibly and always will be.

For example just because I drink beer doesn't mean I'm a drunk or drive drunk.

IMO if they march through the D.C. with loaded guns they will all be eventually arrested.

I agree.....its bad idea.

My lawyer told me I could walk through my neighborhood with my Ar but in the same breath advised me "it's not a good idea"

I agree with my lawyer also and wouldn't consider it...just to do it and see if I could get away with it.

[Alabama Shooter]

Plumbnut- I don't think you understand how public perception and image work.

[Sweet Shooter]

The "turning back if met with resistance" bit is a wishful thought and will get a lot of half-committed protesters in a lot of trouble.

I can't remember the last time a felon was allowed to turn back and walk away having just committed the felony. It will be interesting, but personally I don't think it will happen.

-SS-

[deepcreek]

I think it is bad on a few different levels.

-Public perception, politics and legal battles all depend on public support without it is is a lost cause. I don't think this will gain any support only lose support.

-Protest survive because people are just using their constitutional rights riot goons look bad bashing peoples heads in because they were...? standing up for their rights, voicing concern over the government, blocking the sidewalk, obstructing traffic, People see others getting beat up for protesting and it just creates more support and protesters.
People toting guns do not look like poor protesters they look like warriors and a threat to some people, that does not evoke sympathy or support from the general masses.

- One of the most common tactics to squash protests is to have “agent provocateurs” create reasons to beat down the crowd. With guns involved..? that brings things to another level and changes the “rules of engagement”.

I am all for protesting for constitutional right but I think this is a very bad and dangerous tactic.

[g.willikers]

Anyone else thinking of the results of the "Bonus Army" fiasco of 1933?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...256/Bonus-Army

[Sweet Shooter]

I have no problem with the protest per se, but that it is an illegal one.

We have had open carry protests here but it is not illegal here. Don't be afraid to protest legally and don't allow anyone to make you feel badly about your rights.

-SS-

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Plumbnut

The actions of a few will not make me look like an idiot just like these people who choose to go on shooting sprees have nothing to do with me.

My guns are used responsibly and always will be.

So the aftermath of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook school shootings hasn't affected you at all? And never will?

You are very fortunate, Sir.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One should study up before opining at times. My psych hat - public opinion is driven by vivid instances on an emotional level. Such vivid instances will lead to an availability cascade. That will bring up all the hegative recent incidents and be even more detrimental.

There is also what is called the innoculation effect. Make a stupid argument or presentation for a position and then even further logical and competent presentations of the position will be ignored.

See Danny Kahneman's new book for a read on such.

Thus, sitting in your house drinking a beer doesn't make you a drunk. However, seeing a tragic DUI on the tube is not a strong point for alcohol consumption in the public mind.

[SPEMack618]

Good grief, I find this worrisome on a multitude of levels.

And the comparisons some are making to the Bonus Army are absurb.

[dakota.potts]

The Bonus Army actually appropriated some money for the benefits promised to them and laid the foundation for the G.I Bill of Rights. Somehow I see this as not on the same level.

[Plumbnut]

So the aftermath of the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook school shootings hasn't affected you at all? And never will?

You are very fortunate, Sir.

No it hasn't affected me directly in my daily life. I hate it happened.

I cant predict what the future may hold but those incidents according to many have nothing to do with current gun law talks......some say those shootings are just an excuse and the government wants to impose new laws anyway.

So even without those shootings the powers that be would try to pass new laws.

So I reject the idea that those shootings have anything to do with it but rather its just a good time for them in their eyes to try and push laws through.

[Tom Servo]

Heaven help me, I read through the posts on their Facebook page. It's more incoherent vitriol (from both sides) than the human mind should be expected to ingest.

Some of the folks opposed are planning to throw firecrackers at the protesters to see how they'll react. Even if that doesn't happen, wait until the cops get rough with just one of these guys. The whole situation is a powderkeg filled with radioactive rattlesnakes.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Did the shootings have anything to do with the current push?

Of course, there was a contingent of folks who hate guns and were ready to ban guns.

However, the Obama administration wasn't active. In fact, early on Rahm Emanuel shut down Holder who started to babble about a new serious AWB attempt. Yes, they were for it but did nothing. Without Sandy Hook, maybe nothing would happen.

Sandy Hook started what is known as a moral panic. Many folks felt that horror meant you had to do something. The killing of children unleashed two major moral atrocities. Taking the life of innocents and killing kids.

That overcame the political calculus of just spouting platitudes and doing little. I don't think it was a conspiracy on Obama's part to wait for a horror. The kids pushed him into full gear and thus he allowed Biden and senate members to go full bore. Note that Reid wasn't really into it.

That's my take. You can go for a conspiracy waiting for a horror but I think it's more straight forward and explainable on the moral panic basis plus the folks who always hated guns.

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, like sharks....with lasers.

The DC government can't afford for it to happen and the general gun owning public probably can't either.

[Plumbnut]

Glenn E Meyer,

One of the Presidential elections debates between Obama and Romney a question was asked about ak47's. Both of them I believe taked against these type of guns.

That told me right there what was up. One of these two men would be the President.

Something was going to be coming down the pike.

Did you watch those debates and hear that question?

So regardless of any shootings it was coming IMO.

[cvc944]

An armed march on DC is a bad idea at best. I'm all in and all for drawing a line in the sand, pointing to it clearly and letting our government know that we who stand just behind this line have had enough. We've given all we intend to give and you have taken all you will. But drawing that line is a defensive move, whereas marching on DC armed is as offensive as it gets. I would strongly advocate using the defense line prior to looking for, almost asking for, trouble.