Open Carry March on Washington DC, July 4th

Over 4100 people already committed as attending.

https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/?ref=3

 

I find the language of these folks to be absurd and completely disconnected from what the government has done recently let alone for the last 20 years.

Lets review. In 1994 an assault weapons law was passed by congress. Subsequent to that a number of members of congress who voted in favor of the assault weapons ban were targeted by the NRA and its supporters. They were defeated in elections.

In 2003, ten years after this law was passed it expired rather than was renewed.

In essence, the federal government has done nothing to restrict or repeal gun ownership for about 20 years. Politicians who might have supported gun control simply wouldn't address the issue. Some of the loudest voices for some levels of gun control such as James Brady, somebody who served President Reagan and shot and injured by a maniac became minor voices with little following.

Since 1994 there have been some horrendous mass shootings. Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, etc.

Newtown in December 2012 was the latest. Since 1994 not only were no federal restrictions on gun ownership made but the NRA expanded gun presence throughout the US. The Supreme Court ruled against various local efforts to restrict guns.

During Obama's entire first term there were NO efforts to restrict gun ownership.

BUT.....the gun groups spread fear about gun restrictions...regardless of the fact that NOTHING was done for 20 years and during Obama's entire first term. Essentially politicians that might have wanted to push legislation in this regard were completely shut down.

One exception has been mayor Bloomberg of NYC. His own city has more recently seen fewer gun shootings and deaths than in previous years. But the volumes of gun shootings in cities...where it is at its most violent...ebbs and flows in different cities in different times. For instance in NYC and DC gun shootings are way down these last few years. In Chicago in the past year its way up. Effectively cutting down on local shootings by gangs may be a result of many different efforts involving not only guns but many other efforts.

Regardless of local events...over a 20 year period...the government did nothing to cut back on guns...and their sales spread and their unique position in America got stronger.

Gun manufacturers are immune from prosecution or blame if guns are responsible in deaths. Alternatively automobiles, unions, hospitals, doctors, drugs, drug manufacturers, etc...virtually every facet of America can be found at fault for deaths. Gun manufacturers are immune.

State legislatures are creating laws to criminalize if a doctor ASKS a patient or potential patient if they own guns. This is often targeted at pediatricians. The mere act of asking the question can be cause for criminal action or losing one's license to practice according to some of these state legislative efforts.

Pretty strange as we've recently had a rash of shootings by little kids of other little kids. It appears the parents and adults need a lot of help to learn how to lock up their guns and keep them from becoming unwanted killing weapons against their own kids. Regardless these laws against docs asking questions are proceeding in state legislatures. Florida's law was ruled to be a violation of freedom of speech rights. Yet the governor of Florida is protesting that ruling by a high court.

During the first four years of the Obama administration there were no efforts to restrict gun ownership in any way at all.

It took the latest horrendous mass shooting in Newtown to cause politicians to reverse their perspectives after 20 years of silence and the simple spread of guns throughout the land.

At the end of the day in mid April the single piece of legislation that had the greatest chance and hope of passing was a simple piece that tried to establish restrictions on who could purchase guns through some but not all venues. Its effort was to restrict people with emotional or mental issues and people with criminal records. 90% of the population through poll after poll supported this type of legislation.

The Senate used to vote on most laws on straight up and down votes. Not these days in the politicized version of politics that has become the new reality. Though the vote in favor of increasing checks on really inappropriate people being able to purchase guns was supported by a majority of Senators the legislation was blocked by the threat of a filibuster by the minority. So the legislation was blocked.

It went nowhere.
Yet the people who plan to march on July 4th with rifles loaded wrote the following:

Where is the tyranny??? After 20 years of doing nothing and seeing guns spread everywhere, laws established to protect gun manufacturers, laws put out to restrict doctors from speaking....I don't see tyranny at all.

What I see is a minority position that promotes a false sense of reality in order to agitate another small minority of highly politicized people about a single issue...and in the meantime raise 10's of millions of dollars from gun manufacturers to further shut the efforts of politicians who have not done any of the things that the gun lobby suggests.

Its sad. Since the gun legislation was defeated by a minority in the senate there have been plenty of more shootings. Nobody who defends the NRA position is willing to take any level of responsibility on any shooting deaths.

The only tyranny in existence has been a 20 year fear campaign raised against politicians who even wish to propose reasonable solutions supported by 90% of the population.

 

What government action in particular? The WhiteHouse lies and cover up of Benghazi, the use of the IRS and the EPA to punish political opponents, the use the FBI to monitor the press, or the recently proposed federal restrictions to gun ownership?

So much recent activity, its hard to put your finger on any one thing that might make people concerned about the value add for new legislation. One of my favorites is the new push to drop the DUI threshold to .05%. That should be nearly as healthy of a revenue generator for the government as all the seized property from Medical Marijuana dispensaries, though it probably won't really cut down on fatalities from intoxicated drivers, any more than the new gun legislation would have prevented any of the tragedies you mentioned.

More laws= more attorneys = more criminals = more prisons = need for more revenue = need for more laws. It's an ass to mouth self feeding centipede. Public safety and individual freedoms are the last thing any of these fascists are concerned about.

 

I have schooled you on this issue many times before, so I will keep it short and sweet.

1. While no major federal laws have been passed dealing with gun control in the last 20 years, municipalities and states have passed a barrage of restrictive laws. For example, Washington DC and it's ban on concealed carry. Many states ban "assault weapons". Even Connecticut had an assault weapons ban in place during the Newtown shooting. The NRA is fighting against smaller levels of government that can be even more restrictive because they have less resistance than on a national level.

2. During Obama's first term he made it clear that a goal for his 2nd term was to ban assault weapons. This started the current gun buying chaos that is still going on. The fears are not based on fiction, they are real, and Obama created this whole mess. Gun supporters are further skeptical of liberal politicians because of what states like NY are doing. Liberals want to get rid of guns completely, and the outrageous laws like limiting magazines to 7 rounds is proof of that concept. The current laws that are proposed may not completely strip 2nd amendment rights, but if passed, we are one step closer. Since liberals are never happy, the next tragedy will bring even tighter laws, until eventually the 2nd amendment is repealed.

3. You say that during the last 20 years the government has done nothing on gun control. Well it has worked!!! During the last 20 years gun violence is down sharply. Gun deaths are down 40%. Other injuries with guns are down 70%. Maybe the government should continue doing nothing?? It seems that increased legal gun ownership, concealed carry, etc. have actually decreased gun crime, but of course we cannot prove that is the reason for the decline. Regardless, your assumption that gun crime is a growing problem in America is completely false and the facts prove that. Knowing all of that, why do we need more gun laws? Could it be that liberals are simply attracted to the idea of getting rid of guns, because they hate guns??? Bingo.

4. You say that gun manufacturers are not responsible for gun murders, but you are comparing apples to oranges when you talk about drug companies, etc. You see, used properly guns will never kill anyone. Even though that is what they are designed to do, it takes a human to actively pull the trigger at someone to murder. With drugs and drug companies, they are responsible for errors on their part. With doctors and malpractice, they are responsible for errors on their part. Gun manufactures are not making errors when someone kills a person with a gun. It is the murderer that is making the error. Let me ask you this: When somebody hops in a car drunk off their ass and kills a family of 6 in a head on crash, is Toyota responsible? They aren't, and that concept applies to gun manufacturers.

Now, as for this open carry march, it is a complete mistake. If Washington DC has banned open carry these guys are simply breaking the law. Furthermore, this will not end well when you have thousands of armed civilians and armed police/military in the same place. Obviously when a large group descends on Washington with loaded guns, the military/police response will be huge. I can see some idiot getting into the heat of the moment and firing, setting off a huge death trap.

They should march legally. Do everything legally. Otherwise they are just making pro-gun groups look terrible.

 

Yah, but it's Adam Kokesh. Good idea, or bad, blood bath or peaceful march, it will make for some terrific video footage. Arrests are good for the movement, but a bunch of paranoid cops opening fire would be even better. Of course it isn't going to end well.

Here is a story that might interest you.

This type of crap happens all the time in CA. The LAPD just settled with the two elderly hispanic women whose car they riddled with bullets while looking for Christopher Dorner.

 

@O-Nation: In responding to my post you absolutely said nothing about the particular topic and simply ranted. Typical. Nothing of substance. Lots of hot air.

@R2D2 : Where how and when did Obama do anything about guns until after NewTown. That is a simple and complete fabrication made up by a population that has manufactured fear about gun control over a 20 year period.

I live in the DC area. The city, its voting population, its elected officials and its police force at the top would all love to have a variety of gun control laws. Regardless since its so easy to purchase guns in the neighboring states its virtually impossible to restrict guns coming into the city. The vast majority of folks living in the city and in the closer in suburbs would be extremely happy with greater levels of gun control

Now over a long term DC has had long periods of shootings and deaths and lessor periods. One immediate suburban neighbor has seen dramatic increases in shooting deaths over the term as demographics have changed. The vast majority of folks in the NYC area would be similarly happy with greater levels of gun control.

The increases or decreases of gun violence in these cities has no relationship to anything connected to laws about gun control or greater access to guns. There is no relationship. You have to live here to see it.

gun advocates trying to take statistics about less gun deaths per population over the years are confusing correlation with cause. If anything the decrease in violent gun deaths in the urban areas over the decades has tons more to do with decreasing coke and crack access than anything else...probably by a multiple of factor of 50. If there are less gangs fighting over the access to distribute illegal drugs in these areas there has been less violent crime.

Obviously not all people use guns appropriately. If anything the recent rash number of deaths caused by little kids shooting themselves or other little kids shows how lax their parents are...and how worthwhile it would be to have md's and pediatrics reference these topics to the parents. Instead you have the gun supporters pushing laws that would criminalize a question. Frankly criminalizing docs for asking that type of question are the actions of a tyranny.

The simple history has been that for a 20 year period the feds have done less than nothing on gun control in any way whatsoever. Those that scream about tyranny have been lying to the public about a 20 year reality.

 

In the last presidential debate against Mitt Romney, Obama laid out his plan to ban assault rifles. He called them "machine guns" and incorrectly described how they were not fit to be in the hands of civilians. There was an entire back-and-forth between Obama and Romney about the subject. The gun control agenda has simply laid dormant until something happened to change the tone of the nation. Liberals needed a reason to push their agenda. After all, the unemployment rate was around 8%. The topics from the election were the economy, jobs, national defense, etc. Liberals have had this plan all along. Dianne Feinstein's newest assault weapons ban had been in the works for over a year when the mass shootings happened. They were simply waiting for the perfect moment to push their gun control agenda. And the gun scare started the day Obama got elected for his first term. As I have stated many times, Obama is the #1 gun salesman the world has ever known.

Those that have been screaming tyranny for the last 5 years have done so because they see past the illusion Obama puts on. You are seeing it first hand with the 3 scandals currently rocking the Obama administration. For the first time in his presidency, Obama has to face tough questions from the left. The left is outraged about the AP scandal. The left is finally starting to take notice of the Benghazi cover-up. And the recent IRS attack on conservatives has gotten significant coverage from all political groups.

The feds don't need to do anything about guns. As I have stated, the facts show that gun violence is trending down at a fast rate over the past 20 years. What makes you think something else needs to happen? Especially with the laws the democrats have introduced. As I have detailed in other posts, none of the proposed laws can possibly effect gun violence in a meaningful way. The big push was assault weapons ban, which we already know doesn't work. Gun control advocates wasted 4 months pushing laws that America clearly saw were not serious solutions.

You raise one valid point in your argument. Gun violence is driven by crime. Specifically drugs and gangs. Why are we seeing dropping murder rates in NYC, but Chicago is almost the murder capital of the world? What's the difference? Answer that and you can work on solving gun violence. The gun laws in Chicago are not significantly different than in NYC. Gun control levels are not the reason Chicago is worse than NYC. It's obviously crime, gang control, and other factors besides the availability of guns. Go to a place where you don't have gangs and drugs, and you probably don't have gun violence. It's amazing you can understand that concept, but you don't understand why I argue against one big national gun control package that does nothing but check another goal off the liberal agenda.

The reason the NRA fights so hard is because they are defending everyday citizens. They are good people with good intentions. They own firearms responsibly. These kinds of people are the majority of gun owners. Gun control laws punish and regulate these good people. They don't focus on the gangs, drugs, and other drivers of gun violence. Any type of law that punishes guns and gun owners, but ignores the actual problem will never gain traction in this country.

 

I see this march the same way I saw Occupy Wall Street. They might have had legitimate intentions and a worthy cause to be upset over, but the way they communicated their message was a disaster. Occupy Wall Street was portrayed as a bunch of unemployed hippies sleeping in filthy tents in public parks. They complained about big corporations while they played on their iPads (irony). Their message (they really didn't have a message in the beginning) was against big banks, against too big to fail, etc. It's a legitimate message, but it got lost in the terrible way they conducted themselves. The storyline that was covered was more of crime, rapes, murders, filthy living conditions, etc. instead of the actual message.

The same applies to this march. You have a group of gun advocates trying to tell the fed government that they are in control, but they are going about it in the wrong way. It's a way that will end badly and damage the image of gun advocates. The NRA has won the gun battle. If they want to fight for more rights, they need to join the NRA and fight to get anti-gun politicians out of office.

 

@redtarget Thats a bit hyperbolic. Its going to be hard for these guys to be Occupy Wall St. since OWS has the market cornered on smelly, dirty, rapist, filth loving hippies, the mentally deranged, and burn out commies.

This group has to present better if only by virtue of the fact they all likely have gainful employment. I doubt there will be any tribal beats or zombie like human microphones where they all repeat the words of one person mindlessly.

While I generally agree that going by the rules is the way to go, I can also appreciate Obama's success with Alinsky's tactics. I look at the Tea Party town hall disruptions in 2010 and I think we need to be studying the oppositions tactics.

Civil disobedience(breaking the law) goes over a lot better when you don't have a loaded AR15 slung over your shoulder, and Kokesh is a bit of a nut, but events like this should be throwing up large red flags about the fever pitch to which Obama has brought this country. Some credit can be given to Bush's patriot act as well.

 

I support the Second Amendment. These idiots do nothing to further the cause.

 

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. Can you imagine if just one person is shot during the march, how bad that will look for shooters?

There's a huge risk this march could instead further the cause for the anti-gun brigade imho.

Just one anti-gun person in the crowd and...

 

Agreed. Also true if the shooter is a DC cop.

That is a legitimate concern too. There have been a healthy number of incidents where lefties show up to tea party rallies, screaming out racist epithets trying to play up the stereotype they have in their head and get some press attention.


Of course any anti-gun person willing to sacrifice his own life who opens fire at civilians in an attempt to do damage to the 2nd amendment would be exposed in a post mortem investigation, so perhaps not an effective tactic.

If you were thinking the pro-gun people might shoot at a counter-protester, I would call that extremely unlikely.

Kokesh is part lunatic, part self promoter, part provocateur. His antics are usually somewhat juvenile, but in some ways disturbing.

As far as furtherance of the cause is concerned, the US is already 12th on the the Democracy index in a list of 25 full Democracies, taking into account a variety of factors including civil liberties, freedom of the press, and like things. I'll tell you one thing for sure. There is no outcome of such a march where more attention isn't brought to the issue.

Here is another interesting tale you might have heard.

One of the five officers who beat the unarmed and handicapped Kelly Thomas to death in the street was finally charged with a crime. I believe the rest have returned to active duty.

 

R2D2: I saw that debate, the one with citizens' questions. Wasn't that the very first question. I was disappointed in Obama's response. He made no direct promise or assertion. He moved off the pointed question about guns and changed the topic into one of his themes, as all politicians typically do.

Fox news' analysis of that question completely disagrees with you: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/aehq-issues-gun-control-returns-to-2012-debate/

A further analysis gives no credibility to a big push by Obama to go after guns in a big way: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/17/163109377/gun-control-a-surprise-issue-in-presidential-debate

The simple fact is that Obama came into office in 2008 and did nothing about guns. He primarily avoided the topic throughout the 2012 campaign and gave a limited answer to a pointed question...then moved off the topic in his more long winded response.

A bunch of people screaming about tyranny are a tiny minority creating a stink about something that has been the exact opposite of reality for 20 years.

Its hard to paint a picture of a more out of touch crazed tiny minority with a perspective that is so completely at odds with 20 years of history creating a more provocative situation.

If there is a way to take the 90% of people who think there should be somewhat greater controls on who can buy guns...and turn that vast majority into 95%....this is the action.

 

At least 2 officers have been charged. (I actually thought it was 3) The article you cite mentions 2. Hopefully they both are convicted because that was not police work, that was a merciless beating they administered on Kelly.

 

You have been following the case more carefully than I, apparently. Initially speaking, all six weren't even placed on administrative leave until a month after the incident. The DA was hesitant to investigate or charge any of them, due to his desired support from the police unions for his elected position. When I had quit following the case, I believe one had been charged, one had been let go, and the other four were back to their "jobs".


Apparently, in September of last year, a third was charged. So one with 2nd degree murder, and two with involuntary manslaughter. I guess the other three that held him down get to go back to their jobs and fat pensions.

Here is another interesting story

Five cops beat a homeless guy to death and then "seize" the cellphones of anyone who might have recorded it on video. No story here.

 

Kelly's dad has been speaking out on the Silva beating. These beatings are such a disgrace to the many hardworking and honest police out there. But if they wont help weed out the bad seeds amongst themselves then they are at fault as well. The Kelly and Silva beatings appear to be totally unnecessary and criminal.

 

I was around for the LA riots. I remember them very vividly. A group of cops kicked the crap out of a guy(Rodney King) on the side of the freeway, the officers received no discipline, and the black community lit the town on fire. Granted, there were racial issues at play, but I find it striking how numb we have become to this kind of behavior. Rodney King lived, Silva and Kelly didn't. It isn't like these stories are spread out over a decade or two. These stories are all recent.

I would like to believe in the "hardworking and honest police", but I fear they have become the exception, rather than the rule. California police departments, like our California schools, have become a business that feeds the unions and the politicians at the expense of taxpayers and civil rights. The Sheriffs department in particular sends all of it's academy grads to work the prison system for a few years prior to putting them on the streets. Its a great way to dehumanize the population you will be policing.

When I was growing up, police were employed by the city, not the county. You knew the officers by name. To Protect and Serve didn't mean "To Protect each other from prosecution and Serve ourselves from the public coffers". It was local, and no joke, undesirables were given a ride out of town.

Another interesting story

 

I have been following those Dorner related shootings. I can't find a single article even mentioning an investigation into those police shootings. They were outrageous. Even if it had been Dorner, there was no display of a weapon, no threat on the police officers and they indiscriminately fired trying to kill. It is only due to their own incompetence that those women lived. Another shameful display by the police.

Those cops should have been charged with a crime for sure.

 

Yah, 102 bullets into a vehicle that doesn't even fit the perp's description and not one corpse is pretty shameful.

Another interesting story:

Here is a picture of David Perdue. Notice the strong resemblance to Dorner.



You have put your finger on the issue though. It is highly unlikely that any of the people who discharged their weapons with intent to kill at innocent civilians will suffer an unpaid day from work because of it, in spite of the fact the LAPD settled with the women for the meager amount of $4.2 million. As Dorner himself pointed out in his "manifesto", Rolando Solano, an officer who stood by and watched Rodney King get his ass beat by fellow cops and did nothing, has been promoted to Captain of the West LA Division. Lets not forget Dorner himself supposedly snapped after complaining to his superiors about police brutality he personally witnessed, only to be fired for filing the complaint.

These officers have about about as much chance of being charged with anything as anyone in the federal government has a chance of losing their job over Benghazi Failures. Or the denial of help. Or the cover up. Or discriminatory IRS audits. Or the Federal government digging through the AP's phone records. Lets be honest about it. Not only is nobody going to jail over it, nobody is really even going to lose their job over it. It is systemic corruption. This is what "Change" looks like.

So when Adam talks about marching in the State of Virginia with a loaded weapon he is licensed to carry, along side 4000 other legal open carry people, I see a tragedy in the making. Perhaps he is envisioning something like a Dharasana Satyagraha where the protesters shoot back. Either way, nothing will be the same afterward. My guess is the government will never let it come to fruition.

 

The crazy provocateur, Adam cancelled the march. I can't think of a nation anywhere in the world where this would have been tolerated. Yet it was tolerated here in the US. The police chief in DC had said at an earlier time the police intended to meet the march at the bridge they intended to walk over...and the police were going to be armed. The provocateur had said earlier that the marchers were going to turn back.

Still the entire concept is simply unimaginable in any other nation. I could see this is freedom loving nations such as Russia or China. The group would have been blown to bits. In strife filled nations in the mideast the military would have devastated the marchers, and in the world where guns are restricted...there wouldn't have been a possibility of such a large group of (fanatics) massing.

The marchers have no realization of the immense freedoms that exist within the US.

Now the march has been called off, and unless some uber crazy fanatics decide to carry it out, it shouldn't occur. But to think this was supposed to represent a restriction on freedoms...how absurd. A march like this wouldn't or couldn't occur anywhere else in the world.