Adam (vs the Man) Kokesh organizing an armed civil disobedience march on D.C.

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Really?
It's people like this guy that give me hope in the nation!
Far too long have the "kings and queens" of CONgress trampled on us!
Far too long has the entire "city" of the District of Columbia been unconstitutional!

I say: HELL YES! It's about damn time!
We have to fight for what is ours!
Not just sit around and let them plunder us to poverty!

I'm tired of these lazy, non-american-belief-having consumers sitting around saying "its over, there's nothing we can do".....when here is a prime example of what America is all about!
I thought the same way once, long ago...that mindset is long gone!

We need to set things straight in "DC". Period.
If it takes force, so be it.

Our forefathers didn't whine and complain.
They took arms straight to the oppressors.
We should do the same!

No offense but armed conflict is not going to get your position heard, its going to get you dead. I happen to have hope in people that change the system without violence.

Look at the civil rights protesters who did not need to carry loaded weapons.

Look at the lady who started AARP, now the strongest lobby in Congress, all because she didn't' like the way her grandmother was treated by the government.

The examples are endless of ways to effect change without threatening violence. You said "if it takes force, so be it."

That is the point, it doesn't take force yet. We have not gotten anywhere near that point. Go find a politician you like and help him get elected, go get on the board of a corporation or start your own and lobby congress, march peacefully.....don't go to DC with loaded firearms and expect anyone to take you seriously.

All it does is make you look like you want a fight.

reply to post by havok

Our forefathers didn't whine and complain.
They took arms straight to the oppressors.
We should do the same!

That would be my exact sentiment.

Samuel Adams went out with John Hancock to instigate shootouts against British soldiers just for the fun of it--before the war even started.

I can't stand the attitude of people who think that "peaceably" protesting is the only recourse. Sometimes you just have to knock someone's teeth out.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by havok

 

Our forefathers didn't whine and complain.
They took arms straight to the oppressors.
We should do the same!

That would be my exact sentiment.

Samuel Adams went out with John Hancock to instigate shootouts against British soldiers just for the fun of it--before the war even started.

I can't stand the attitude of people who think that "peaceably" protesting is the only recourse. Sometimes you just have to knock someone's teeth out.

They tried all other means first so by the time it got to open revolt they had no choices left.

They were being taxed to death with a standing British army on our land that they were being told to pay for. We are nowhere near the circumstances that they were.

They had no options left, we still do. However there is nothing wrong with protesting just don't do it armed because it won't be nearly as effective. Does anyone here think that getting into a firefight is going to make the government back off or increase their pressure to infringe on our rights.

Think about it. This is just plain stupid and is riddled with horrible scenarios.

reply to post by Hopechest

No offense but armed conflict is not going to get your position heard, its going to get you dead. I happen to have hope in people that change the system without violence.

They aren't looking for "armed conflict". Adam said (according to the OP) that they were going peacefully, and if it turned into a "conflict" it would be the LEOs who start it.

I agree violence is unnecessary at this point -

BUT, the 2nd amendment exists so that
a) militias could be mustered to fight invaders/enemies of the state, and
b) the people can resist tyrannical usurpation of their rights effectively.

Originally posted by Hopechest
People like this guy are what is destroying this nation.

.....hmmmmm, I don't know/not sure. Lets see what history have to say about it ?

Examples of civil disobedience
The following are examples of civil disobedience from around the world.

People's Republic of China
In the 2000s (decade), forms of civil disobedience such as tax resistance, rural protests and work stoppages were on the rise in China.

Cuba
See also: Cuban dissidents. The movement Yo No Coopero Con La Dictadura ("I Do Not Cooperate with the Dictatorship"), commonly called Yo No ("Not I" or "I don't") for short, is a civil disobedience campaign against the government in Cuba.[2][3] The campaign utilizes the slogan "I do want change,"

Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic
See also: Revolutions of 1989 and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Singing Revolution lasted over four years, with various protests and acts of defiance. In 1991, as Soviet tanks attempted to stop the progress towards independence, the Supreme Council of Estonia together with the Congress of Estonia proclaimed the restoration of the independent state of Estonia and repudiated Soviet legislation. People acted as human shields to protect radio and TV stations from the Soviet tanks.

Egypt
Further information: Egyptian Revolution of 1939. Among the several civil disobedience that took place along the history of modern Egypt (most of which aren't widely known), the Egyptian Revolution of 1919 is considered to be one of the earliest successful in India implementations of non-violent civil disobedience world-wide. It was a countrywide revolution against the British occupation of Egypt and Sudan.

East Germany
In 1989, East Germans used civil disobedience to break the Berlin Wall in order to unite a divided Germany.[10][11]. Further information: Revolutions of 1989, East Germany, and Berlin Wall. The Uprising of 1953 was disobedience against the government in East Germany. The protests were put down by the state.[12]

Civil resistance was a significant factor behind the dissolution of communist governments and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.[

France
In 1972, 103 peasant landowners took an oath to resist the proposed extension of the existing military training base on the Larzac plateau. Lanza del Vasto, a disciple of Gandhi, advised them on civil disobedience tactics, including hunger strikes, that were ultimately successful

India
Civil disobedience has served as a major tactic of nationalist movements in former colonies in Africa and Asia prior to their gaining independence. Most notably Mahatma Gandhi developed civil disobedience as an anti-colonialist tool. Gandhi stated "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen to be civil, implies discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice".

Israel
Following the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s, Moshe Feiglin and Shmuel Sackett founded Zo Artzeinu (Hebrew: זו ארצנו, This is our land), a political protest movement created to block Israeli land concessions to the Arabs. The movement was known to block roads and use other forms of civil disobedience adapted from the civil rights movement in the United States to make known their protests and goals.

Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
Main articles: Sajudis and Singing Revolution. See also: Revolutions of 1989. Sajudis used civil disobedience in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic to seek independence from the Soviet Union.[

Bangladesh (East Pakistan)
Maulana Bhashani and Sheikh Mujib leading a protest march.
During his famous speech on on 7 March 1971, East Pakistan's Bengali nationalist leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his Awami League party announced the historic "non-cooperation" movement against the military and political establishment of West Pakistan

Puerto Rico
Main articles: Navy-Culebra protests and Navy-Vieques protests
At least four major acts of civil disobedience have taken placed in Puerto Rico. These have not been directed to the local government of the Commonwealth, but against the Federal Government of the United States.

South Africa
This famous movement, started by Nelson Mandela along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Steve Biko, advocated civil disobedience. The result can be seen in such notable events as the 1989 Purple Rain Protest, and the Cape Town Peace March which defied apartheid.

Thailand
Sondhi Limthongkul, leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), and other leaders of this alliance have claimed to be using civil disobedience. Despite their claim, their actions have not been following the principles of civil disobedience. Members of the alliance have been seen armed with clubs and other weapons such as guns, swords, and bombs.

...seems like sometimes it worked.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Hopechest


If the people find that the current system doesn't get them solutions, then a change is needed. To me, there are too many people who think "violence isn't necessary".

What kind of system do you think we are dealing with?
Constantly waging wars for top secret reasons...and agendas.
Persistant brutality from the people hired to "protect and serve".
We are dealing with a violent adversary.
One that has few numbers but loads of our own money!

So if you still believe voting works, then keep trucking.
The system is rigged in their favor. We all see it by now.

It's time that the government fears the people.
They can't arrest millions.

If the gov't thinks they can intimidate the public into submission (which is exactly what I believe they are doing) then it's time to show them we can't be intimidated!

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Hopechest

 

No offense but armed conflict is not going to get your position heard, its going to get you dead. I happen to have hope in people that change the system without violence.

They aren't looking for "armed conflict". Adam said (according to the OP) that they were going peacefully, and if it turned into a "conflict" it would be the LEOs who start it.

I agree violence is unnecessary at this point -

BUT, the 2nd amendment exists so that
a) militias could be mustered to fight invaders/enemies of the state, and
b) the people can resist tyrannical usurpation of their rights effectively.

I understand what he said but being armed is just taking a very bad risk. Why bother?

It will not make people listen harder to your cause and the chance of someone's gun going off and causing a mass conflict is definitely there. And I do know why the 2nd was written but this is not the correct way to handle it.

I really have no clue why they are bringing loaded weapons into this protest? Not unless they feel there may be a need to use them.

reply to post by havok


This is how you stand up to tyranny before you resort to arms.

reply to post by Hopechest

I really have no clue why they are bringing loaded weapons into this protest? Not unless they feel there may be a need to use them.

To make a point. The constitution upholds the right to bear arms.

As for "accidentally going off," any responsible gun owner knows how to put the safety on to prevent such a thing. I can't imagine how a "safety-on" rifle strapped to someone's back could "go off" but I guess it's possible. (Safeties do break, but without a chambered round, it still won't go off).

According to my husband (an expert marksman several times over) it's VERY UNLIKELY for that to happen. And, a rifle can be loaded without a bullet IN THE CHAMBER, and then, no, it won't go off. IF there IS a bullet in the chamber, there's a SLIGHT possibility it might go off, but he says 1 in 500K (rough guesstimation) are the chances..

Still, that doesn't mean that all of these people know about gun safety, or that their rifles will be in working order.

Originally posted by Hopechest
People like this guy are what is destroying this nation.

You know, we got something called a voting system to make changes you don't agree with. Facing down cops with loaded weapons is not how you respectablly change things.

I imagine that since they have no permit they will quickly be disbanded before they even start. Either way, the cops won't let them march and shouldn't.

These guys should take a lessen from the Civil Rights protestors and hold unarmed marches or sit-ins. What these guys are planning is the same thuggery they are supposedly fighting against.

Why trade one armed government tyrant for one public one?

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

-Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

In case you haven't noticed, the voting system is broken. We only get to vote for the millionaires who the system thrusts upon us. And they do not even bother with a pretense of representing the constituency in their districts. A CORRUPT SYSTEM WILL NEVER REFORM ITSELF!! It is time for the torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers. Government needs to fear the people for a change.

reply to post by Hopechest


And China has become a beacon of Democracy and Hope since then right? Right? *insert face palm here*

reply to post by groingrinder

And China has become a beacon of Democracy and Hope since then right? Right? *insert face palm here*

Yeah, didn't China's government actually ROLL a steam-roller OVER a guy protesting something? Maybe I'm mixing up stories, but...
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about it.

And China has become a beacon of Democracy and Hope since then right? Right? *insert face palm here*

Actually that whole incident led to many reforms in China so although its still communist there is no denying that this man had a bigger impact by taking his action than if he would have shot a gun at the tank.

reply to post by havok


Star! That is everything that needs to be said right there.

reply to post by Hopechest

Actually that whole incident led to many reforms in China so although its still communist there is no denying that this man had a bigger impact by taking his action than if he would have shot a gun at the tank.

This is what happened after tank-man:

The crackdown that initiated on June 3–4 became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre or the June 4 Massacre as troops with assault rifles and tanks inflicted thousands of casualties on unarmed civilians trying to block the military’s advance on Tiananmen Square in the heart of Beijing, which student demonstrators had occupied for seven weeks. The scale of military mobilization and the resulting bloodshed were unprecedented in the history of Beijing, a city with a rich tradition of popular protests in the 20th century.[4] Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989

See that? UNARMED civilians. Thousands of them SLAUGHTERED. By armed government enforcers.

And, although I can't stand Alex Jones in general, this article from infowars reports that steamroller incident from last year.
Man Crushed by Steamroller On Orders of Chinese Officials

reply to post by wildtimes


Yes but the world outcry over that whole event did eventually lead to reforms in China.

They may not had happened had the people in the square been armed and firing back. It would have been labeled a revolt or some such nonesense.

Even so, just the image to me is far more powerful then seeing 1000 people armed while marching through a city.

reply to post by Hopechest

They may not had happened had the people in the square been armed and firing back. It would have been labeled a revolt or some such nonesense.

Even so, just the image to me is far more powerful then seeing 1000 people armed while marching through a city.

Okay, fair enough (that the image is far more powerful to you).

I agree with Ghandi's approach. However, it WAS a revolt...and thousands of civilians were victims of casualties!

So, you'd prefer that thousands of unarmed civilians die while "protesting peacefully" and unarmed? Or is it more "fair" that armed civilians have the same advantages as the "officials"? No one can fight off an armed aggressor if they are unarmed.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by havok

 

Our forefathers didn't whine and complain.
They took arms straight to the oppressors.
We should do the same!

That would be my exact sentiment.

Samuel Adams went out with John Hancock to instigate shootouts against British soldiers just for the fun of it--before the war even started.

I can't stand the attitude of people who think that "peaceably" protesting is the only recourse. Sometimes you just have to knock someone's teeth out.

Except that most of the population is very happy and when small group of what they view as nutters start running around with guns they will cheer on the people who put them down. People have the best lives and the most freedom the have had in the history of this nation. People will have to oppressed before they will rise up.

So, you'd prefer that thousands of unarmed civilians die while "protesting peacefully" and unarmed? Or is it more "fair" that armed civilians have the same advantages as the "officials"? No one can fight off an armed aggressor if they are unarmed.

Of course not but peacefully protesting usually is safer than protesting with weapons. As a general rule.

We have the second amendment in place and there is no way the government will ever get the guns...just not possible...so we will always have that to fall back on. If martial law is declared and people put in camps then I'd say sure...but for a simple protest in a city I believe it is a risk that is better not taken.

I understand why these people are going and wish them all the luck in the world. I would just hate to see something happen and people get hurt or shot. Either the protestors or law enforcement. Too many fingers on triggers and one may go off.

reply to post by Hopechest

I understand why these people are going and wish them all the luck in the world. I would just hate to see something happen and people get hurt or shot. Either the protestors or law enforcement. Too many fingers on triggers and one may go off.

I get your point, Hope.
But a rifle strapped to one's back is not the same as "fingers on triggers".
I would hate to see anyone die also.

ETA:
Also, LEOs do not generally "man" a gathering with "pulled guns" and fingers on triggers. Their arms are holstered in safety-on mode. Now, if they respond with guns aimed, locked and loaded, that's another scenario altogether.