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

Originally posted by Daedalus
so what you're really saying is "shut your mouth, don't rock the boat, and be happy you have anything at all"?

No, I am saying don't be stupid enough to march around DC with a loaded gun on the 4th of July. The Constitutional scholars who want to carry guns around should consider a different day; September 17 or June 21 would be appropriate but the publicity would be lessened.
No one is going to prevent you from owning a firearm. Join the NRA and you will help your cause without tempting fate in the form of some beer-fueled "patriot" that decides to march with a loaded rifle.
As to the latest congressional failure, the background checks should apply to all in all circumstances. The BC's are pointless if they can be avoided at shows and expos.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus
so what you're really saying is "shut your mouth, don't rock the boat, and be happy you have anything at all"?

No, I am saying don't be stupid enough to march around DC with a loaded gun on the 4th of July. The Constitutional scholars who want to carry guns around should consider a different day; September 17 or June 21 would be appropriate but the publicity would be lessened.
No one is going to prevent you from owning a firearm. Join the NRA and you will help your cause without tempting fate in the form of some beer-fueled "patriot" that decides to march with a loaded rifle.
As to the latest congressional failure, the background checks should apply to all in all circumstances. The BC's are pointless if they can be avoided at shows and expos.

there is nothing wrong with an armed march on the 4th...it's a demonstration of people exercising rights, and freedoms, on the day our nation celebrates our declaration of independence from england. the 4th is a symbol of freedom, liberty, and everything this nation is SUPPOSED to stand for.

and this is not about ownership. this is about freedom in general, but more specifically, it's about the 2nd amendment being under constant attack..but since you seem to think that gun shows are immune to background checks, you probably also think that the 2nd amendment isn't under attack, and that people are just making things up....the government is in perfect working order, and is just as it should be, right?

Originally posted by Daedalus
there is nothing wrong with an armed march on the 4th...it's a demonstration of people exercising rights, and freedoms, on the day our nation celebrates our declaration of independence from england. the 4th is a symbol of freedom, liberty, and everything this nation is SUPPOSED to stand for.

and this is not about ownership. this is about freedom in general, but more specifically, it's about the 2nd amendment being under constant attack..but since you seem to think that gun shows are immune to background checks, you probably also think that the 2nd amendment isn't under attack, and that people are just making things up....the government is in perfect working order, and is just as it should be, right?

edit on 8-5-2013 by Daedalus because: w-i-n-n-i-n-g

So how has your second amendment right been violated lately? Can you own firearms or are you a felon? The purpose of such a march is what? If it is about the Constitution why not pick a date that is related to the signing of the Constitution? If it is not about gun ownership, why is everyone talking about an armed march? Why not a march with signs and such? Go to a few gun shows in rural WV and tell me again about background checks and private sales. I own more than a few guns and if I and most other citizens have to go through a background check and buy stamps for some of them, so should every other citizen, private sales or not.
So far I don't see a gripe. Many of the people talking the loudest are keyboard commandos or REMF's and think that this march is a great idea. If one clown lets off a round or someone throws a cherry bomb as a joke and anything comes of it, you will find guns being confiscated and more onerous laws that you can imagine and the good ol' NRA won't be able to buy off any politicians, then. The armed march of the wingnuts on firecracker day is about the most risky event gun owners would want. Think conspiracy theory by the Left Coast liberals. Arrests and confiscation should happen and even that will be dangerous.

He is ballsy as a felony conviction will take away his right to "keep and bear arms".

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
He is ballsy as a felony conviction will take away his right to "keep and bear arms".

My bet is that he knows this and if the march does occur, he will be carrying a flag in the front ranks or an airsoft AK. I'm thinking he wants it to be stopped so he can complain and get some TV time.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus
there is nothing wrong with an armed march on the 4th...it's a demonstration of people exercising rights, and freedoms, on the day our nation celebrates our declaration of independence from england. the 4th is a symbol of freedom, liberty, and everything this nation is SUPPOSED to stand for.

and this is not about ownership. this is about freedom in general, but more specifically, it's about the 2nd amendment being under constant attack..but since you seem to think that gun shows are immune to background checks, you probably also think that the 2nd amendment isn't under attack, and that people are just making things up....the government is in perfect working order, and is just as it should be, right?

edit on 8-5-2013 by Daedalus because: w-i-n-n-i-n-g

So how has your second amendment right been violated lately? Can you own firearms or are you a felon? The purpose of such a march is what? If it is about the Constitution why not pick a date that is related to the signing of the Constitution? If it is not about gun ownership, why is everyone talking about an armed march? Why not a march with signs and such? Go to a few gun shows in rural WV and tell me again about background checks and private sales. I own more than a few guns and if I and most other citizens have to go through a background check and buy stamps for some of them, so should every other citizen, private sales or not.
So far I don't see a gripe. Many of the people talking the loudest are keyboard commandos or REMF's and think that this march is a great idea. If one clown lets off a round or someone throws a cherry bomb as a joke and anything comes of it, you will find guns being confiscated and more onerous laws that you can imagine and the good ol' NRA won't be able to buy off any politicians, then. The armed march of the wingnuts on firecracker day is about the most risky event gun owners would want. Think conspiracy theory by the Left Coast liberals. Arrests and confiscation should happen and even that will be dangerous.

how are my rights infringed?

the state i live in makes it really hard to get guns, because of unconstitutional laws, and it makes it even harder to carry said gun, because of unconstitutional laws....

let's see, in some places, there are bans on 30-round mags, that's an infringement...in some places, you can't own certain kinds of guns, that's an infringement...and the federal government keeps trying to make unconstitutional laws, in an attempt to fool us into waiving, relinquishing, or willingly not exercising our rights under the 2nd amendment TO THE FULLEST.

if you're going to gun shows, and legit vendors are not doing things the right way, then they obviously have no respect for the law, and making a NEW LAW that tells them that they hafta do something that they are already required, by law, to do, isn't going to change a thing..

if i sell a knife to a friend, i don't hafta do a background check...if i sell a house, or a car, or a hammer, or some pipe, i don't hafta do a background check...private sales are just that....private..that said, private sales shouldn't be happening at gun shows...

btw.....wtf is a "REMF"?

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus
there is nothing wrong with an armed march on the 4th...it's a demonstration of people exercising rights, and freedoms, on the day our nation celebrates our declaration of independence from england. the 4th is a symbol of freedom, liberty, and everything this nation is SUPPOSED to stand for.

and this is not about ownership. this is about freedom in general, but more specifically, it's about the 2nd amendment being under constant attack..but since you seem to think that gun shows are immune to background checks, you probably also think that the 2nd amendment isn't under attack, and that people are just making things up....the government is in perfect working order, and is just as it should be, right?

edit on 8-5-2013 by Daedalus because: w-i-n-n-i-n-g

So how has your second amendment right been violated lately? Can you own firearms or are you a felon? The purpose of such a march is what? If it is about the Constitution why not pick a date that is related to the signing of the Constitution? If it is not about gun ownership, why is everyone talking about an armed march? Why not a march with signs and such? Go to a few gun shows in rural WV and tell me again about background checks and private sales. I own more than a few guns and if I and most other citizens have to go through a background check and buy stamps for some of them, so should every other citizen, private sales or not.
So far I don't see a gripe. Many of the people talking the loudest are keyboard commandos or REMF's and think that this march is a great idea. If one clown lets off a round or someone throws a cherry bomb as a joke and anything comes of it, you will find guns being confiscated and more onerous laws that you can imagine and the good ol' NRA won't be able to buy off any politicians, then. The armed march of the wingnuts on firecracker day is about the most risky event gun owners would want. Think conspiracy theory by the Left Coast liberals. Arrests and confiscation should happen and even that will be dangerous.

how are my rights infringed?

the state i live in makes it really hard to get guns, because of unconstitutional laws, and it makes it even harder to carry said gun, because of unconstitutional laws....

let's see, in some places, there are bans on 30-round mags, that's an infringement...in some places, you can't own certain kinds of guns, that's an infringement...and the federal government keeps trying to make unconstitutional laws, in an attempt to fool us into waiving, relinquishing, or willingly not exercising our rights under the 2nd amendment TO THE FULLEST.

if you're going to gun shows, and legit vendors are not doing things the right way, then they obviously have no respect for the law, and making a NEW LAW that tells them that they hafta do something that they are already required, by law, to do, isn't going to change a thing..

if i sell a knife to a friend, i don't hafta do a background check...if i sell a house, or a car, or a hammer, or some pipe, i don't hafta do a background check...private sales are just that....private..that said, private sales shouldn't be happening at gun shows...

btw.....wtf is a "REMF"?

edit on 9-5-2013 by Daedalus because: winning

edit on 9-5-2013 by Daedalus because: needed moar winning

REMF is a rear echelon Mother F*****

In Military terms it is the guys in the rear always making dumb decisions when it isnt THEM having to be there.

In this case its the Keyboard warriors who are stirring # up for this most ignorant idea of the century but they THEMSELVES will be comfortable at home watching it all unleash.

A REMF could also be a citizen yelling for War but not signing up- Like those idiots calling for us to Level NK DPRK and saying how "easy" it wuill be when they have nebver faced combat nor will THEY put their ass on the line- But will talk talk talk talk talk from the comfort of their safe little home.

Originally posted by Daedalus
how are my rights infringed?

the state i live in makes it really hard to get guns, because of unconstitutional laws, and it makes it even harder to carry said gun, because of unconstitutional laws....

let's see, in some places, there are bans on 30-round mags, that's an infringement...in some places, you can't own certain kinds of guns, that's an infringement...and the federal government keeps trying to make unconstitutional laws, in an attempt to fool us into waiving, relinquishing, or willingly not exercising our rights under the 2nd amendment TO THE FULLEST.

if you're going to gun shows, and legit vendors are not doing things the right way, then they obviously have no respect for the law, and making a NEW LAW that tells them that they hafta do something that they are already required, by law, to do, isn't going to change a thing..

if i sell a knife to a friend, i don't hafta do a background check...if i sell a house, or a car, or a hammer, or some pipe, i don't hafta do a background check...private sales are just that....private..that said, private sales shouldn't be happening at gun shows...

btw.....wtf is a "REMF"?

edit on 9-5-2013 by Daedalus because: winning

edit on 9-5-2013 by Daedalus because: needed more? winning

It makes it more difficult but doesn't prevent it? That doesn't sound like any rights are infringed on. There is nothing in the Constitution about 30 round magazines or specific types of firearms, is there? Local laws limit types but don't prohibit ownership of firearms. A Federal stamp for full auto or a suppressor is needed but they are available. 2nd Amendment seems safe to me.
If you'd like to see more laws, scare the crap out of the general public with a stupid stunt like the 4th of July march by a bunch of armed men with unknown agendas.
If you'd like to see really oppressive laws, wait for some knucklehead to do something stupid and see what comes of it.

Excellent!Way overdue,should have been done years ago.Washington YOU ARE ON NOTICE.If government forces attack I think its safe to say it will definitely be on then.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus
how are my rights infringed?

the state i live in makes it really hard to get guns, because of unconstitutional laws, and it makes it even harder to carry said gun, because of unconstitutional laws....

let's see, in some places, there are bans on 30-round mags, that's an infringement...in some places, you can't own certain kinds of guns, that's an infringement...and the federal government keeps trying to make unconstitutional laws, in an attempt to fool us into waiving, relinquishing, or willingly not exercising our rights under the 2nd amendment TO THE FULLEST.

if you're going to gun shows, and legit vendors are not doing things the right way, then they obviously have no respect for the law, and making a NEW LAW that tells them that they hafta do something that they are already required, by law, to do, isn't going to change a thing..

if i sell a knife to a friend, i don't hafta do a background check...if i sell a house, or a car, or a hammer, or some pipe, i don't hafta do a background check...private sales are just that....private..that said, private sales shouldn't be happening at gun shows...

btw.....wtf is a "REMF"?

edit on 9-5-2013 by Daedalus because: winning

edit on 9-5-2013 by Daedalus because: needed more? winning

It makes it more difficult but doesn't prevent it? That doesn't sound like any rights are infringed on. There is nothing in the Constitution about 30 round magazines or specific types of firearms, is there? Local laws limit types but don't prohibit ownership of firearms. A Federal stamp for full auto or a suppressor is needed but they are available. 2nd Amendment seems safe to me.
If you'd like to see more laws, scare the crap out of the general public with a stupid stunt like the 4th of July march by a bunch of armed men with unknown agendas.
If you'd like to see really oppressive laws, wait for some knucklehead to do something stupid and see what comes of it.

and i knew you would eventually go to the "the constitution doesn't protect 30-round mags, and rifles" BS argument...it took you longer than most, so i'll give you that...

the 2nd amendment was intended to ensure that the citizens are armed, and equipped to the same specification as the average infantryman...

local laws forbid certain types...that's an infringement
local laws forbid open or concealed carry...that's an infringement

you wanna talk about what the constitution DOESN'T say?....it doesn't say you can only keep certain kinds of small arms that the government decides you can have..it also doesn't say anything about needing to jump through hoops, and get permission from the government to carry your weapon.....

the 2nd amendment simply is a statement of fact that we, as human beings, have the natural right to own whatever kind of weapon we want, and we have the natural right to carry that weapon..and i swear to christ, if you start in with the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, this dialogue will be over...

in any event, anyone who's taken the time to read the federalist papers has a much broader understanding of what was in the minds of the men who founded this nation....it gives you a greater understanding of the reasoning behind the amendments, and then constitution in general....

the only reason the public would be scared, is because of decades of propaganda saying guns are bad, and you should be afraid of anyone with a gun who isn't a soldier or a cop...i'm sure they'll have signs as well, explaining what the deal is......i understand there is a potential for mayhem, but there is a very important point to be made...

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

REMF is a rear echelon Mother F*****

In Military terms it is the guys in the rear always making dumb decisions when it isnt THEM having to be there.

In this case its the Keyboard warriors who are stirring # up for this most ignorant idea of the century but they THEMSELVES will be comfortable at home watching it all unleash.

A REMF could also be a citizen yelling for War but not signing up- Like those idiots calling for us to Level NK DPRK and saying how "easy" it wuill be when they have nebver faced combat nor will THEY put their ass on the line- But will talk talk talk talk talk from the comfort of their safe little home.

yeah, that doesn't sound like me at all...

i did my service, never heard that term though, lol..

thanks.

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by mactheaxe
It is my understanding that this will not be publicized. Ive heard many times lately that the Revolution WILL NOT be told by the mainstream.

Hmmmm- Not following you?

It already is publicized if you are talking about this event. And if a REVOLUTION happens, the "mainstream" will no doubt be reporting on it...As will facebook, twitter, youtube and a million different views on what happened/is happening complete with people saying all the protesters were actors.

edit on 6-5-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)

Or... after there is a shoot-out/massacre the mainstream media will just say that they were terrorists put down by our glorious capitol police and national guard. Then they will annouce a victory parade complete with red stars and led by our beloved leader chairman Obama.

...and the 4th of july will be changed from independance day to Great Patriotic Victory Day. Where we get to celebrate the destruction of the evil racist document, the constitution and our loss of all civil liberties in the name of public safety.

You think I'm exagerating? Just wait.

reply to post by Nicks87


I think you are exaggerating, but am prepared to wait. Let's reconvene on the 4th August and see what's gone down.

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

REMF is a rear echelon Mother F*****

In Military terms it is the guys in the rear always making dumb decisions when it isnt THEM having to be there.

In this case its the Keyboard warriors who are stirring # up for this most ignorant idea of the century but they THEMSELVES will be comfortable at home watching it all unleash.

A REMF could also be a citizen yelling for War but not signing up- Like those idiots calling for us to Level NK DPRK and saying how "easy" it wuill be when they have nebver faced combat nor will THEY put their ass on the line- But will talk talk talk talk talk from the comfort of their safe little home.

yeah, that doesn't sound like me at all...

i did my service, never heard that term though, lol..

thanks.

LOL- Its an old term and I am not even sure its used anymore- Was a wildly popular expression during Vietnam wyhere the REMFs would sit in Saigon drinking and whoring around- They would often trade privileges to Soldiers (or pay MPC which was a military currency used during Vietnam to keep "American Dollars" out of the Country) for "gifts" such as dead NVA helmets and bayonettes - Then they would often make up elaberate "war stories" about their heroics to their freinds and families Stateside. It was a very common occurrence.

When I served, I never heard the term either- But I have read a million books on Vietnam and it was in every single one- These people were NOT respected and much of the disrespect was very well earned. =P

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

REMF is a rear echelon Mother F*****

In Military terms it is the guys in the rear always making dumb decisions when it isnt THEM having to be there.

In this case its the Keyboard warriors who are stirring # up for this most ignorant idea of the century but they THEMSELVES will be comfortable at home watching it all unleash.

A REMF could also be a citizen yelling for War but not signing up- Like those idiots calling for us to Level NK DPRK and saying how "easy" it wuill be when they have nebver faced combat nor will THEY put their ass on the line- But will talk talk talk talk talk from the comfort of their safe little home.

yeah, that doesn't sound like me at all...

i did my service, never heard that term though, lol..

thanks.

LOL- Its an old term and I am not even sure its used anymore- Was a wildly popular expression during Vietnam wyhere the REMFs would sit in Saigon drinking and whoring around- They would often trade privileges to Soldiers (or pay MPC which was a military currency used during Vietnam to keep "American Dollars" out of the Country) for "gifts" such as dead NVA helmets and bayonettes - Then they would often make up elaberate "war stories" about their heroics to their freinds and families Stateside. It was a very common occurrence.

When I served, I never heard the term either- But I have read a million books on Vietnam and it was in every single one- These people were NOT respected and much of the disrespect was very well earned. =P

First Cav aviation Battalion used the "REMF" term all the time. Some REMF Major or Col. would hop a bird out of Saigon and land where we lived so he could get his much deserved Airmedal with "V" device or a DFC...Must have the medals to prove he was a real warrior and leader of men etc etc.It did not happen all that much but it happened. . I never heard someone say REMF in a nice way...hahahhaa

LOL-

I imagine its probably is a term which is "Resurrected" every time we have a "War" or combat situation. When I served it was peace-time.

Glad to know things havnt changed though, lol.

Should be fun to watch...I'm always a fan of seeing idiots get their heads smashed in by police.

Hopefully shooting doesn't start, but will anyone really feel sorry for this idiot if he gets himself killed?

Originally posted by Daedalus
and i knew you would eventually go to the "the constitution doesn't protect 30-round mags, and rifles" BS argument...it took you longer than most, so i'll give you that...

the 2nd amendment was intended to ensure that the citizens are armed, and equipped to the same specification as the average infantryman...

local laws forbid certain types...that's an infringement
local laws forbid open or concealed carry...that's an infringement

you wanna talk about what the constitution DOESN'T say?....it doesn't say you can only keep certain kinds of small arms that the government decides you can have..it also doesn't say anything about needing to jump through hoops, and get permission from the government to carry your weapon.....

the 2nd amendment simply is a statement of fact that we, as human beings, have the natural right to own whatever kind of weapon we want, and we have the natural right to carry that weapon..and i swear to christ, if you start in with the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, this dialogue will be over...

in any event, anyone who's taken the time to read the federalist papers has a much broader understanding of what was in the minds of the men who founded this nation....it gives you a greater understanding of the reasoning behind the amendments, and then constitution in general....

the only reason the public would be scared, is because of decades of propaganda saying guns are bad, and you should be afraid of anyone with a gun who isn't a soldier or a cop...i'm sure they'll have signs as well, explaining what the deal is......i understand there is a potential for mayhem, but there is a very important point to be made...

While you have your own take on what it means and what was in the minds of the founders, the Supreme Court has their interpretation, too, and theirs counts in court. In 2008 a case was decided related to the march through DC. You can look it up as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." It also said that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
I understand that you have been reading websites with inflammatory rhetoric about carrying arms and how the government is oppressive and how certain laws are "illegal." Remember that there are those in prison who were convinced by a few that income taxes were illegal. The courts disagreed with them and will disagree with the marchers, too.

The reason that the public would be worried is not related to the propaganda of either side of the argument. The reason that the public would be worried is because a large group of armed private citizens will be wandering through their city in violation of their laws. What if they are marching through a neighborhood where some local armed citizens take exception to their presence? It would be the height of folly to let this march happen, as described. It is possible to make the point without the potential for mayhem. My bet is that they can march with signs or not at all. A point was made earlier in this thread about felons. If this march does occur, the many legal charges that could be brought against the leaders and participants could well prevent them from legally owning a firearm in the future.

Join the NRA. Don't waste your time on a DC march [you were going, weren't you?] and your money on criminal defense lawyers.

Originally posted by pteridine
While you have your own take on what it means and what was in the minds of the founders, the Supreme Court has their interpretation, too, and theirs counts in court. In 2008 a case was decided related to the march through DC. You can look it up as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." It also said that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
I understand that you have been reading websites with inflammatory rhetoric about carrying arms and how the government is oppressive and how certain laws are "illegal." Remember that there are those in prison who were convinced by a few that income taxes were illegal. The courts disagreed with them and will disagree with the marchers, too.

The reason that the public would be worried is not related to the propaganda of either side of the argument. The reason that the public would be worried is because a large group of armed private citizens will be wandering through their city in violation of their laws. What if they are marching through a neighborhood where some local armed citizens take exception to their presence? It would be the height of folly to let this march happen, as described. It is possible to make the point without the potential for mayhem. My bet is that they can march with signs or not at all. A point was made earlier in this thread about felons. If this march does occur, the many legal charges that could be brought against the leaders and participants could well prevent them from legally owning a firearm in the future.

Join the NRA. Don't waste your time on a DC march [you were going, weren't you?] and your money on criminal defense lawyers.

sadly, the supreme court doesn't always get it right....it shouldn't be up to them to "interpret" a document written in english, and tell us what it means...if you can read, it all makes perfect sense.

i'm fairly certain income taxes are illegal, i have to do more research on it, but as far as i know, there is no actual law that says you are absolutely required to pay....in fact, i'm pretty sure it's still on the books that paying is voluntary....but whatever, this isn't about taxes, it's about guns..

federal and local gun laws are most often unconstitutional...that's a fact. it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that's plain english....it means my rights to own and carry may not be diminished, limited, curtailed, or criminalized. imagine a piece of paper.....it say cat on it....supreme court says we're all wrong, and that the word is actually dog....we KNOW it says cat, but they say they are the pros, and that they have interpreted it to mean dog... it still says cat, regardless of how they try to twist it...same goes with the constitution, bill of rights, and the supreme court....i don't need them to interpret my rights as a human being, and a citizen of this nation...i can read just fine, thanks....

as to my attendance...unfortunately, no, i was not going to go..i don't have a rifle, thanks to the wacko restrictions in my municipality, and the wacko restrictions in my state....i can GET one, it's just prohibitively expensive, and you gotta jump through a bunch of hoops... i also don't have job currently, so no money for travel expenses....if i lived in the area, i'd probably go to show support though...i completely get why they're doing it, and i fully support the message.

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.

reply to post by Hopechest


We are nowhere near that?

Hopechest, do you really believe some of the nonsense I see you write routinely on this website?