March on Washington 07-04-2013

[Lyndsy Simon]

Well I'm about as close to an anarchist as you can get without being one and for me, it means NO RULES. Now that's a bit too far for me as I'd prefer to not have to shoot everyone that decides they like my stuff or my girl enough to take them away from me. It would get quite tiring, isn't good for ones longevity, and I prefer a bit quieter lifestyle. So we must have some rules and a government of some sort to enforce them. A government like the one the founding fathers created could work but not the way its been bastardized over the course of time.

The definitions in the dictionary now are applicable to the use of the word now. I do get your point about how the meaning of words changes over time and I myself make the argument about the meaning of "regulated" at the time of the founding.

In regards to the current discussion, "anarchist" could be used to mean any of the current definitions or just how someone who identifies as an anarchist sees themselves. Apparently Kokesh believes in rules......his rules......and to me that's not anarchy, that's being ruled even if it is voluntary. Seems to me the founders all volunteered to abide by the rules of the Constitution (after deciding that the Articles of Confederation) weren't working out. Now if the current leadership could just abide by the rules of the Constitution, well we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We're getting off track of the discussion, but I'm curious - if the Founders voluntarily submitted to the Constitution and that gave it its authority... where exactly did it get its authority over you and I?

See also Lysander Spooner's writings on the topic of consent. It's an interesting topic even if you are a vehement opponent.

 

[Grapeshot]

Really? The only thing I have seen him say of this march is that it will be peaceful and that he will only become violent if the .gov does first. You must have insider information.

Its "non-thinkers" like these that founded this country and wrote the Constitution. The same Constitution that allows you to have the right to spew your nonsense on this forum.

We are all aware of your disapproval of this whole thing. Do us all, and yourself, a favor, and quit trolling.

So you are saying he is ready and willing to do violence. I do not see an acceptable reason to participate in an uncontrollable situation where the initiator is prepared and willing to see this happen. We have been advancing in good fashion through judicial and legislative means - I say our present methods are succeeding, no reason to throw ourselves under the bus.

Let's leave the internal bickering, name calling somewhere else.

 

[rushcreek2]

ATTN: National Security Agency

Please be advised that comments on this thread reflect concerns shared by the people of the United States over the occupation of the Office of President of the United States by a person who is not only NOT eligible under the U.S. Constitution to serve in that office- but is not even a U.S. citizen.

Given that the person serving in the office of President of the United States is using a Social Security number issued to a man who died in 1977 in Honolulu, and cannot pass an E-Verify check WHY are you serving him ?

 

[joanie]

Ive seen no evedence that would convience me that Adam Kokesh is a "nutjob" or wants violence to break out durring this event. I'm not saying thats not the case, only that what I have looked into mostly from "Adam vs the man" suggest that he challenges athority in a way that needs to be done more often by more people. His videos kinda make people think and ask questions that many in gov would not want asked, and do not want to answer.

That being said, is it possible the guy took, or plans to take a 80 million dollar or more payoff to give government something to use to crack down on gun rights? Yes, I suppose that is a possibility. But we as gun owners can't be responsable for every single gun owner. Same for open carryers, same for car owners, do all drivers expect to pay for the few who drive irresponsability? Thats what they want to sell us on, that because one, or a few in a sea of more than 7 billion people do something bad, the rest can't be trusted not to. "Guilty until proven slave" is our new justice system. Question is our we going to be sheep and accept that?

Much being said against this march can be said against what we do, open carry. I hear about it alot, how I only want to spark confrontation with police, How I shouldn't rock the boat, that nothing good can come of it.

On the surface, this march looks like a peacefull protest against an unjust law. I hope that is all it is, but if it's something much worse, if it turns out to be a disaster, I don't see how that should be our fault, how or why one would expect us to loose our rights. Thats just my big picture thinking.

Heres more big picture thinking. Every single person dies at some point. There are more than 7 billion people on this planet. That more than any time in recorded history. More people means more people murders, more rapes, more drivers, more accedents, more of alot of things. If or not you want to believe many of these shootings or tragic events are staged, or false flag events, the fact is even with all the deaths, it's a very small number compared to deaths from other causes, or all human deaths in general. Compare for example the deaths over the world with Obama's drone strikes. Oh, thats just stitistics, not really murders.

Again, I believe Adam will be poised to march, police will not allow it, they will turn back and other than Adam using this as an example of police breaking their oath to the constitution, thats all that will come of it. But if I'm wrong, and I very well could be, it's not going to be just cause for our rights to be taken away. We need to not let ourselves buy into that, it gives them just what they want.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Except my "one word" answered the question being asked. Your "one word" has zero to do with the question I was answering.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Not if you think that what I was doing was comparing the smear of Kokesh ( I don't know much about him, don't follow him), to the Tory smear of Pain, or Henry or any of those other radical law breakers. Henry was called a traitor for daring to say they didn't owe allegiance to the King.......but we discussed this before it's all personal perspective.

Well I'm about as close to an anarchist as you can get without being one and for me, it means NO RULES. Now that's a bit too far for me as I'd prefer to not have to shoot everyone that decides they like my stuff or my girl enough to take them away from me. It would get quite tiring, isn't good for ones longevity, and I prefer a bit quieter lifestyle. So we must have some rules and a government of some sort to enforce them. A government like the one the founding fathers created could work but not the way its been bastardized over the course of time.

The definitions in the dictionary now are applicable to the use of the word now. I do get your point about how the meaning of words changes over time and I myself make the argument about the meaning of "regulated" at the time of the founding.

In regards to the current discussion, "anarchist" could be used to mean any of the current definitions or just how someone who identifies as an anarchist sees themselves. Apparently Kokesh believes in rules......his rules......and to me that's not anarchy, that's being ruled even if it is voluntary. Seems to me the founders all volunteered to abide by the rules of the Constitution (after deciding that the Articles of Confederation) weren't working out. Now if the current leadership could just abide by the rules of the Constitution, well we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes but as an anarchist at heart, I don't like people telling me that it means I am without rules, into chaos etc......but that is because I educated myself on what anarchism really is about. So to lump all of us into one category is fairly offensive to some, I hope to educate people on it.

I think though that if the government did follow the constitution and stay for the most part out of peoples lives, it wouldn't move so many toward anarchism.......so I would work to at least get the government to abide by the rules it is supposed to be chained by...and I will work side by side with you for that purpose.

 

[rushcreek2]

A can of gasoline approaching a Zippo lighter. Proposition is that everyone CAN go home to Mama on the night of the 4th.............if heads remain cool.

 

[Freedom1Man]

If you read my posts you will see that I have stated everyone has valid concerns and they shouldn't be looked over. My question was if he could give me any facts or information to support his statement that he "is sure the organizer is hoping for there to be violence" I have shown evidence thats says quite the opposite.

If you have concerns with the event itself then yes we should discuss these things. But if you are just afraid of the idea of this and feel like mr. Kokesh's personal political views don't quite mach your own lets not jump to calling him a nutjob, waiting to fly off the handle, that he is looking and hoping for violence. Lets see some real, actual proof. This second part is not just towards Eye95 but I have seen a large number of people slamming him in this way with nothing concrete at all to support these accusations

I have never "attacked" Mr Kokesh. I don't know what his political views are, nor do I really care.

All I had been addressing is the event itself.

While the event itself is an interesting topic, the face of leadership for this event is a concern. I believe that he maybe an agent provocateur hired by the FBI to get the government off of his daddy's back.

Whether or not the intent is sincere, the repercussions from it would rip across this country, and we will find ourselves fighting for our rights and/or our lives. This event, if it happens, will be used by the government to garner support from the mass idiots to take away our guns. IF it does not work out like that it will most likely then get martial law nation wide and/or military/police going door to door disarming Americans. Maybe even get the help of the U.N. in this one.

I think if it does happen what follow will be rather exciting.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

As another member of the Forum told me in a private conversation......The 5th is the more important day......

 

[Freedom1Man]

As another member of the Forum told me in a private conversation......The 5th is the more important day......

A historian, a very astute observation.

 

[JmE]

But even the lowest info American should, without too much incredible difficulty, be able to connect the 4th with rights; I hope...

 

[sharkey]

One word "Paine". Nuff said..........

+ 1

 

[We-the-People]

We're getting off track of the discussion, but I'm curious - if the Founders voluntarily submitted to the Constitution and that gave it its authority... where exactly did it get its authority over you and I?

See also Lysander Spooner's writings on the topic of consent. It's an interesting topic even if you are a vehement opponent.

The founders got their authority from the people who sent them to represent them in the Congress. Of course you and I weren't around back then so there is that ethical question. But you're right, we're getting off the main topic and onto the tangent of discussing anarchy/consent/etc. The topic is scholarly discussion of Mr. Kokesh's event, not his political leanings.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
The topic is scholarly discussion of Mr. Kokesh's event, not his political leanings.

Really? I don't see anyway to separate the two - both would seem to have a common goal, to the detriment of the people.

 

[We-the-People]

Really? I don't see anyway to separate the two - both would seem to have a common goal, to the detriment of the people.

You make a good point. However, I don't think the anarchist ideology is necessarilly to the detriment of the people......except for that pesky fact that without at least some level of rule, i.e. true anarchy, chaos will prevail due to the evil and greed inherent in man's psyche. So you win the point. SMILE

 

[eye95]

No, but the history, the beliefs, and the behavior of the organizer of this event are apt topics for discussion of the march.

 

[PFC HALE]

i will add my thoughts...

i see many here willing to accept slow progress or regress, using a faulty system to fight against those making the final choices when corruption and greed/ lust for power control their hearts and decisions.

every once in a while our society needs to take a giant leap forward towards a goal for our freedom seeing as the current progress is filled with potholes and lined with hoops to jump through at a snails pace requiring a financial backing that very few individuals can support in a "civilized effort".

Sometimes rules need to be broken to achieve a point or goal, to give precedence to a thought or conviction that we the people believe in. I am glad this is happening, i hope it remains civil and safe, while driving the point across in the public light that we are mad as hell and we aren't gonna take it anymore.

if it does end up sparking another civil war or something along those lines, well gee golly it has got to start somewhere. This country is overdue for a cleansing IMHO.

 

[OC for ME]

Seven pages and some have alluded to the only issue. It is not Kokesh that is the issue, it is those who attend the march on Washington that is the issue. The larger the crowd, the less control over the crowd Kokesh has. Kokesh has stated his intentions, we must hope that every participant has exactly the same intentions and acts accordingly.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

1. The word 'overtly' is requested to be added to Rule 15 immediately prior to the word advocating.

2. A caveat statement is requested to be developed and included in Rule 15 to clarify when it is appropriate to break a unconstitutional law vs. repealing it in the applicable legislature or defeating it in the courts.

 

[Grapeshot]

Seven pages and some have alluded to the only issue. It is not Kokesh that is the issue, it is those who attend the march on Washington that is the issue. The larger the crowd, the less control over the crowd Kokesh has. Kokesh has stated his intentions, we must hope that every participant has exactly the same intentions and acts accordingly.

1. The word 'overtly' is requested to be added to Rule 15 immediately prior to the word advocating.

2. A caveat statement is requested to be developed and included in Rule 15 to clarify when it is appropriate to break a unconstitutional law vs. repealing it in the applicable legislature or defeating it in the courts.

Not likely.

 

[Defrock]

looking for opinions, not legal advice

So by this would it be save to assume that a person who does not meet the permit required would be able to carry a .22 rimfire? And what about a "full size" caliber in a bolt action not semi-auto. Or a pump even.

Since it it cites "centerfire", rimfire should be fine. Centerfire is ok too as long as it doesn't have any of the other 'features' mentioned, such as 20+ mag, folding stock, etc.

 

[OC for ME]

Not likely.

Which part is not likely?