March on Washington 07-04-2013

[Lyndsy Simon]

(snip)
Having said that.........there are many issues currently in flux that could cause the landscape to deteriorate to the point that political critical mass is achieved. In that event the "demonstration" might become an "activation".

I am thinking back to 1989 Moscow for a reference point comparison.

That's what I'm trying to get across here, not a discussion of my or Kokesh's politics.

IF this event goes through as planned, this community needs to have an idea of what we want to do in the unlikely event that this doesn't stay a peaceful demonstration.

What if someone opens fire on the cops? What if a cop opens fire on someone? What if we can't tell who fired the first shot?

What if draconian federal laws or regulations follow the protest?

I really think it bears consideration from a practial standpoint. If nothing else, if laws are passed in the wake of this event, we should have a prepared, principled opposition to them.

 

[Lyndsy Simon]

Many of the responses in this thread that are negatively addressing the Anarcho-Capitalist ideology aren't factually accurate. As a result, here is a resource that after having perused it I feel comfortable linking in this thread.

I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but in this case the collection of material and summaries is dead-on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

As an AnCap, I vouch for that page. It's a fair assessment of the ideology, and one that I and other patrol to make sure it isn't defaced.

 

[OC for ME]

Wow... You sound like what everyone was saying about the OC movement when it started. That we will set everything back and lose what we have gaine, that we are just a bunch of radicle nutjobs. Yet hear we are, all for the better due to the work of the OC movement IMHO. We have armed rallies all over the county and yet to have something bad result from it. The only ones who see it as Illegal are the ones in DC whose "law" has been shown not a law and unconstitutional by the constitution itself and DC v. Heller. I'm not saying a negative isn't possible, and it most certainly shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated. But there will never be a "right" time for this to happen.

I also applaud OCDO for keeping this up, thanks john!

I cannot dispute your assessment in those jurisdictions that do not criminalize the exercise of our 2A right via OC. But DC is not one of those jurisdictions. DC is not a borderline jurisdiction. SCOTUS did not address firearms possession outside the home in DC.

This rally would make the point, quite clearly, on the VA side of the bridge, in plain view of DC and those denizens who dwell inside the Beltway.

 

[Adams182]

I cannot dispute your assessment in those jurisdictions that do not criminalize the exercise of our 2A right via OC. But DC is not one of those jurisdictions. DC is not a borderline jurisdiction. SCOTUS did not address firearms possession outside the home in DC.

This rally would make the point, quite clearly, on the VA side of the bridge, in plain view of DC and those denizens who dwell inside the Beltway.

And if push comes to shove and PD puts their foot down there will be a peaceful march back across the bridge. No one organizing this or that I've spoken with thinking of going is looking to be involved with or start any conflict. I understand you and other have concerns, I had doubts about it at first. I'm not saying there isn't a possibility for something negative to go down, and it shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated. But a lot of those possibilities can be said of any large OC rally that has been had around the country, notice I said a lot, not all. Like I said there is never going to be a "right" time, this event is going to happen, and if it's going to happen now then I'm ready to support it.


And for anyone who is making comments to the effect of "man, if I knew there was going to be a lot of people going then I would go" ... Think of how many more of us would actually be there if you all showed up???

 

[eye95]

Riiiiiight! I will be shocked if this march happens and shots don't ring out from somewhere.

Deep down some WANT shots to ring out! In fact, I am sure that the wacko organizer is hoping for a violent confrontation.

 

[Adams182]

Riiiiiight! I will be shocked if this march happens and shots don't ring out from somewhere.

Deep down some WANT shots to ring out! In fact, I am sure that the wacko organizer is hoping for a violent confrontation.

And what exactly is it that makes you so sure the organizer is hoping for violence? Or is it just that you feel that way? Because anything I have seen about this event suggests exactly the opposite. Here is just a snip from the post about it on his page.

All who attend this march armed will be asked to stand and move in a military formation in order to maintain unity and safety. You will be expected to be dressed professionally, and there will be an inspection. As organizer, AVTM reserves the right to reject anyone from the formation at any time for any reason. There will be no use of recording devices by anyone once they have joined the ranks. If you’d like to film or photograph, please do so from outside the formation so there is no potential for confusion with hand motions. If you are not ACTIVE law enforcement, you will be asked to leave if you have any firearms other than a single rifle or shotgun slung across your back with the muzzle pointed down. Aside from adjusting the sling, you will not touch your weapon at any time during this event.

My question is why all the procesure and safety measures if he is trying to incite violence? Can you cite any real information to back up your claim?

 

[Freedom1Man]

I believe that Eye95 and others have voiced valid concerns.

I will say that in my opinion the armed march will be hoping for a peaceful event and planning for a civil war if the government agents get violent.

Why go down with out a fight?

What would the whole of ramifications be IF this happens at all win, lose, or draw at the event? What might happen across the whole country?

 

[FreeInAZ]

No disrespect meant to anyone - what if I win the lotto? Oh yes! Wait I'm too afraid to buy a ticket at the corner
Market, so forget it! The point = lot's of conjecture & what this, that or maybe's here. We will only know during/after this event if all our angst was for not. Let's be honest - during the last swearing-in of Mr. Obama how many thousands of police, SS, FBI, CIA , NSA, NEST, IRS, SWAT and various other alphabet soup agents were on hand?

Pretty sure a few thousand (if there is that many) marchers will not get their knickers in a twist...

 

[We-the-People]

Because anarchy means without rulers, it doesn't mean no organization by free people.

Many words have more than one definition, including Anarchy.

According to Merriam Webster, their second definition offered is:
absence or denial of any authority or established order


And according to Dictionary.com, one of the many definitions they offer is:
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.

Anarchy isn't JUST about not having rulers. Submitting to the sponsor organizations rules probably won't sit well with many anarchists. Having now seen those rules, even if I were inclined to join the march, which I am not, there's no way I would sign on.

 

[eye95]

And what exactly is it that makes you so sure the organizer is hoping for violence?...

One word answer: Kokesh. Nuff said.

But, go ahead and be duped by this nutjob into breaking the law in a way that some on both sides will see as justifying opening fire. I'll be at home preparing because a bunch of non-thinkers helped him start something that the rest of us may have to finish.

Stupid and illegal.

 

[Adams182]

I believe that Eye95 and others have voiced valid concerns.

I will say that in my opinion the armed march will be hoping for a peaceful event and planning for a civil war if the government agents get violent.

Why go down with out a fight?

What would the whole of ramifications be IF this happens at all win, lose, or draw at the event? What might happen across the whole country?

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

 

[Adams182]

One word answer: Kokesh. Nuff Said.

Exactly....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Many words have more than one definition, including Anarchy.

According to Merriam Webster, their second definition offered is:
absence or denial of any authority or established order


And according to Dictionary.com, one of the many definitions they offer is:
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.

Anarchy isn't JUST about not having rulers. Submitting to the sponsor organizations rules probably won't sit well with many anarchists. Having now seen those rules, even if I were inclined to join the march, which I am not, there's no way I would sign on.

As been discussed before look at when that definition was written.
You don't get to pick what definition to apply to anarchist.
Anarchist in the strictest sense don't believe in a ruler.
I guess Flinstone's theme song now meant they all wanted us to engage in same sex activities? This is what those who want to further agendas have done to words of the constitution like regulate.....don't fall into the trap.
Many self claimed "anarchist" or those labeled "anarchist or simply just thugs or crooks like the ones who run around breaking windows on May day.
Notice the what they are doing to the word "radical" too.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

One word answer: Kokesh. Nuff said.

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

 

[Tucker6900]

SCOTUS did not address......

Again, thats the whole point. The fact that we are waiting for a SCOTUS decision on the matter already shows that the .gov believes we are ruled by men. The 2nd Amendment says "Shall Not Be Infringed".

The outcome of this event will shows everyone exactly where we stand as a Country. If they make it safely to the white house, we are better off than we think. If they dont make it to, or are stopped at the bridge, we are about where we think we are. If the .gov decides the best way to deal with this is with violence, then we are ALL in real trouble.

 

[eye95]

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

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>

 

[Adams182]

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>

Except.. You have not even come close to answering the question that was asked of you. You may have well just said "because I don't like him!" great answer. Come on, facts!! Weren't you complaining about rules earlier? Back our accusations up with some sort of cite. I have posted multiple time already a snip from his post showing some very carful planning is going into this and saftey and non violence is key, the top post on page 10 also has link to prove his charecter. You have not brought anything real to back up your argument except a.. One word.. Childish answer.

 

[We-the-People]

As been discussed before look at when that definition was written.
You don't get to pick what definition to apply to anarchist.
Anarchist in the strictest sense don't believe in a ruler.
I guess Flinstone's theme song now meant they all wanted us to engage in same sex activities? This is what those who want to further agendas have done to words of the constitution like regulate.....don't fall into the trap.
Many self claimed "anarchist" or those labeled "anarchist or simply just thugs or crooks like the ones who run around breaking windows on May day.
Notice the what they are doing to the word "radical" too.

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.

 

[Tucker6900]

One word answer: Kokesh. Nuff said.

But, go ahead and be duped by this nutjob into breaking the law in a way that some on both sides will see as justifying opening fire. I'll be at home preparing because a bunch of non-thinkers helped him start something that the rest of us may have to finish.

Stupid and illegal.

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.

 

[eye95]

Except.. You have not even come close to answering the question that was asked of you. You may have well just said "because I don't like him!" great answer. Come on, facts!! Weren't you complaining about rules earlier? Back our accusations up with some sort of cite. I have posted multiple time already a snip from his post showing some very carful planning is going into this and saftey and non violence is key, the top post on page 10 also has link to prove his charecter. You have not brought anything real to back up your argument except a.. One word.. Childish answer.

I said nothing of the sort. I don't bother discussing with folks who put words in my mouth. That was dishonest of you. Moving on.

Tucker: You compare Kokesh to the Founders and Framers?? Laughable.

Trolling? That's juvenile name-calling. Moving on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>