I agree. BTW Mr eggman, there are alot of cc permit holders that believe they are the sane ones not some OC nut job, so that argument means nothing. Also Kokesh IMO is far from treasonist. The very anti American progressives are treasonist and they hold the high office. I will not be going to this march because I dont think it is a good idea but,I also understand the frustration we the people are having when our liberties are fading fast, not to mention all the new taxes coming our way in the name of obamacare.I hope this march goes well and I will be there in spirit.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
March on Washington 07-04-2013
- Thread starter Fuller Malarkey
- Start date
I agree. BTW Mr eggman, there are alot of cc permit holders that believe they are the sane ones not some OC nut job, so that argument means nothing. Also Kokesh IMO is far from treasonist. The very anti American progressives are treasonist and they hold the high office. I will not be going to this march because I dont think it is a good idea but,I also understand the frustration we the people are having when our liberties are fading fast, not to mention all the new taxes coming our way in the name of obamacare.I hope this march goes well and I will be there in spirit.
Even if they have to plant a mole in the crowd to make the wrong move to provide the 'reason' for the storm troopers to open fire on US Citizens. In addition to being foolish (you were too kind) idea, it has a significant chance of doing more to eliminate gun rights, and may well be the catalysts they hope to use to revoke the 2A permanently.
They need to understand that our government has no problem with "from my cold dead hands", and when they can force the issue to look like they were justified, they will.
Any citizen that thinks that our government will not kill them for political gain, is frankly a frigging idiot.
We have to pick our battles, but marching even peacefully with firearms across our shoulder or on our hip in the nations capital is not a battle we should even consider. They have the power, they have the home field advantage, and they can control when and how to make this play out in their favor. They only have to plant one person in the crowd, and have them fire a blank toward a cop or agent, or at nothing in particular.
The fire department will then be called to wash the blood from the streets.
eye95-
Kokesh made these statements in relation to the DC march: “This is an armed revolt against the American government. Make no mistake about it,” and, "We are going with the aim of overthrowing the government."
I heard those statments by Mr. Kokesh. Also heard him say it would be a peacefull march, and that those participating were to comply with the police and offer no resistance should they be arrested or told to turn back. I'm not all that bright and even I can read Adam's meaning in what you point out. We have a corrupt hipicritical government and police who feel nothing tward the oath they took regarding protecting our rights. The supreeme court rulled against this law, and not suprizingly to me, the police ignore that and claim to enforce it anyway. I doubt Adam Kokesh would be doing this if he didn't think he would have legal ground to stand on.
NDAA, the patriot act, DHS, the ammo shortage, gun restrictions, the UN small arms treaty, Obama's excetutive orders, gun confiscation durring Katrina, Feinstin, Bloomberg, on and on and on...
This might be civil disobedence at it's best to the marchers, to many watching this, this might be a wake up call, show us where we stand in current times, in a nation in the process of becoming a slave nation.
What does any citizen need with a semi automatic rifle capabale of fireing mutiple bullets so quickly? Peirs Morgan
We don't need it, at least not at the moment far as I can tell. However, I would like to enjoy the freedom to aquire one if I take a notion to. Joanie
Kokesh made these statements in relation to the DC march: “This is an armed revolt against the American government. Make no mistake about it,” and, "We are going with the aim of overthrowing the government."
I heard those statments by Mr. Kokesh. Also heard him say it would be a peacefull march, and that those participating were to comply with the police and offer no resistance should they be arrested or told to turn back. I'm not all that bright and even I can read Adam's meaning in what you point out. We have a corrupt hipicritical government and police who feel nothing tward the oath they took regarding protecting our rights. The supreeme court rulled against this law, and not suprizingly to me, the police ignore that and claim to enforce it anyway. I doubt Adam Kokesh would be doing this if he didn't think he would have legal ground to stand on.
NDAA, the patriot act, DHS, the ammo shortage, gun restrictions, the UN small arms treaty, Obama's excetutive orders, gun confiscation durring Katrina, Feinstin, Bloomberg, on and on and on...
This might be civil disobedence at it's best to the marchers, to many watching this, this might be a wake up call, show us where we stand in current times, in a nation in the process of becoming a slave nation.
What does any citizen need with a semi automatic rifle capabale of fireing mutiple bullets so quickly? Peirs Morgan
We don't need it, at least not at the moment far as I can tell. However, I would like to enjoy the freedom to aquire one if I take a notion to. Joanie
eye95
Well-known member
There is a huge difference between civil disobedience and an armed march on the Capitol that has been labeled an "armed revolt" by its instigator and described by him as having "the aim of overthrowing the government."
To call it "civil disobedience" is a naive understatement at best and blatant dishonesty at worst. I have no doubt that Kokesh harbors a desire (voiced in conflicting statements, but voiced fairly clearly) for the shooting to start from either side.
Kokesh's words are out there for rational folks to read and hear. I am done with discussing them or their clear, illegal, and despicable meaning. Moving on.
Follow this whack-job at your own peril.
To call it "civil disobedience" is a naive understatement at best and blatant dishonesty at worst. I have no doubt that Kokesh harbors a desire (voiced in conflicting statements, but voiced fairly clearly) for the shooting to start from either side.
Kokesh's words are out there for rational folks to read and hear. I am done with discussing them or their clear, illegal, and despicable meaning. Moving on.
Follow this whack-job at your own peril.
We-the-People
Regular Member
From Merriam Webster:
REVOLT : to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government) : rebel
It seems to me that Kokesh is properly using the word "revolt" and since they are armed...with unloaded rifles I would point out...using the term "armed revolt" is accurate but does not imply violence as many are infering. The plan seems to be to revolt, by renouncing subjection to the unlawful mandates of the DC government, by carrying arms into the city in direct violation of the Districts unconstitutional laws. They are armed because the laws in question specifically relate to arms and must be present in order to renounce subjection to those laws.
When looked at with the scholarly eye, and paying attention to the meaning of words and the planned actions of the event, it's just another protest. The only difference being that this group plans to carry specific inanimate objects with them during their march.
That his intent, "to overthrow the government", has been stated does not complicate the matter. The founding documents provide the justification for changing or abolishing government that does not serve the people. It is not treasonist to call for the overthrow of the government by peaceful means and is in fact constitutionally protected. It is only violent revolt and violent actions that are disallowed. It appears at every turn that Kokesh has stated this is a peaceful march, that while they will be armed, they will have no ammunition, and that they are to submit to the unlawful actions of any police who choose to hinder them.
This is nothing more than an act of civil disobedience. Is there potential for it to get very very ugly? Yes. Is it necessary considering that there is a "justice" system in place with which to redress our grievances? The jury is out on that one. The "justice" system is highly flawed and abused by government. It is designed to ensure the government gets its way whether by pricing justice out of the realm of the common man, making the law so convoluted that it takes a legal expert to comprehend it (which is unconstitutional in and of itself), or more obvious abuses.
We can discuss the matter until we're blue in the face but it seems that it will be done regardless and the outcome will go down in the history books by the side that doesn't blink.
I stand corrected....the rifles will be loaded. (incorrect words should now be in red)
REVOLT : to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government) : rebel
It seems to me that Kokesh is properly using the word "revolt" and since they are armed...with unloaded rifles I would point out...using the term "armed revolt" is accurate but does not imply violence as many are infering. The plan seems to be to revolt, by renouncing subjection to the unlawful mandates of the DC government, by carrying arms into the city in direct violation of the Districts unconstitutional laws. They are armed because the laws in question specifically relate to arms and must be present in order to renounce subjection to those laws.
When looked at with the scholarly eye, and paying attention to the meaning of words and the planned actions of the event, it's just another protest. The only difference being that this group plans to carry specific inanimate objects with them during their march.
That his intent, "to overthrow the government", has been stated does not complicate the matter. The founding documents provide the justification for changing or abolishing government that does not serve the people. It is not treasonist to call for the overthrow of the government by peaceful means and is in fact constitutionally protected. It is only violent revolt and violent actions that are disallowed. It appears at every turn that Kokesh has stated this is a peaceful march, that while they will be armed, they will have no ammunition, and that they are to submit to the unlawful actions of any police who choose to hinder them.
This is nothing more than an act of civil disobedience. Is there potential for it to get very very ugly? Yes. Is it necessary considering that there is a "justice" system in place with which to redress our grievances? The jury is out on that one. The "justice" system is highly flawed and abused by government. It is designed to ensure the government gets its way whether by pricing justice out of the realm of the common man, making the law so convoluted that it takes a legal expert to comprehend it (which is unconstitutional in and of itself), or more obvious abuses.
We can discuss the matter until we're blue in the face but it seems that it will be done regardless and the outcome will go down in the history books by the side that doesn't blink.
I stand corrected....the rifles will be loaded. (incorrect words should now be in red)
Last edited:
"Losing rights" is an expression but yes, you are correct. As far as "belligerent", it's not about attitude, it's about assertion of one's individual rights. The word is used by the Supreme Court. One asserts one's fourth amendment protections, one asserts one's fifth amendment protections... so the saying is "only belligerents have rights."
IMHO, when the People repeatedly fail to aggressively (NOT read as violence, BTW... LOL) assert their rights at the point of those rights being violated and again later in the courts then it creates a sort of estoppel upon which the courts and legislators tend to build. The result is the loss of the free exercise of natural rights that would have otherwise been off limits to the government due to Constitutional or common sense constraints.
If you prefer then...
Only those who assert their rights at the time they are being violated have strongest claim in court. Individuals that fail to assert their rights will eventually lose the free exercise of them.
Is that better?
Last edited:
Might be a good idea to go back and reread the OP, post #1 of this thread.
I quote, " We will march with rifles loaded..............
"Losing rights" is an expression but yes, you are correct. As far as "belligerent", it's not about attitude, it's about assertion of one's individual rights. The word is used by the Supreme Court. One asserts one's fourth amendment protections, one asserts one's fifth amendment protections... so the saying is "only belligerents have rights."
IMHO, when the People repeatedly fail to aggressively (NOT read as violence, BTW... LOL) assert their rights at the point of those rights being violated and again later in the courts then it creates a sort of estoppel upon which the courts and legislators tend to build. The result is the loss of the free exercise of natural rights that would have otherwise been off limits to the government due to Constitutional or common sense constraints.
If you prefer then...
Only those who assert their rights at the time they are being violated have strongest claim in court. Individuals that fail to assert their rights will eventually lose the free exercise of them.
Is that better?
Actually, yes it is better....much
One does not have to be belligerent, or more correctly bellicose to assert their rights. In fact, I would go so far as to say that would be counter productive. It's a lot like holding court in the street - you are most apt to win nothing that you want. Nay, not even satisfaction. Calm, cool and collected will save the day more frequently. Same goals, maybe same words......different attitude.
bel·lig·er·ent (b
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
[Latin belliger
bellicose, belligerent - Bellicose orients "prone to fighting" toward an individual, while belligerent refers to an organized body, a national or political entity—a person is bellicose, a nation is belligerent.
Freedom First
Regular Member
I think we are nearing the test of the following quote.
"History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation." Mike Vanderboegh
Our opinions no longer matter. Kokesh will be there. Given his record, he will follow his stated plan. .Gov will be there. They're not likely to enable his plan. Nothing to do but to see who blinks.
We will know more on July 5, 2013.
Freedom First
Regular Member
"..eliminate gun rights,..." As if a Right can be eliminated. Rights are ideas and cannot be exterminated as long as someone is willing to stand.
You can surrender Rights willingly or give them away at the end of a policeman's gun, but it's always a choice. Your Right to Life as an adult is yours and only you can submit it to another. Don't blame the government for your personal fears.
And anyone who thinks they can make .gov leave them alone by simply submitting to increasing violations of their Rights is a delusional fool. Have a nice day.
“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the man who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh.”
“The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
ETA: IIRC, long ago Blackstone was commenting on repelling invaders and he was pointing out that only those who aggressively and proactively ("belligerent") acted to repel and expel the invader "have rights". I could be wrong as that's from long, long term memory. The point I'm making is that we cannot always rely on the more passive actions to preserve the full and free exercise of our rights. Sometimes, civil disobedience is necessary.
“The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
ETA: IIRC, long ago Blackstone was commenting on repelling invaders and he was pointing out that only those who aggressively and proactively ("belligerent") acted to repel and expel the invader "have rights". I could be wrong as that's from long, long term memory. The point I'm making is that we cannot always rely on the more passive actions to preserve the full and free exercise of our rights. Sometimes, civil disobedience is necessary.
Last edited:
We-the-People
Regular Member
Well I could have sworn that the rules I read had said they would be unloaded and they were going to inspect them. Now I can't find that but I do find where he says they'll be loaded (including the post you pointed out).
I have highlighted and acknowledged my error in my post. Thank you for pointing out my mistake....sheeesh and it's only May....I have 7 months now that I have to be perfect (only one mistake allowed a year you know)....LOL
We-the-People
Regular Member
+1
People would do well to read some Supreme Court cases on the fourth. If you do not ASSERT your right, i.e. you merely stand there and allow an officer to remove your weapon, ID, etc. you will fail in the courts when asserting that your rights were violated. Prety sad but that's what the federal lackey's in robes have concocted to allow continuance of the oppression of the people.
HaHaHa, Whoa boy, phew.
Now granted, your state may recognize rights better than others, but to use the word permitted next to the word right while bragging about it. Oh my.
ETA:
So what you're saying is if someone is treasonous you will lobby them to stop, maybe even form a special committee? Thanks for the chuckle fest tonight.
Yes I'm trolling now. Some things deserve to be trolled.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
To assert your rights does not require a physical act. I will assert my rights, if need be, and live to fight in a court of law.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
You mean like when Sotamayor said in order to assert your right to remain silent you must, speak and tell them you are invoking your right to remain silent.....
Tucker6900
Regular Member
And what point would this prove exactly, other than to show that a group of people will follow unconstitutional laws due to threats of violence?
I am pretty sure the Revolutionary America did not start with a picnic where there was little to no chance of running into trouble.
Make no mistake about it, we are controlled with violence. And it could be the simplest thing, like not wearing your seatbelt, that gets you killed. Or being a good parent, when men with guns show up. This is not the kind of American I want my kids to grow up in. How bout you?