# Armed march.



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

So is anyone going to the armed march on Washington DC on July 4th?


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Not a smart idea, that one.


----------



## catsraven (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm with Bobbb, not a good idea.


----------



## showmegal (Sep 14, 2011)

Very very bad idea. It will most likely not end well.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

The law is still the law.

Adam Kokesh needs to tell everyone to bring an Airsoft rifle INSTEAD!


----------



## ReconCraftTheta (Jun 30, 2010)

Agreed. Everyone here has a very valid point, this is a terrible idea.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

http://www.naturalnews.com/040215_adam_kokesh_march_on_washington_open_carry.html

"An armed activist march is all too easy to be hijacked by the government - which is always looking for more false flag opportunities to paint gun owners as crazy nut jobs. There's no way to really have security for participating in this event&#8230; anyone can join up by just showing up with a rifle. How hard will it be for the government to place a few Adam Lanzas or James Holmes in the marching crowd, complete with brainwashing instructions to open fire when a particular trigger event is set off? ...It's far too easy for government provocateurs to hijack the march and use it to make gun owners look like crazy whack jobs (even when they aren't)."


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

If you are the only one doing it or it is an otherwise small arrestable crowd than yes its a bad idea. However, if enough people show, you are carrying a weapon you don't mind ditching, you have a good exit strategy, and you keep situational awareness than I think it may be a good way to make a point. The last consideration I would deem important is an illegal law infringing your right to bear arms. Just be careful enough to cover your butt. Been out of the loop for the past couple weeks due to schedule but I'm gonna check out the idea and what's being said. I certainly wouldn't avoid it out of fear. Heard a quote about that somewhere. Its easy to sit back and shake your fist from behind a keyboard. Sooner or later people are going to have to figure out what they are prepared to do. Me thinks I smell a little.......vagina. That being said I haven't seen who's suggesting it, how its being talked about, or how they are attempting to handle it.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

I like what the guy had to say. Hope this gains steam. All naysayers should think about what others have risked in the past to protect these rights for future generations then decide whether the blood has run soft or not. Shame.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

If the total was like 50,000 it might work.
That's too many people to arrest, especially if they cross the rubicon and resist an arrest by force of arms.
Something like this could morph into a new american revolution.

This is how Mussolini's revolution went. 
He marched on Rome with 30,000 armed men.
The establishment was afraid of a civil war and gave in and made him part of the gov't.
FDR would later copy many of his "Black book" points points for the new deal.

I am not advocating this or any other methods just trying to give a historical perspective


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

I agree that it's probably crazy and that it probably won't end well, but I find it extremely disturbing that we think it's crazy and it probably won't end well.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

The police would sure be shocked if they all showed up with wooden rifle replicas instead... 

If anyone got shot for carrying a wooden rifle into DC they would become a martyr.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

LincTex said:


> The police would sure be shocked if they all showed up with wooden rifle replicas instead...
> 
> If anyone got shot for carrying a wooden rifle into DC they would become a martyr.


The shot heard around the world perhaps???
Maybe it would nto be such a bad thing after all then..


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

lazydaisy67 said:


> but I find it extremely disturbing that we think it's crazy and it probably won't end well.


It's because people in this this country are AFRAID of other people.

We never used to have fear! We fought well, with bravery, like what was expected of us to do!

We also no longer prosecute criminals like we should. I say if the evidence is overwhelming against you, the death penalty should happen within days, not years.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

BlueZ said:


> The shot heard around the world perhaps???
> Maybe it would not be such a bad thing after all then...


[humility off] If I could guarantee it would be me, I would do it in a heartbeat![humility back on]


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Good martyrs can be invaluble for freedom


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

The people who show up for this will be playing right into the politicians hands that want to take guns away from private citizens.

I predict that there will be a shooting incident requireing a massive police responce thereby validating the antigun possition.

No one will ever know exactlly who fired first but guess who will get the blame?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

anyone unwilling to stand up for their rights doesn't deserve to have them. if we want anything to change sooner or later we're going to have to do more than sit back and bitch on the Internet. Otherwise it really will turn ugly might as well take a peaceful option now


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

Well I suppose there is still a few weeks for them to pass the background check. If it fails again, then few will go, if it passes all hell might brake loose in july. As for me, no I wont be going as I don't give a crap anymore what they do in DC. Im concentrating my efforts in my town, my county and my state. We have already lost in DC, and I helped to cause it and will forever be sorry about it. The State Capitals is where we need to be.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

I respect this guy and what hes trying to do and for what hes done in the past. I am ashamed to say that this is a bad idea and I dont think any good can come of it. Since he's from the area I assume he's well acquainted with the mall (the area from the Capitol to the Washington Monument) on the 4th. Its a packed mess.

Funny aside. My buddies and I when we were much younger used to go the the mall every year, personally I was there for about 15 years straight, only missing one year. We would bring lots and lots of booze and food and camp out all day in the same spot every year. Everyone we knew knew where we would be and it would turn into a big party spot in the middle of an incredibly huge party. Eventually we started bringing down actual furniture (sofas) to our spot. First they banned bringing beer/coolers on the Metro, then more and more 'family oriented' events/exhibitions in large tents started moving in on our area. Then they banned drinking except for designated areas. One year we were interviewed by someone at the Post, and the next year they banned furniture on the mall when I had never seen anyone else but us with any, and then we decided to just give it up after about 20 years of it. Loads of fun while it lasted.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> anyone unwilling to stand up for their rights doesn't deserve to have them.


But this isn't an exercise of standing up for your rights. Rights are inherent to individuals, not to groups. So you can stand up for your right to bear arms all you want.

The problem here is the direct challenge to government and police in the heart of the nation's capital and the forcing of their hand. DC has gun control laws. You can protest those laws via courts, or by civil disobedience or even by individual violation of the law forcing police to arrest you. When you get thousands of armed people marching on Washington the march looks like insurrection and because you're armed you pose a direct challenge to the authority of the police. Secondly, because you're bound together as a group you commit yourself to the actions of others in the group, that's how conspiracies work. If some hothead has an argument with a cop who is trying to arrest him and gunfire erupts, then you're in the thick of it, both legally and physically.

If people are intent on marching while armed there are plenty of places which are less like tinderboxes. March and congregate in a friendly jurisdiction with the cooperation of the police where the gun laws permit you to do so. March in some field somewhere where 1,000 armed men can't be construed as a direct and armed challenge to the authority of government and the authority of the police.

An invading force of 1,000 armed men DOES actually pose a threat to the security of the White House and Congress. They can never know with certainty what is in the minds of the approaching force and the fact that they're armed escalates the threat. Local police can handle a riot of 1,000 unarmed people, but all it takes is some lucky shots and police officers are down and their force gets diminished in ability to resist the marchers and their ability to impose order, meaning that if the intent of some is to start some form of insurrection then 1,000 armed men, or some part of that group, can actually do real damage.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> But this isn't an exercise of standing up for your rights. Rights are inherent to individuals, not to groups. So you can stand up for your right to bear arms all you want.
> 
> The problem here is the direct challenge to government and police in the heart of the nation's capital and the forcing of their hand. DC has gun control laws. You can protest those laws via courts, or by civil disobedience or even by individual violation of the law forcing police to arrest you. When you get thousands of armed people marching on Washington the march looks like insurrection and because you're armed you pose a direct challenge to the authority of the police. Secondly, because you're bound together as a group you commit yourself to the actions of others in the group, that's how conspiracies work. If some hothead has an argument with a cop who is trying to arrest him and gunfire erupts, then you're in the thick of it, both legally and physically.
> 
> ...


The reason it is desirable to do something like this in the capital is because it is impossible to ignore. It is easy to dismiss a large group in a field. Therefore pointless. If the gov doesn't want armed people marching on the capital it can abandon the agenda of stripping our constitutional rights. You do what you want but if you are not willing to stand up for your constitutional rights visibly and forcefully then you might as well march down to the police office right now and turn in all your weapons, go home, and start crocheting the white flag you will use to surrender. If we fail to take the peaceful yet meaningful stand now it will be worse in the future. Every generation needs to make sure these rights are kept safe for the next. Wash that thing bobb. I can smell it through my computer.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> The reason it is desirable to do something like this in the capital is because it is impossible to ignore.


Yes, it is impossible to ignore, just like a punch in the nose is impossible to ignore. Standing up for one's rights doesn't imply that the only way to stand up is to risk one's life. One may be called upon to risk one's life to stand on principle at some point, but it's pretty foolish to take that risk when there are less risky alternatives available to you at the present. Court challenges have been working remarkably well at declawing gun control laws. Look at what's happened with the recent effort in the Senate. These efforts to assert one's rights comes with a lot less risk than daring DC police officers to arrest you, charge you and to do so while surrounded by 1,000 armed men.

Secondly, what's the upside here? What's the message that is sent? If you field a force of 1,000 armed men then you can trump the law anytime you please. So if a gang wants to sell heroin to a local school then all it needs to win is to field an army of 1,000 thugs to confront the police and then the police will leave them alone to conduct their commerce.



> If the gov doesn't want armed people marching on the capital it can abandon the agenda of stripping our constitutional rights.


There's a saying "If you take a shot at the King, make sure you don't miss."

If you want to pose an armed challenge to the authority of the US Government then be prepared for the consequences which follow. You want to force their hand, so be prepared for them not to buckle and instead force your hand. This is an armed conflict at this point. You're armed, they're armed and whose will shall prevail?



> You do what you want but if you are not willing to stand up for your constitutional rights visibly and forcefully then you might as well march down to the police office right now and turn in all your weapons, go home, and start crocheting the white flag you will use to surrender.


Dying on a hill is not the only way to stand up for a principle. I don't need to threaten DC police officers to take my gun from me in order to assert my rights when I can get the Courts to order them to not enforce an unconstitutional law. Battles take time, so just because there is a threat in DC right now with their gun control laws doesn't mean that that threat is permanent.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Yes, it is impossible to ignore, just like a punch in the nose is impossible to ignore. Standing up for one's rights doesn't imply that the only way to stand up is to risk one's life. One may be called upon to risk one's life to stand on principle at some point, but it's pretty foolish to take that risk when there are less risky alternatives available to you at the present. Court challenges have been working remarkably well at declawing gun control laws. Look at what's happened with the recent effort in the Senate. These efforts to assert one's rights comes with a lot less risk than daring DC police officers to arrest you, charge you and to do so while surrounded by 1,000 armed men.
> 
> Secondly, what's the upside here? What's the message that is sent? If you field a force of 1,000 armed men then you can trump the law anytime you please. So if a gang wants to sell heroin to a local school then all it needs to win is to field an army of 1,000 thugs to confront the police and then the police will leave them alone to conduct their commerce.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree. Its sad that you felt that it was OK to compare a group of citizens standing together in our nations capital in support and defense of our constitutional rights with a scenario of drug dealers forcing their ability to sell heroin to school kids. What's wrong with you? That's ridiculous. The government needs to be reminded that their job is to protect our rights and that they cannot violate the constitution. It is the law of the land. A peaceful armed march on the capital, handled correctly and with forethought, could really be a shining example of Americans pulling together for freedom and the way of life that is our birthright because of the sacrifices of previous generations. Now that its our turn you dismiss the idea. True, there are other ways that are being and should continue to be pursued. However, government turns around and tries again every chance it gets. Enough is enough. Not only should we all take part in this but maybe we should also consider even more peaceful alternatives like nationwide no work/spending days until a balanced budget is produced. I just think what we have been doing is not working and maybe considering other courses of action, as long as they are peaceful, is appropriate at this point.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> I have to disagree. Its sad that you felt that it was OK to compare a group of citizens standing together in our nations capital in support and defense of our constitutional rights with a scenario of drug dealers forcing their ability to sell heroin to school kids. What's wrong with you? That's ridiculous.


It's not a ridiculous analogy because both scenarios seek the same outcome, which is to intimidate the police into not enforcing the law. The law in DC restricts open carry of firearms. This march is meant to violate the law and to force the hand of the police to not enforce the law by using the implicit threat of 1,000+ armed men of conviction. That's the end game, to impose the will of this group over the police and force the police to stand down.

This is a direct challenge to the cops and I'm betting that cops don't like to have their authority challenged so directly, especially when the law is on their side.



> However, government turns around and tries again every chance it gets. Enough is enough.


Enough is enough. That's the central issue. If enough is really enough, then most of those men should be prepared not to come back from that march for they may indeed die on the hill that they're defending. They've reached their limit. They will tolerate no more the actions of the government. This is how revolutions are born, there are always some men who reach their limit, declare that enough is enough and are willing to fight and die for their cause.

If you want to march on Washington DC with your firearm on your body but you're not willing to die for your cause, then you really haven't reached the enough is enough stage yet.



> I just think what we have been doing is not working and maybe considering other courses of action, as long as they are peaceful, is appropriate at this point.


I don't consider an armed challenge to the DC police to be a peaceful expression of dissent though. Cops have a job to do. You show up and violate the law, blatantly so, and they have to arrest you. This process usually isn't a problem, even when tempers are flaring, because the police have the upper hand in terms of strength in numbers and strength in firepower but this protest is designed to negate the police advantage on both fronts. Cops don't like wading into a mob of rioters even when they know that the rioters are unarmed because the numbers work to the advantage of the rioters. Here the police rely on their advantage of force - they're better armed than the rioters and can impose their will on the rioters in order to restore order. This armed march takes that card out of the deck.

A 1,000+ armed men intent on violating the law and intent on forcing their will onto the police is a recipe which is brewing nothing but trouble. There may come a time for such an armed insurrection but I seriously doubt that this time has arrived.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> It's not a ridiculous analogy because both scenarios seek the same outcome, which is to intimidate the police into not enforcing the law. The law in DC restricts open carry of firearms. This march is meant to violate the law and to force the hand of the police to not enforce the law by using the implicit threat of 1,000+ armed men of conviction. That's the end game, to impose the will of this group over the police and force the police to stand down.
> 
> This is a direct challenge to the cops and I'm betting that cops don't like to have their authority challenged so directly, especially when the law is on their side.
> 
> ...


Bull [email protected]$. A peacefully armed congregation of citizens are not law breakers. The government has and is attempting to further break the law of the land which is the constitution. Standing up, speaking out, and demonstrating when government oversteps its bounds and breaks the law is a correct action. Not to do so is disrespectful to everyone who came before us and those that come after. Nobody is talking about an armed assault here. What is being discussed is a large crowd of peacefully armed citizens congregating in the the capital to have our voices heard. Keep writing your congressman bobb. I'm sure it will help.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> Bull [email protected]$. A peacefully armed congregation of citizens are not law breakers.


In DC they are:

The District of Columbia does not permit the concealed carrying of firearms. Open carry is also prohibited. A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons​
What you think SHOULD BE doesn't trump what IS. That's how liberals see the world and look at all the misery that flows from such a cockamamie view of reality.

If you open carry in DC then you are breaking the law. Period. How matters should be is immaterial.

Now, it follows that if you are breaking the law then the police are going to have to get involved. That's the point of this march - it's to subdue the police by showing sufficient force and numbers. You're completely free to go to DC tomorrow and open carry your firearm. An individual open carrying in DC will be arrested and charged. You, I'm guessing, want to avoid being arrested for open carry and so the best way to do that is to have numbers on your side and to intimidate the police. Will the police uphold the law when 1,000 men in a group challenge the police? This is the central purpose of this march, to violate the law and to get away with doing so.



> Standing up, speaking out, and demonstrating when government oversteps its bounds and breaks the law is a correct action.


Sure, and you can have a march in DC without going there armed and marching in violation of the law.



> Nobody is talking about an armed assault here.


You may not be talking that but when you join a conspiracy to violate the law then you are jointly responsible for the actions of your fellow conspirators.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> In DC they are:
> 
> The District of Columbia does not permit the concealed carrying of firearms. Open carry is also prohibited. A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons​
> What you think SHOULD BE doesn't trump what IS. That's how liberals see the world and look at all the misery that flows from such a cockamamie view of reality.
> ...


Your premise is flawed at the beginning. They broke the law by violating the second amendment. They will be further breaking the law by trying to enforce it. And if enough people get up off their butts and actually suit up than there will be very little they can do about it anyway. 1000 people then we have a problem. 20000 and its their problem.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> And if enough people get up off their butts and actually suit up than there will be very little they can do about it anyway. 1000 people then we have a problem. 20000 and its their problem.


And now we come back to the heroin example. If any gang-bangers "get up off their butts and actually suit up than there will be very little they [police] can do about it anyway. 1000 people then we [heroin pushers] have a problem. 20000 and its their [police] problem."

As I noted above, this march is about intimidating the police into not enforcing the law. Your own writing pushes this exact point - if enough armed men show up to challenge the DC police then the DC police will roll over and let lawlessness prevail.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

No. The law is our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They are the law breakers. And your heroin example is still dumb.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> No. The law is our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They are the law breakers. And your heroin example is still dumb.


Well, if all 1,000+ men in that march think like you then the confrontation with police is going to get very interesting very quickly.

If you want an armed confrontation with government then this is the way to best go about it. If you're not prepared to follow through then you shouldn't go out of your way to bring about such a confrontation.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Well, if all 1,000+ men in that march think like you then the confrontation with police is going to get very interesting very quickly.
> 
> If you want an armed confrontation with government then this is the way to best go about it. If you're not prepared to follow through then you shouldn't go out of your way to bring about such a confrontation.


I believe in the ability of honest Americans to stand armed responsibly. I have no problem standing up and exercising my rights. If this thing gains enough steam I'll show and demonstrate peacefully. Keep working on it from your end.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Foolishness*



Bobbb said:


> But this isn't an exercise of standing up for your rights. Rights are inherent to individuals, not to groups. So you can stand up for your right to bear arms all you want.
> 
> The problem here is the direct challenge to government and police in the heart of the nation's capital and the forcing of their hand. DC has gun control laws. You can protest those laws via courts, or by civil disobedience or even by individual violation of the law forcing police to arrest you. When you get thousands of armed people marching on Washington the march looks like insurrection and because you're armed you pose a direct challenge to the authority of the police. Secondly, because you're bound together as a group you commit yourself to the actions of others in the group, that's how conspiracies work. If some hothead has an argument with a cop who is trying to arrest him and gunfire erupts, then you're in the thick of it, both legally and physically.
> 
> ...


Yea, I wonder how well they will do against six or seven Blackhawks ? ? :surrender:


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

I bet nobody shows.


----------



## Jimthewagontraveler (Feb 8, 2012)

I think this might be a very good idea BUT
We the people need to realize this should be a triage event
Old men who are less useful to their families should comprise
the front lines of this movement.
Hopefully wearing ( U.S.)military dress greens/blues (etc etc)
I also think these men need to be willing to open carry with their 
Rifles slung across the right arm and neck and march
dress right dress all the way and then stand at parade rest
while being mowed down ( if necessary)
I might even shave and get a crew cut for this.
The problem is the men who could/would volunteer for this 
probobly are the poor&forgotten who could not travel $$$
And by now they have lost the uniforms they once were 
proud of.
And I think it might be impossible for the march to go more
than 100 yards because of canes and oxygen tanks.


----------



## Startingout-Blair (Aug 28, 2012)

I want everyone to remember, it was the British marching on Lexington and Concord that triggered the start of the American Revolution, not the patriots marching on the British. If Patriots march on any city, especially Washington DC, they will be viewed by most Americans as the aggressors! You will lose one of our most needed resources: the support of the People. 
When I work outside planting and such, I wear a leg holster for my pistol. My own mother, who comes down and works on this property as well, always thinks I am crazy for carrying my weapon exposed. She thinks everyone in the neighborhood is going to think I'm crazy as well. Problem is, many probably do think I'm a bit "out there" for carrying on my own property (why would you have to carry that thing? Nothing is going to happen that you would need it here).
My point is, if we are seen as the aggressors, we lose the war for the "hearts of the people": one battle we really need to win. If we are seen as defending ourselves, we win more "hearts".
Where was everyone when the Gooberment declared Marshall Law in Boston unconstitutionally without even declaring it publicly? Why didn't our "Militias" and Patriots run to Boston and support the Rights of the people there? In that situation, we could have potentially been seen as the defenders, rather than the aggressors! Instead, people want to march on the Capitol without any specific event causing such a reaction: we will be the "bad guys", not Gooberment!
I understand completely how most feel about what is happening in our Country and I, for one, will defend our Constitution with my life. We need to be patient and take advantage of the aggression of the Gooberment! It will happen! It is coming! 
I shall not be seen as the aggressor! But I will die, if required, being a defender!


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

http://12160.info/page/dc-chief-to-adam-kokesh-if-you-re-coming-here-to-break-the-law-we

There was another longer article describing what 'laws' this march would be breaking but I cannot find it again. Here is the WP article describing the basic 'law' that they will be breaking.

"Washington allows residents to possess registered firearms on their property but forbids carrying them in public. And it was the backdrop for a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 that struck down a total ban on firearms - and guaranteed the right to own a gun for self-defense."


----------



## worldengineer (Sep 20, 2010)

Startingout-Blair said:


> I want everyone to remember, it was the British marching on Lexington and Concord that triggered the start of the American Revolution, not the patriots marching on the British. If Patriots march on any city, especially Washington DC, they will be viewed by most Americans as the aggressors! You will lose one of our most needed resources: the support of the People.
> When I work outside planting and such, I wear a leg holster for my pistol. My own mother, who comes down and works on this property as well, always thinks I am crazy for carrying my weapon exposed. She thinks everyone in the neighborhood is going to think I'm crazy as well. Problem is, many probably do think I'm a bit "out there" for carrying on my own property (why would you have to carry that thing? Nothing is going to happen that you would need it here).
> My point is, if we are seen as the aggressors, we lose the war for the "hearts of the people": one battle we really need to win. If we are seen as defending ourselves, we win more "hearts".
> Where was everyone when the Gooberment declared Marshall Law in Boston unconstitutionally without even declaring it publicly? Why didn't our "Militias" and Patriots run to Boston and support the Rights of the people there? In that situation, we could have potentially been seen as the defenders, rather than the aggressors! Instead, people want to march on the Capitol without any specific event causing such a reaction: we will be the "bad guys", not Gooberment!
> ...


Very good point indeed. A patriot of any cause must always win over the people. Why else would the gov take the use of horrible tragedies to its advantage? To win support for its cause whatever it may be. Before anything can happen for the good, a tragedy must occur against the American people at large, one that will make a majority begin to question what its elected are really about.

Its too late to work within the system, but to early to start shooting either, the time will come as it did in the Revolutionary War. We need our own Paul Revere though when it does come....


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

In _theory_ I think its GOOD to challenge the status quo, but ONLY if you are sure you will win.

because Whichever side "wins" such a confrontation, (whether it be the opposition by showing these laws to be absurd by flaunting them and getting away with it or the establishment by arresting+jailing hundreds) will gain incredible political momentum and great propaganda.

We are at a stage where the march cant win, therefore we are risking an establishment propaganda triumph.

However historically such marches have completely changed the country. As Mussolini did with 30,000 armed men marching on Rome.

But he had many more men and he could count on obedience of all of them.

The opposition does not have such a structure yet.
it is too early for this march.. because a macrh now with 1000 may set events in motion that may make a march with 50,000 in 10 years impossible.
And we might NEED an armed march with 50,000 in 10 years.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Ain't smart to poke an opponent in the eye if you're not prepared to counter his fist aimed at your head.


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

Again I say we take the course the Liberty loving people of this country have in the past taken, we just ignore the king and find a way to shove it in his face. Let us all find a way to reduce our tax obligation by $100. 100 million people times $100 is $10,000,000,000. Even they have to notice that amount. The next year we reduce it by another 100, then the third year we can find a way to legally defer $300. By the end of dear leaders term in office patriots could cost him $60,000,000,000 in taxes. Just like our for fathers did with the stamp act. Just my $.02.


----------



## TimB (Nov 11, 2008)

IIRC, didn't someone try this several years ago? They weren't allowed to get into DC because of carrying arms openly. They wound up marching into Virginia (?) and not near as many folks showed up as they had hoped for? 

Tim


----------



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

Well apparently they are already 3,000 people strong and the numbers keep growing. Me personally I think it's a great idea, but feel free to tell me why I'm an idiot for having my own opinion. Anyways, I listen to Alex jones on info wars and hear a lot of valid points. My opinion is that it's time. Time to fight back. Time to take a stand and I commend these men and women and officers who are attending this in the name of not only their rights but yours and mine as well.


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

I like the idea of 5000 men and women going there with wooden rifles


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

lazydaisy67 said:


> I agree that it's probably crazy and that it probably won't end well, but I find it extremely disturbing that we think it's crazy and it probably won't end well.


I agree. I see jackboots infiltrating ,unless enough Americans show up,then this will not end well,imo.

Wheres the vets and other military ,busy turning over the world to islam for the government I guess. Wonder how many guarding the streets and 'rights' for Muslim Brotherhood while this happens here?

Not one person or veteran cares anymore for our military than I do,but these wars for islam need to stop. Its actually treason by association to build up and train an enemy army,imo. I'm not a anti war hippy fool ,but I'm anti illegal wars to set up radicals in governments. Anyone who can claim different do so.

Wonder if any oath keepers or first offenders will be there?


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

LincTex said:


> The police would sure be shocked if they all showed up with wooden rifle replicas instead...
> 
> If anyone got shot for carrying a wooden rifle into DC they would become a martyr.


Thats exactly what I was thinking should happen,either that or unloaded guns.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

BillM said:


> The people who show up for this will be playing right into the politicians hands that want to take guns away from private citizens.
> 
> I predict that there will be a shooting incident requireing a massive police responce thereby validating the antigun possition.
> 
> No one will ever know exactlly who fired first but guess who will get the blame?


Then ones who should get the blame are those who did'nt join them,we want freedom but we want someone else to fight for it for us. Yet we send off our sons [ mine was one of the first to go] to their illegal wars that actually benefit our enmies.

Then you have the problem of the third world invasions that don't give a damn about our nation,its laws,culture or language. In 5 yr.s we will be a minority in our own nation.We will have the new immigrants ruling over us ,already they have been put into our law enforcements,basically run the FBI and Hillery has two muslims working next to her in our war department. What they hell else do they have to do? Latinos are filling up our other offices,hell ones talking of beign president.

I'm just venting and really don't give a damn anymore,if I can save my soul thats about all I worry about now. It has to be a higher power involved in this,it seems to me otherwise we would never have allowed it to get this far.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> And now we come back to the heroin example. If any gang-bangers "get up off their butts and actually suit up than there will be very little they [police] can do about it anyway. 1000 people then we [heroin pushers] have a problem. 20000 and its their [police] problem."
> 
> As I noted above, this march is about intimidating the police into not enforcing the law. Your own writing pushes this exact point - if enough armed men show up to challenge the DC police then the DC police will roll over and let lawlessness prevail.


Did'nt the police also sigh an oath to protect the laws of the land?

Its ok for an illegal president to destroy the laws and insult the population of the nation" Busy clinging to their guns and religion" while he celebrates the religion of the so called emeny we fight. Islam is islam and the words don't change because you claim to be moderate or peacful,if your peacful you don't join such a theocracy like islam.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Canadian said:


> I bet nobody shows.


Actually because so few will show I hope your right.

I read about history and wonder how so many peopel could be persecuted by a small amount of leaders,now I know how,just sit back and wait your turn for your own persecution.

The really bad thing is it never has to be violent if its stopped before thats the only choice left. By then its too late.

First they came for the ...................


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

This is a STUPID idea for a million reasons, the first being the government wants it to turn violent.a couple of nuts on either side ans all hell breaks loose.


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

Well magus that's not what I thought you would say. Not sure what I thought it was going to be, but not that direct. I agree with you 100% Besides If I were organizing this I would send the people to New York, where the people still have some time left to change some minds. But then again I still think that New York will erupt into civil war next year, and it will turn into martial law ehh shelter in place I mean and then New Jersey will follow suit and so too DC and then the guard gets called out and all hell brakes loose. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Magus said:


> This is a STUPID idea for a million reasons, the first being the government wants it to turn violent.a couple of nuts on either side ans all hell breaks loose.


They should go with guns unloaded.And tell them they are not loaded.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

biobacon said:


> Well magus that's not what I thought you would say. Not sure what I thought it was going to be, but not that direct. I agree with you 100% Besides If I were organizing this I would send the people to New York, where the people still have some time left to change some minds. But then again I still think that New York will erupt into civil war next year, and it will turn into martial law ehh shelter in place I mean and then New Jersey will follow suit and so too DC and then the guard gets called out and all hell brakes loose. Just my thoughts.


For a leader to say and broadcast that he wants his own militia stronger than our military and the people don't react to this [peacefully of course] then that tells you what kind of people reside in this nation.

They also keep buying billions of rounds,setting out drones and disarming the people,so what else can they do to wake us up?


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Meerkat said:


> They also keep buying billions of rounds,setting out drones and disarming the people,so what else can they do to wake us up?


Welll....., WE are already awake. Its the Liberaltards that are asleep, but they only watch mainstream media, so they aren't going to wake up.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Was reading some of these responses and thought I was on the "you know what's wrong with this country. Read this" thread.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Magus said:


> This is a STUPID idea for a million reasons, the first being the government wants it to turn violent.a couple of nuts on either side ans all hell breaks loose.


I agree,I do think they want us to react,and are getting frustrated by our lack of frustration with their warmongring asses.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> Was reading some of these responses and thought I was on the "you know what's wrong with this country. Read this" thread.


We keep learning and learning and learning,haha.:nuts:

Actually we are paying more attention than we use to.

I rememebr the Bush illegal wars[ I tried to warn my son,but he did'nt listen,I told him it time for another millionaires war and he'd be in it,well sure enough BOMBS AWAY!]

I was on a conservative site,and said Bush died his hair grey to make it look like he was 'concerned'.They jumped on me like stink on crap!.

Educating the masses has been an uphill battle every since,hehe.:brickwall:


----------



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

It's about time armed people march on Washington. It's Long over due. You want your rights? Then FIGHT for them.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

bigtrain2020 said:


> It's about time armed people march on Washington. It's Long over due. You want your rights? Then FIGHT for them.


The trick for revolutionaries like you is not to light the fire which you want to become a revolution too early. Striking the revolutionary blow too early leaves most of the citizens out of the fight and watching you be gunned down like pigs led to slaughter.

It's a tricky business plotting revolution in that you have to guess at how many people are willing to throw caution to the wind, risk their lives and those of their loved ones, in order to bring about a better tomorrow. Complacency has deep roots and it takes a lot of misery to get people to abandon all that they have invested in their lives and gamble everything on a revolution making their lives better.

Or did you mean FIGHT to be something about talking tough on the internet? If you just want people to talk tough, then that's easy to accomplish but it doesn't change much.


----------



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

Lol, cute. People never fail to entertain me.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

bigtrain2020 said:


> Lol, cute. People never fail to entertain me.


Your intentions are indeed good. 
However, even the revolutionaries that started the USA considered very deeply the consequences of their actions, before actually acting them out.

Consider once again:


Bobbb said:


> The trick... is not to light the fire... too early. Too early leaves most of the citizens out of the fight and watching you be gunned down like pigs led to slaughter.


Technologically speaking, their is very little covertness ability left in this country. You need to make people aware of the possibility that the government may not be voting in their best interest, and enough of them need to see the light first. Only after that occurs will there be any chance of successful change. We just are NOT there... yet. Sure, "red states" have plenty of folks that want to see freedom restored, but for the time being the "blue staters" are still far too numerous, and far too powerful. They need to be awakened first.

You know what's sad... 
go to places like Detroit where you can buy a house for $400 and ask those folks in those poor neighborhoods if they think Obama and other democrats are to blame, and they will tell you how much the democrats love them and are looking out for them.

I interact with a lot of poor democrats (mostly minorities) in Texas and they think Obama hung the moon. There will never be any successful "revolution" so to speak until you start to change the minds of "those people".


----------



## LastOutlaw (Jun 1, 2013)

There will be an Armed March today in Temple Tx. An active duty military soldier was illegally arrested for open carry of his AR15. OathKeepers and DontComply.com are sponsoring this event. It is legal to open carry a rifle in Texas. Supposedly Glenn Beck and other members of the press are attending. Statements by Ted Cruz and others will be read and numerous guest speakers to participate as well. They are expecting thousands to attend.
Here is a link to the event.
http://www.dontcomply.com/comeandtakeittemple/

Also:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/05/14/oath-keepers-co-sponsors-open-carry-march-in-support-of-msgt-cj-grisham-on-june-1-2013-in-temple-texas/


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

LincTex said:


> Welll....., WE are already awake. Its the Liberaltards that are asleep, but they only watch mainstream media, so they aren't going to wake up.


Gotta be careful about using terms like libtards and teabaggers. Some liberal democrats enjoy and support 2A fiercely, love and serve their country dutifully, and work hard every day. On the flip side, some conservative republicans talk about how big and bad government is, but fight to fund programs like the drones that spy on our citizens, and some own the corporations that are the first in line to accept government subsidies and contracts. 
We need to transcend this kind of crap talk because this is what the billionaires and millionaires want. They want us divided over petty ideologies while they fleece us and we're too busy arguing amongst ourselves to even notice. A house divided can not stand. 
It doesn't matter what "color" state you're from. We have constitutionally guaranteed rights that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and these states, all of them, controlled by the rich, are the ones wanting to take those rights away. 
They don't want the public armed, when "we" finally wake up as a nation. They won't want us having a defense against Monsanto Biological Warfare Corporation, Bank of America Financial Tactical Corporation, or all of the foreign owned corporations and their private militarized security forces. 
Look at Wall Street. They own the NYPD. Look at their special control center where executives sit side by side with police, directing the "officers" moves and spying on Americans. This is what we need to fight against.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

I can imagine the government planting people within the group to open fire on police and then leave before they get killed, leaving the rest to take heavy casualties. Obama would LOVE that as a step towards gun confiscation.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

ContinualHarvest said:


> Some liberal democrats enjoy and support 2A fiercely, love and serve their country dutifully, and work hard every day.


Good post, CHvst. 
Unfortunately, the LibDems that are Pro 2nd do exist, but are oh so rare. They are more common up north. Getting rarer every day as well.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> No. The law is our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They are the law breakers. And your heroin example is still dumb.


It really doesn't matter what the constitution says because the government has been ignoring it for decades. For all practical purposes, the constitution is either dead or dying. That's not the way it should be but it's the way it is. Expect more of our rights to disappear as time goes on. At some point we'll have martial law and the last of our rights will disappear.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

ContinualHarvest said:


> Gotta be careful about using terms like libtards and teabaggers. Some liberal democrats enjoy and support 2A fiercely, love and serve their country dutifully, and work hard every day. On the flip side, some conservative republicans talk about how big and bad government is, but fight to fund programs like the drones that spy on our citizens, and some own the corporations that are the first in line to accept government subsidies and contracts.
> We need to transcend this kind of crap talk because this is what the billionaires and millionaires want. They want us divided over petty ideologies while they fleece us and we're too busy arguing amongst ourselves to even notice. A house divided can not stand.
> It doesn't matter what "color" state you're from. We have constitutionally guaranteed rights that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and these states, all of them, controlled by the rich, are the ones wanting to take those rights away.
> They don't want the public armed, when "we" finally wake up as a nation. They won't want us having a defense against Monsanto Biological Warfare Corporation, Bank of America Financial Tactical Corporation, or all of the foreign owned corporations and their private militarized security forces.
> Look at Wall Street. They own the NYPD. Look at their special control center where executives sit side by side with police, directing the "officers" moves and spying on Americans. This is what we need to fight against.


Well said!


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

BillS said:


> It really doesn't matter what the constitution says because the government has been ignoring it for decades. For all practical purposes, the constitution is either dead or dying. That's not the way it should be but it's the way it is. Expect more of our rights to disappear as time goes on. At some point we'll have martial law and the last of our rights will disappear.


And this is why we must stand up for the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution now more than ever. I like to think that if we stand together we can still express our will to retain our God given rights and that our government can be reigned in through peaceful means. We have to at least try before we get to an end result like martial law. That is not the America I want to leave my nephews.


----------



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> And this is why we must stand up for the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution now more than ever. I like to think that if we stand together we can still express our will to retain our God given rights and that our government can be reigned in through peaceful means. We have to at least try before we get to an end result like martial law. That is not the America I want to leave my nephews.


Good post. I get tired of hearing nows not the time. When is the time? When it's too late. It's almost too late now. Now it's a march on all 50 capitols in July 4th. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. We should see cops and feel safe, we don't. We worry about. "Oh crap" am I going to get pulled over. That's not right, or fair to the people.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

bigtrain2020 said:


> The government should fear the people, not the other way around. We should see cops and feel safe, we don't.


So you don't feel safe with your individual right to bear arms. The way that you're going to feel safe is to march with a 1,000 other hotheads who are armed and ready to confront the police. This implies that your feeling of safety doesn't come from bearing arms, it comes from threatening police. You think that is going to go over well? You think that law enforcers feeling threatened by an armed mob is actually good for civil society?



> We worry about. "Oh crap" am I going to get pulled over. That's not right, or fair to the people.


This sounds quite Bizarro World to me. If no one is apprehensive around law enforcers, then that implies that laws and law enforcers are toothless. You can violate the law and not have to worry about being caught and facing the consequences. Again, how is that good for civil society?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> So you don't feel safe with your individual right to bear arms. The way that you're going to feel safe is to march with a 1,000 other hotheads who are armed and ready to confront the police. This implies that your feeling of safety doesn't come from bearing arms, it comes from threatening police. You think that is going to go over well? You think that law enforcers feeling threatened by an armed mob is actually good for civil society?
> 
> This sounds quite Bizarro World to me. If no one is apprehensive around law enforcers, then that implies that laws and law enforcers are toothless. You can violate the law and not have to worry about being caught and facing the consequences. Again, how is that good for civil society?


Bobb. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The only way we will know if its time is if we get a good turn out. The fact that they would feel threatened by peacefully armed march be loyal citizens is part of the problem. We are a representative democracy bound within the constraints of a constitutional republic. If the government violates our rights that were given to us by god and guaranteed to us in the constitution without changing the constitution then they are breaking the law of the land. Its really not complicated. They have to be shown that we are not sheep that will allow them to do as they please with our liberty in a peaceful manner.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> They have to be shown that we are not sheep that will allow them to do as they please with our liberty in a peaceful manner.


Then why don't you go to DC today and openly carry a firearm in the street? Wouldn't that show them that you're not afraid and not a sheeple?

What is it that changes when 1,000s of armed men are at your side? The principle is still the same. *So what is it that would make police afraid of 1,000 armed men when they would not be afraid of 1 armed man?* All 1,000 of you armed men would be doing exactly what you could do tomorrow - you'd be showing that you're not afraid to openly carry a firearm in DC. What purpose is served by having a large mob perform this act of civil disobedience?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Then why don't you go to DC today and openly carry a firearm in the street? Wouldn't that show them that you're not afraid and not a sheeple?
> 
> What is it that changes when 1,000s of armed men are at your side? The principle is still the same. *So what is it that would make police afraid of 1,000 armed men when they would not be afraid of 1 armed man?* All 1,000 of you armed men would be doing exactly what you could do tomorrow - you'd be showing that you're not afraid to openly carry a firearm in DC. What purpose is served by having a large mob perform this act of civil disobedience?


What changes is the probability of getting arrested. I'm not a martyr. I'm a concerned loyal citizen that has served my country honorably and expect the same in return. One person doing it doesn't make a point. Thousands doing it peacefully does.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> What changes is the probability of getting arrested. I'm not a martyr. I'm a concerned loyal citizen that has served my country honorably and expect the same in return. One person doing it doesn't make a point. Thousands doing it peacefully does.


So why do you imagine that police might have 2nd thoughts about arresting 1,000 armed men when they wouldn't hesitate to arrest one armed man walking in DC?

Don't you see the problem with this? This is might makes right. This sends the message that you can intimidate police in your city and do what you please so long as your gang is larger and carries more firepower than the police. How is that good for society?

You say that a point is made by 1,000 armed men marching peacefully. If that really is the intent, then there should be no problem with the police arresting all 1,000 men. You'll all be martyrs.

The only way to avoid being martyrs is to intimidate the police into not arresting all of you and that intimidation finds its roots in the prospect of you 1,000 armed men using your firearms to resist the police.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

BillS said:


> I can imagine the government planting people within the group to open fire on police and then leave before they get killed, leaving the rest to take heavy casualties. Obama would LOVE that as a step towards gun confiscation.


Like 9-11,the useful idiot muslims were used then but maybe its us who are the idiots!:scratch

We let the grinning chimp Bush take us into Iraq and set us up for the next one.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

We have no tv but we do have web and radio,but we never heard what became of these events? Did they have their march?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> So why do you imagine that police might have 2nd thoughts about arresting 1,000 armed men when they wouldn't hesitate to arrest one armed man walking in DC?
> 
> Don't you see the problem with this? This is might makes right. This sends the message that you can intimidate police in your city and do what you please so long as your gang is larger and carries more firepower than the police. How is that good for society?
> 
> ...


This is not might makes right. This is citizens of this nation holding authorities that we elect to the law of the land and the oath they all took to uphold that law. They may attempt to arrest thousands. However, arresting thousands of people holding valuable property is a logistical nightmare compared to a lone protester. We have the right to assemble and the right to bear arms. Bobb, you are a very intelligent individual and I get a lot out of your posts but I would urge you to reconsider your position on this issue. The government is breaking the law and it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens of this country to preserve the RESPONSIBILITY of our inherited freedom for future generations. If you are not prepared to stand peaceably with your fellow countrymen and women to defend that liberty then I don't know what to tell you other than remember this discussion when you're trying to explain to your grandkids the mess they inherited. Sometimes standing up for what's right takes a little bit of backbone. You say this is the populace forcing their will upon government? No. This is government forcing its will, contrary to the law of the land, onto the people through force. That is not liberty and I don't mind standing up and saying so. I would urge you to do the same if you care at all about our country, our values, and the well being of future generations of Americans. Just my 2 cents. We don't have to agree on everything.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> We have the right to assemble and the right to bear arms.


These are not unconditional rights, just like free speech is not unconditional.

Here's the thing - there are plenty of places around the country where you can assemble in large numbers and march while openly carrying rifles or handguns and do so without taunting police and local government. Your point is still made.

The way to get the local DC ordinance about open carry changed is through the political and judicial process, not by raising a middle finger to the police and daring them to enter the crowd to arrest you all for breaking the law.

You don't have to choose to march in DC but you are doing so and the reason you do is not to assert your rights but to challenge one city's local government and the challenge isn't in the form of aiding politicians who favor your point of view or launching a lawsuit to overturn what you believe are unconstitutional laws, no your challenge is a direct challenge to the police to arrest you for breaking the law and the challenge is escalated by thousands of you law breakers being armed.

There is not one positive constructive aspect to this entire exercise. Every state is yellow is a permissive open carry state that you could designate your march to take place in.










Why choose to hold your march in a location where this is currently illegal?



> The government is breaking the law and it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens of this country to preserve the RESPONSIBILITY of our inherited freedom for future generations.


Lawsuits and voting out of office those politicians who passed these laws has worked like a charm for a very long time. Having 1,000 armed men standing off against an armed police force is more of what we see in Banana Republics and in Africa.



> If you are not prepared to stand peaceably with your fellow countrymen and women to defend that liberty


Can't one man, you for instance, stand peaceably in DC with your handgun holstered to your hip? Why do you need the support of another 1,000 similarly armed men? You told us the answer earlier - you will be arrested and you're counting on the sight of 1,000 armed men to intimidate police into not enforcing the law, thus reducing your chances of arrest. I can't stand behind lawbreakers intimidating police into not doing their job - that's EXACTLY what we're seeing taking place in Mexico right now with the armed drug gangs who exert more power than Mexican police.

If I have to choose between armed citizens breaking the law or the police, I'll throw my hat in with the cops and I think I've established my bona fides on this board as a critic of police overreach, police militarization, and police conduct, but when the choice comes down to armed mobs versus the cops, I go with the cops who have sworn an oath to uphold the law. If you don't like the law, then go to court to have the law declared invalid or involve yourself in the political process and change the law. Leave the police to do their job and don't needlessly challenge them by willfully defying the law.* The worst thing to see is the police too scared to do their job for that diminishes society as a whole.*


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> These are not unconditional rights, just like free speech is not unconditional.
> 
> Here's the thing - there are plenty of places around the country where you can assemble in large numbers and march while openly carrying rifles or handguns and do so without taunting police and local government. Your point is still made.
> 
> ...


Again we will have to agree to disagree. I have little faith anything less than the plan proposed will have an effect on the policies being pursued by our government. Our government consistently wipes their collective Butt's with the constitution and they think it is OK because we the people continually allow them to do so. It has to stop somewhere. A group of peacefully armed protesters in our country's capital out risking their freedom to stand up for the rights and liberties that you enjoy and that this nation was built upon is NOT the same as a lawless mob armed to the teeth forcing random will on unsuspecting innocents. Not the same thing at all. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. I hope you come to consider this issue in a different light.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> Again we will have to agree to disagree.


That's fine. It looks to me like you hold your position based on emotion and don't care about the facts. I'll explain why I believe this below.



> I have little faith anything less than the plan proposed will have an effect on the policies being pursued by our government. Our government consistently wipes their collective Butt's with the constitution and they think it is OK because we the people continually allow them to do so.


This position is refuted by all of the States shown on the map which have permissive open carry laws, in yellow, all of the states with licensed open carry laws, in green, all of the anomalous open carry states where there still exist some restrictions or complicating factors, in orange. The states in red are the non-permissive open carry states.

The evidence is clear that the majority of states are not non-permissive.



> It has to stop somewhere. A group of peacefully armed protesters in our country's capital out risking their freedom to stand up for the rights and liberties that you enjoy and that this nation was built upon is NOT the same as a lawless mob armed to the teeth forcing random will on unsuspecting innocents.


That's a strawman formulation. I never said that you were intending to go to DC in order to force your will on unsuspecting innocents. I said that you're going there to force your will on the police, to dare them to arrest the entire 1,000 man armed mob. If they would arrest a solitary protester, then they are doing their job, but if they refrain from arresting the entire 1,000 of you, then you've won, you've shown everyone that might makes right. That's why you're going there, to intimidate the police into not doing their job and this is why you need a larger mob than a smaller mob.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> That's fine. It looks to me like you hold your position based on emotion and don't care about the facts. I'll explain why I believe this below.
> 
> This position is refuted by all of the States shown on the map which have permissive open carry laws, in yellow, all of the states with licensed open carry laws, in green, all of the anomalous open carry states where there still exist some restrictions or complicating factors, in orange. The states in red are the non-permissive open carry states.
> 
> ...


If that's how you would like to think of it bobb then okay. I disagree.


----------



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

Actually it's well over 3,000 people now just for DC. and it's set for every Capitol of every state on July 4th. And the Supreme Court already passed the law that its ok to open carry in DC, but the cops still arrest people for it. So it's the city breaking the law. Not the people.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

bigtrain2020 said:


> And the Supreme Court already passed the law that its OK to open carry in DC,


That would be news to me. Can you tell me where this is stated?


----------



## shadowrider (Mar 13, 2010)

Just remember .gov has these:


----------



## bigtrain2020 (Mar 20, 2013)

They have toy Vulcan mini guns? Check that video again. Then go watch the knob creek machine gun shoot videos the government ain't the only ones with "toys".


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

bigtrain2020 said:


> Actually it's well over 3,000 people now just for DC. and it's set for every Capitol of every state on July 4th. And the Supreme Court already passed the law that its ok to open carry in DC, but the cops still arrest people for it. So it's the city breaking the law. Not the people.


I would also like to see this Supreme Court law. I think we will need to triple 3000 to make this work in DC. I have high hopes for this.


----------

