Adam Kokesh Calls for Peaceful Open Carry March July 4th from Virginia to D.C.

[MoAmmoPlease]

Jeff the NRA and such are booming but even with poor attendance those who think taking my gun will save a baby are a growing force. Marching armed on Washington is just gonna scare the crap out of people and push them further away. I'm Just not sure scaring the ignorant will serve our cause.
We had a meeting in front of the selectman that would either keep open or close all public land in Marshfield to hunting. The pro hunting and gun folks showed up in fatigues and gilly suits. It was like a negligent discharge.
Quiet I did see where that mayor was handing out shotguns to folks. Give a shotgun to one out of five families is like arming them all. Would make a crook think twice .

 

[namedpipes]

Re: Adam Kokesh Calls Go Time, Calls for Armed March on DC

While it certainly doesnt sound smart, these tit head politicians ...

While I understand what you're saying, please use a more appropriate word than tit. Perhaps pig headed, or sewage head... I like tits and don't like to see the word associated with politicians.

I'm not sure yuo've thought this through. Thousands of armed protesters, thousands of armed police in tactical gear facing off on a bridge. And one guy lights a firecracker.

The firecracker will be lit by a hate filled liberal wearing body armor and hiding in an alley...

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.

 

[Terminator03]

I am of the "don't display it unless you intend to use it" school of thought. At this point I think an open demonstration like this would just be seized upon by the media to say "see. We told you gun owners are crazy and dangerous" and too many otherwise neutral sheeple may be swayed to the anti-gun side.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

This is actually my feelings as well. I could understand a "million man march" type of deal (unarmed, or at least CC), but there is no way I would go in with a fully loaded rifle unless I was ready to actually go to war if it turned ugly. In this instance, I feel it would be provocation to the police, National Guard, etc., and would be dealt with as a potentially hostile threat. Best case scenario is that your rifle is confiscated, you become federally prohibited for life, and do a stretch in club fed. Worse case, you end up dead, and labeled as a domestic terrorist - no thank you.

 

[Terminator03]

If you are a British soldier in Gandhi's day and throngs of people march on your position, it doesn't matter and did not matter if they were armed.

They opened fire anyway...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

They didn't care in Tianamen either:
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, I think this is a bad idea, but all rallies are designed to provoke a political reaction. This will undoubtedly provoke a political reaction. Whether it provokes a violent reaction remains to be seen, but the whole "firecracker" nonsense is just that. Like saying someone popping off a firecracker at a gun show would start WWIII because of all the guns...

I'm with you for the most part, but strongly disagree with you on this last, highlighted part. Just look back a couple of weeks ago to the Boston Marathon manhunt as a prime example. MOST of all the gunfire heard on the videos WAS the police - not the bombers. Same with Jose in AZ, etc. etc. All it takes is one guy tripping and letting off a round, or other gunshot type sound to set off a barrage of gunfire because EVERYONE there will be emotionally charged. When someone in a crowd that big starts shooting (or the perception thereof) do you really believe that ANYONE else there is going to kick back and try to investigate where the shot came from?

 

[Terminator03]

Hk, I will have to disagree with you on these folks not knowing each other. If you look back in our history, everyone went to church, town meeting was important, each town and village had a militia. If you look to the founders of this country they too had a common bond, most all of them were Masons. So they understood the hierachy of leadership and command. We don't have that kind of common bond today, and what makes it worse that many today are from the "ME" generation. Add to what I already said many of this country's founders already knew the skills of those leading as they had been is some kind of command billet, during the King Phillip War.

^Very well said. In addition to that, the sheer number of people now as compared to the population of that time would make "knowing everyone" next to impossible.

 

[Gak44]

I know everyone here seems to be against this, but isn't he within his rights to do it?

 

[soloman02]

Yes he is. That being said, What are the possible results? Will there be results that work for us or against us? What kind of command and control does he have? If this were to go bad with shots fired, Does he have people there who have the following to set up a hasty perimeter, to set up a defensive line? Or will he cause mass chaos?

He has said he will be armed. But armed with a rifle and carrying ammo in magazines and the rifle are two different things. Has he said people will have ammo on them and in the rifles?

 

[Stumpthumper]

They should carry muskets. Seriously. It's less provocative and less likely to turn ugly, but it would still be civil disobedience and get the message across better than being unarmed.
A bunch of guys carrying AR and wearing cammo is going to make us look crazy to the ignorant and just feed stereotypes.

 

[Gak44]

Sometimes blood does need to be shed.

 

[namedpipes]

They should carry muskets. Seriously. It's less provocative and less likely to turn ugly, but it would still be civil disobedience and get the message across better than being unarmed.
A bunch of guys carrying AR and wearing cammo is going to make us look crazy to the ignorant and just feed stereotypes.

Actually I sort of agree with this.

A couple thousand modern men carrying "fully loaded" muskets (with hi cap bayonettes) makes a very different message than a couple thousand modern men carrying loaded AR-15's.

 

[Quiet]

The firecracker will be lit by a hate filled liberal wearing body armor and hiding in an alley...

Terrorists are not all stupid. If you wanted to cause strife or even a civil war in the US, what better way?

Best case scenario is that your rifle is confiscated, you become federally prohibited for life, and do a stretch in club fed. Worse case, you end up dead, and labeled as a domestic terrorist - no thank you.

Pretty much what I was saying when I said "save your bus fare"

 

[mav]

Chuck Norris wouldn't need 10,000 people to back him up...

Chuck Norris can deflect bullets with his fists.

 

[Terminator03]

They should carry muskets. Seriously. It's less provocative and less likely to turn ugly, but it would still be civil disobedience and get the message across better than being unarmed.
A bunch of guys carrying AR and wearing cammo is going to make us look crazy to the ignorant and just feed stereotypes.

I have to agree that if there is going to be an "armed" protest of sorts, then this would be a lot less provocative, but I think that being provocative IS his point. I kind of feel that there is no chance this will have a happy ending for anyone. If they get arrested without shots fired, then they all get stripped of the rights they are trying to defend by default. Without a doubt if there is any altercation at all, it will give the .gov the needed support for more legislation to protect everyone from the dangerous "domestic terrorists". Sad, but true.

 

[xtry51]

That would have gone really well back in 1775; bring all the minutemen to the front, out in the open with their weapons with no intention of using them as an act of civil disobedience.

Why not just throw your guns overboard and spend a couple of years in your basement and never own a gun again and save yourself the bus fare?

This all the way. Here's the three possible outcomes:
1) They do it and nothing happens - This is good for them, but bad in that every single media source will be showing video about the evil, white, racist, crazy, domestic terrorist militia walking around giving congress the sheep it needs to pass more laws and results in not less gun laws, but more. Every single person who takes part gets a nice little bump to the top of every list and finds themselves getting SWATed at worst and at best the subject of repeated IRS audits and addition to the no fly list.

2) They do it and get arrested - See results of number 1 and add they all become PPs and get drug out in front of the media at every opportunity during trial for Obama, Bloomberg, Schumer, et al to rave about how we need to eliminate gun ownership before the racist militias start shooting.

3) They actually shoot back while an arrest attempt is being made - All of 1 and 2 plus add most of them die, DC becomes a North Korean-esque militarized zone forever. Their families all get SWATed/DHSed/FBIed/ATFed and a large portion of them die in a wave of mini Ruby Ridge events. Like Boston, the sheep cheer for the police state and agree that guns need to be banned and these families had it coming. The US becomes a dictatorship and either devolves very quickly into a full open 1984 or enters civil war.

This is a stupid idea. Either get people together and make the decision to start shooting, or do yourselves and your families a favor and keep prepping for former at a later date.

 

[soloman02]

This all the way. Here's the three possible outcomes:
1) They do it and nothing happens - This is good for them, but bad in that every single media source will be showing video about the evil, white, racist, crazy, domestic terrorist militia walking around giving congress the sheep it needs to pass more laws and results in not less gun laws, but more. Every single person who takes part gets a nice little bump to the top of every list and finds themselves getting SWATed at worst and at best the subject of repeated IRS audits and addition to the no fly list.

2) They do it and get arrested - See results of number 1 and add they all become PPs and get drug out in front of the media at every opportunity during trial for Obama, Bloomberg, Schumer, et al to rave about how we need to eliminate gun ownership before the racist militias start shooting.

3) They actually shoot back while an arrest attempt is being made - All of 1 and 2 plus add most of them die, DC becomes a North Korean-esque militarized zone forever. Their families all get SWATed/DHSed/FBIed/ATFed and a large portion of them die in a wave of mini Ruby Ridge events. Like Boston, the sheep cheer for the police state and agree that guns need to be banned and these families had it coming. The US becomes a dictatorship and either devolves very quickly into a full open 1984 or enters civil war.

This is a stupid idea. Either get people together and make the decision to start shooting, or do yourselves and your families a favor and keep prepping for former at a later date.

Voting certainly is not working so what else are we supposed to do? Since voting isn't working another means of saying GFY needs to be done. Non-compliance with an illegal law is one such way. If the .gov shoots first, it may just be the spark that causes enough people to WTF up and actually do something instead of waiting for someone else to do something.

 

[xtry51]

Voting certainly is not working so what else are we supposed to do? Since voting isn't working another means of saying GFY needs to be done. Non-compliance with an illegal law is one such way. If the .gov shoots first, it may just be the spark that causes enough people to WTF up and actually do something instead of waiting for someone else to do something.

I'm just saying if you want to do something it shouldn't be a pre-planned event where you tell police you'll allow yourself to be arrested for breaking laws you deem unconstitutional.

Plan in private and then act. Don't try playing to a media system that clearly is against your cause.

 

[Terminator03]

This all the way. Here's the three possible outcomes:
1) They do it and nothing happens - This is good for them, but bad in that every single media source will be showing video about the evil, white, racist, crazy, domestic terrorist militia walking around giving congress the sheep it needs to pass more laws and results in not less gun laws, but more. Every single person who takes part gets a nice little bump to the top of every list and finds themselves getting SWATed at worst and at best the subject of repeated IRS audits and addition to the no fly list.

2) They do it and get arrested - See results of number 1 and add they all become PPs and get drug out in front of the media at every opportunity during trial for Obama, Bloomberg, Schumer, et al to rave about how we need to eliminate gun ownership before the racist militias start shooting.

3) They actually shoot back while an arrest attempt is being made - All of 1 and 2 plus add most of them die, DC becomes a North Korean-esque militarized zone forever. Their families all get SWATed/DHSed/FBIed/ATFed and a large portion of them die in a wave of mini Ruby Ridge events. Like Boston, the sheep cheer for the police state and agree that guns need to be banned and these families had it coming. The US becomes a dictatorship and either devolves very quickly into a full open 1984 or enters civil war.

This is a stupid idea. Either get people together and make the decision to start shooting, or do yourselves and your families a favor and keep prepping for former at a later date.

Very well said. I am in 100% agreement on all points.

 

[Terminator03]

I'm just saying if you want to do something it shouldn't be a pre-planned event where you tell police you'll allow yourself to be arrested for breaking laws you deem unconstitutional.

Plan in private and then act. Don't try playing to a media system that clearly is against your cause.

I agree with this also. There is no bright side to this type of event, since even with the best possible outcome, everyone in attendance will be portrayed as some sort of terrorist, and likely lose their rights anyway. If it truly is go-time, then make it go-time, but don't "brandish" weapons you have no real intention of using. This would be no different than pulling your gun on someone that cut you off in traffic, even though you didn't plan on shooting the guy.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Make no mistake about this. If you go, wear your body armor as there will be gun fire. No way will everyone back down at the bridge. If this actually happens and it looks like he will have several thousand armed protesters I would bet the house that the National Guard and Virginia police will be at the rally start to break it up long before the march even begins. Highway check points and other gov't intervention would be inevitable. I wouldn't be surprised if you received a visit from your local LEs before you even left for the event to try and help reduce the numbers going.

 

[Terminator03]

Make no mistake about this. If you go, wear your body armor as there will be gun fire. No way will everyone back down at the bridge. If this actually happens and it looks like he will have several thousand armed protesters I would bet the house that the National Guard and Virginia police will be at the rally start to break it up long before the march even begins. Highway check points and other gov't intervention would be inevitable. I wouldn't be surprised if you received a visit from your local LEs before you even left for the event to try and help reduce the numbers going.

Good points, but wrt to the body armor thing, don't forget that it will be a serious add-on charge when you are arrested since wearing armor in the commission of a crime is a serious charge on it's own. Better have the soap-on-a-rope as a necklace that day too, since you will be wanting that more than body armor where you will be headed after the rally.

 

[xtry51]

Perhaps the most intriguing question I've ever read about situations like the one gunowners find themselves in today was in Unintended Consequences. There is a small event in the book when the main character is in a class discussing tyranny and the Jews and asks a professor "When should the people openly fight back?"

This question is the premise of all revolts, most of which come "too late." No answer is given in the book, the main character merely notes that the question is usually too tough to gauge until it is too late and so perhaps it is better to act sooner under caution, than later when no actions can be taken.

The point of the thought exercise is merely to ask yourselves a simple, yet seemingly answerless question: When should the Jews have started killing Germans?

Should they have started in 1933 after the Nazis set up the first concentration camp at Dachau and interned 200 Communists knowing that if one groupd would be persecuted by government so would others? (Gitmo anyone?)
Should it have started in 1933 after books with ideas considered dangerous to Nazi beliefs are burned. (DHS monitoring reading/media habits anyone?)
Should it have started in 1934 when Jewish newspapers could no longer be sold in the streets? (You must have an active office in DC to be in the press pool anyone?)
Should it have started in 1935 when Jews are deprived of their citizenship and other basic rights? (Boston bomber not mirandized? Talk of exportation despite him legally being here?)
Should they have started in 1938 on Kristallnacht, the 'Night of Broken Glass,' when Nazis terrorized Jews throughout Germany and Austria?
Should they have started after the gun control act of 1938? (CGA '68 anyone?)

There are of course lots of other things that occurred in those years as well. The question is at what point is armed rebellion called for? Do we need to let people be rounded up or killed before acting? Is it necessary to wait for the state to abuse it's power (shutting down Boston) before something happens, or should just the fact that the state claims that power be enough to act before innocent people's lives are threatended?

I'm not giving an answer, i'm just saying I think we're far past a point in this country where people should be having this discussion openly with their family and friends and asking themselves how long they think it is before they become labelled the Jews of the 21st century - TERRORISTS. Because once that happens, like the Jews, it's too late.

 

[joeendris]

Sorry but this doesn't sound smart at all marching into dc armed. If it were unarmed maybe it would be a good idea but good luck to those who want to go this guy.

Yeah, unarmed against the .gov works out so well...Not saying I agree with the OWS dopes (handful of lazy college kids not wanting to pay their bill and demanding free shit), but if they could defend themselves, it would keep dicks like the one below at bay. Instead, this fat **** strolls back and forth spraying them. Because honestly, what are they going to do? What can they do?

That fat POS deserves nothing less (and everybody who defends him) than a public flogging.

 

[mav]

Make no mistake about this. If you go, wear your body armor as there will be gun fire. No way will everyone back down at the bridge. If this actually happens and it looks like he will have several thousand armed protesters I would bet the house that the National Guard and Virginia police will be at the rally start to break it up long before the march even begins. Highway check points and other gov't intervention would be inevitable. I wouldn't be surprised if you received a visit from your local LEs before you even left for the event to try and help reduce the numbers going.

If you're marching on DC carrying a loaded AR and wearing a plate carrier and plates, then you're asking for trouble. Might as well go whole hog and wear your load-bearing kit with full compliment of mags because you're going to need them.

Sun Tzu teaches warfare is deception... nothing about this confrontation speaks of deception from the 2A supporters point of view. If the leftists/statists want an excuse for confiscation or open conflict against gun rights supporters, then this plays right into it. Nothing to gain here for pro-2A, except notoriety and martyrs. That is to say, nothing to gain unless you want open conflict with the government and all that entails...

 

[rchap36]

If you march armed on DC 2 thing you need to ask yourself (1)do I want to die here (2) how long can I live in the fed club house

 

[Dench]

best case scenario Kokesh and crew get arrested, it gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS and then we get a case on open carry.

I'd be cool with Kokesh sitting in jail while that gets figured out.

 

[cekim]

best case scenario Kokesh and crew get arrested, it gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS and then we get a case on open carry.

I'd be cool with Kokesh sitting in jail while that gets figured out.

An arrest seems highly probable - it will be interesting indeed...

There are many fascinating legal nuances at work here depending on how this goes.

As a Revolutionary War re-enactments demonstrate, the mere presence of armed groups of people marching is not provocative, there is a great deal of context at work to define such an event as "protest", "VA irregular militia invasion of DC", or something else...

 

[Dench]

a person carrying a firearm on his back is not a threat, although he will be arrested and treated as a criminal. It's an illegal arrest, as we have the right to bare arms which does not say "not here, there or over here."

.gov regulations on carrying firearms are arbitrary and not legal. we need people like kokesh willing to go to jail over it.

 

[Lamina]

At this point we need to get more people to have skin in the game. If provoking a heavy handed crackdown from our illustrious .gov overlords is what it takes, so be it.

Remember, the boston massacre wasn't exactly a slaughtering of innocent civilians... But it left a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of fence sitters.

In any case, it should be remembered that the men who might take place in such a rally are patriots. You may not agree with their methods, you may not like the outcome of their actions, but they ARE patriots. DC is only a 6hr drive. Less if getting there faster than prescribed speed limits allow for doesn't bother you... Remember that if those patriots start getting lit up.

 

[soloman02]

At this point we need to get more people to have skin in the game. If provoking a heavy handed crackdown from our illustrious .gov overlords is what it takes, so be it.

Remember, the boston massacre wasn't exactly a slaughtering of innocent civilians... But it left a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of fence sitters.

In any case, it should be remembered that the men who might take place in such a rally are patriots. You may not agree with their methods, you may not like the outcome of their actions, but they ARE patriots. DC is only a 6hr drive. Less if getting there faster than prescribed speed limits allow for doesn't bother you... Remember that if those patriots start getting lit up.

The reason it left a bad taste was because the propaganda created by Paul Revere was superb and widely distributed. But it was propaganda as the townsfolk were hurling ice chunks and rocks at the soldiers. I'm not condoning the soldiers response but they didn't fire into the crowd unprovoked as the picture would have you believe.

So remember that, it was propaganda the made the massacre into something it really wasn't.

 

[xtry51]

I'm certainly not saying they aren't trying to help. I'm just saying they are putting their lives on the line and don't seem willing to defend themselves. Being a martyr might seem like a good idea to people reading about you in history books should your cause be taken up, but there are a lot more people who are just outright killed, not remembered and whose causes go unadvanced.

If you want an incident that creates outcry, we had that. It was called Ruby Ridge. A family destroyed over a 3/8" of a wood stock on a Fudd shotgun.

Nothing is going to "wake people up." Germans had no problem supporting Hitler.