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

[Jason Flare]

Sorry, I don't want to give the "Political Agitating Machine" anything to spin. On top of that, at that time I will not be physically able to engage here at home should the shit hit the fan because this guy wants to be a hero.

Were you at Boston, (twice,) North Brookfield, or West Springfield?

 

[Dench]

They'll become PPs, but lets be honest. They'll still own guns, just illegal ones.

illegal to the .gov, legal to anyone who understands the constitution.

A lot of people don't give a shit what the .gov considers "legal" or "illegal" anymore.

 

[calsdad]

You are very right on this. Many years ago when I was active in the Mass. Trappers Assoc. I got up and addressed the meeting with, We have to start telling the elected that we send to Boston that they are accountable to us and that we would organize and replace them. I was told that,"You can not talk to a rep or senator, like that". My answer then was, "there is your problem".

Perfect example of why this country has gone down the shitpipe.

 

[joeendris]

illegal to the .gov, legal to anyone who understands the constitution.

A lot of people don't give a shit what the .gov considers "legal" or "illegal" anymore.

YUP

 

[calsdad]

That may be true, but being charged with a crime punishable by 5 years in jail automatically makes you a prohibited person so anyone who still retains the ability to bring their gun to that march won't ever have that right again after that day, so what is the point? You may as well pretend it's go time at that point, otherwise you are just pissing away your rights and freedom just to say f-you to the .gov? Well, guess who gets the last laugh...?

What's the point in having a "right" to own a gun - if you're unwilling to use it?

I think I see the point - by taking the chance you will become a prohibited person you are calling attention to the fact that was once a god-given right - has now become a government bestowed one.

I think a lot of people really don't get the difference.

 

[calsdad]

You don't get it. I'll try to explain:
- as an American, you should be able to walk with a weapon on any public property period. You can't. Kokesh is protesting that.
- as a free American, no where in the constitution does it mention that you can be stripped of your rights for breaking the law after punishment. If Kokesh gets arrested and is illegally added to the prohibited persons list, he's going to fight it as it's not legal.
- "go time" is "gay time." Only people that are eCommando's on NES talk about "go time." No one on NES is ready under any circumstances to organize any group of any size to "go fight the government." It's not going to happen in todays climate. Non violent protest and being arrested for simply carrying a weapon is going to get a lot more positive spin than gay "go time" and getting into shoot outs with police and being demonized by the .gov and mass media as a terrorist.

Kokesh is willing to go to jail and let the courts figure it out via the constitution. None of us are willing to put our lives on hold like he is. We need more people like him while the rest of us sit on the sidelines bitching about it. He has a lot more balls than I do, I'll be the 1st to admit it. it's people like Kokesh that start important events, not people like us that bitch and moan about laws and do nothing about it. If Kokesh goes through with this, I will have a massive amount of respect for him.

You can get a lot more done politically by being arrested for doing nothing - walking with a fire arm, then you can by shooting at people with intent to kill to make political points.

Kokesh very frequently speaks about the non aggression principle. He is essentialy a passifist until he is harmed. He isnt going to harm people or try to harm people to make a political point - it's against his very foundation of idealogy.


If you want to be a "go time" operator and not a non violent protester let me give you the needed to do list:
1. be 50-150lbs over weight.
2. talk shit on the internet about fighting the .gov with violent resistance.
3. imply that you have a posse of 5 other equally obese and out of shape people who are going to help you fight the government.
4. have no practical experience with your firearms outside of a sterile shooting range.
5. practice shooting drills in the latest call of duty title with the rest of your squad in game with you.

I think Kokesh knows what he's doing. I don't believe he's out to start a fight. But the govt. employees that meet them - might be.

I hope him and the people that march with him realize this and what might go down.

Just because I'm not willing to make that march right now doesn't mean I don't recognize what he's trying to accomplish by doing it.

 

[calsdad]

I have watched his videos and a non-violent protest may very well be "his" intention. But I seriously doubt that will be the intention of everyone involved in this endeavor. I still stand with the thought that if this goes through they do need to make certain precautions. Just walking blindly up the street as a group may end up being the last thing he does on this plane of existence.

I'll be be honest and say I'm torn here. One side of me hopes this happens and it's a peaceful and successful march. The other side of me hope this turns into a conflict and it finally wakes some people up.

He's going to have to make sure that ALL of the people that march with him understand that they are not there to fire first. They may all well be there to die in a blaze of government sponsored gunfire - but if you're truly looking for a revolutionary moment - then having a bunch of government paid thugs gun down a few hundred people who were doing nothing but marching peacefully - is probably just what you are looking for.

Going out and starting a firefight isn't going to win any points. News stories all around the world of heaps of bodies of peacefully marching citizens - who just happened to have guns with them and DIDN'T USE THEM - is another story altogether.

I bring this up constantly but people just don't seem to get it. On April 19th when those militia men stood on Lexington common - they did not just start firing immediately at the British troops. They stood there as a protest. When they were ordered to disband by the British officer - they were in the process of leaving when the shot rang out. Some of them got shot. From that point on what they did was self defense. If they had shot first it would have been aggression. They did not. By taking those hits and losing those men - they fostered an entire revolution - and that revolution had moral justification.

If they had just started attacking the British as soon as they marched out of Boston then THEY would have been the aggressors. By taking their hits and letting the British gun them down - they showed the British for what they were: tyrants.

We need a come-to-god moment like that in the here and now. You might provoke it by marching with rifles and not fighting back as they gun you down - but you won't get it by instigating the violence in the first place.

 

[GunGrey]

He's going to have to make sure that ALL of the people that march with him understand that they are not there to fire first. They may all well be there to die in a blaze of government sponsored gunfire - but if you're truly looking for a revolutionary moment - then having a bunch of government paid thugs gun down a few hundred people who were doing nothing but marching peacefully - is probably just what you are looking for.

Going out and starting a firefight isn't going to win any points. News stories all around the world of heaps of bodies of peacefully marching citizens - who just happened to have guns with them and DIDN'T USE THEM - is another story altogether.

I bring this up constantly but people just don't seem to get it. On April 19th when those militia men stood on Lexington common - they did not just start firing immediately at the British troops. They stood there as a protest. When they were ordered to disband by the British officer - they were in the process of leaving when the shot rang out. Some of them got shot. From that point on what they did was self defense. If they had shot first it would have been aggression. They did not. By taking those hits and losing those men - they fostered an entire revolution - and that revolution had moral justification.

If they had just started attacking the British as soon as they marched out of Boston then THEY would have been the aggressors. By taking their hits and letting the British gun them down - they showed the British for what they were: tyrants.

We need a come-to-god moment like that in the here and now. You might provoke it by marching with rifles and not fighting back as they gun you down - but you won't get it by instigating the violence in the first place.

And there it is^^^^^^

QFT

 

[Rockrivr1]

I bring this up constantly but people just don't seem to get it. On April 19th when those militia men stood on Lexington common - they did not just start firing immediately at the British troops. They stood there as a protest. When they were ordered to disband by the British officer - they were in the process of leaving when the shot rang out.

And there lies the rub. Some historians believe it was the Colonials that fired that first shot and thus we were the aggressors. Inevitably history has been written that Colonials were gunned down by the British and in those times history was determined by who was listening and who was telling the story. News took weeks to pass across the country and most of it was word of mouth.

Today, with constant and instant news, it's a whole other story. Police are already deemed as the good guys by most of society. Even if the marchers don't fire first the news spin will that the LEs were provoked into firing as they feared for their lives. The majority will believe that even if it's not true. The only way it works in our favor is if our side does not fire a shot back in retaliation. That would never happen. Once the first shot rings out, lead will fly from both directions.

Unless this goes down as totally peaceable, it will be a no win situation for us. I just don't see it going down as totally peaceable.

 

[soloman02]

And there lies the rub. Some historians believe it was the Colonials that fired that first shot and thus we were the aggressors. Inevitably history has been written that Colonials were gunned down by the British and in those times history was determined by who was listening and who was telling the story. News took weeks to pass across the country and most of it was word of mouth.

Today, with constant and instant news, it's a whole other story. Police are already deemed as the good guys by most of society. Even if the marchers don't fire first the news spin will that the LEs were provoked into firing as they feared for their lives. The majority will believe that even if it's not true. The only way it works in our favor is if our side does not fire a shot back in retaliation. That would never happen. Once the first shot rings out, lead will fly from both directions.

Unless this goes down as totally peaceable, it will be a no win situation for us. I just don't see it going down as totally peaceable.

The only way I see it working is if no one brings ammo with their gun. You can't fire a shot back if you have no ammo. If this is that "come to God" moment as Calsdad put it, none of those rifles can be loaded and no one can have ammo with them.

Yea it sucks not being able to shoot back. But if you want to get people to see the government for what it is: Tyranny. Then you cannot bring ammo to shoot back. Which means everyone going must be willing to die at the hands of JBTs on that bridge without ever lifting a finger to shoot back.

 

[ochmude]

I hope everyone realizes that it's well established in LE use of force policies that shooting first is perfectly legal (which is true even for private citizens). If, from your perspective, an individual has the opportunity, ability, and intent to cause serious bodily harm or death, you are well within your rights to use deadly force. That means you don't have to wait for them to shoot first. For the most part, this is a great thing. It means that if someone breaks into your house and points a gun at you, you can shoot them dead. If they don't get a shot off...oh well. The problem is, in this case, if a cop sees one of the marchers even just swat at a fly that landed on his arm, it could be easily articulated as a pre-assault indicator to justify shooting. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong, but the shoot will be ruled to be justified and the media will paint the LEO's as heros. It really doesn't matter who shoots first.

 

[josh2600]

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.

Agreed, Ruby ridge was that "too late" point.

 

[josh2600]

The only way I see it working is if no one brings ammo with their gun. You can't fire a shot back if you have no ammo. If this is that "come to God" moment as Calsdad put it, none of those rifles can be loaded and no one can have ammo with them.

Yea it sucks not being able to shoot back. But if you want to get people to see the government for what it is: Tyranny. Then you cannot bring ammo to shoot back. Which means everyone going must be willing to die at the hands of JBTs on that bridge without ever lifting a finger to shoot back.

I heard him on AJ, he said "loaded" more than once.

 

[calsdad]

And there lies the rub. Some historians believe it was the Colonials that fired that first shot and thus we were the aggressors. Inevitably history has been written that Colonials were gunned down by the British and in those times history was determined by who was listening and who was telling the story. News took weeks to pass across the country and most of it was word of mouth.

Today, with constant and instant news, it's a whole other story. Police are already deemed as the good guys by most of society. Even if the marchers don't fire first the news spin will that the LEs were provoked into firing as they feared for their lives. The majority will believe that even if it's not true. The only way it works in our favor is if our side does not fire a shot back in retaliation. That would never happen. Once the first shot rings out, lead will fly from both directions.

Unless this goes down as totally peaceable, it will be a no win situation for us. I just don't see it going down as totally peaceable.

Peaceable protest requires discipline and imagination.

Ghandi helped bring down British rule in India - with salt.

 

[Quiet]

Kent State. Ghandi. Non-violence met with violence is the key. Marching an army/militia/whatever across state lines -armed- is NOT non-violent to the public. It is quite threatening to them and it's that public's opinion that needs to be turned.

I don't think that the 2A codifies a right for a militia to cross state lines, nor to overthrow the government. But I'm on a cellphone here and can't go on at length about these.

- - - Updated - - -

Peaceable protest requires discipline and imagination.

Ghandi helped bring down British rule in India - with salt.

Perfect post. You said in 2 lines what I couldn't figure out how to say in under 100.

 

[calsdad]

I hope everyone realizes that it's well established in LE use of force policies that shooting first is perfectly legal (which is true even for private citizens). If, from your perspective, an individual has the opportunity, ability, and intent to cause serious bodily harm or death, you are well within your rights to use deadly force. That means you don't have to wait for them to shoot first. For the most part, this is a great thing. It means that if someone breaks into your house and points a gun at you, you can shoot them dead. If they don't get a shot off...oh well. The problem is, in this case, if a cop sees one of the marchers even just swat at a fly that landed on his arm, it could be easily articulated as a pre-assault indicator to justify shooting. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong, but the shoot will be ruled to be justified and the media will paint the LEO's as heros. It really doesn't matter who shoots first.

What is perceived as legal by the forces that be - and what is perceived to be acceptable and moral by society at large - are two different things entirely.

When the perception of legality by the govt - and the perception of acceptability and morality among the people get a wide enough gap between them- you have a recipe for change or revolution.

This Kokesh thing is a test of where we are with that. If they all get gunned down and nobody gives a shit - then everybody here should be scared - very scared.

 

[ochmude]

What is perceived as legal by the forces that be - and what is perceived to be acceptable and moral by society at large - are two different things entirely.

When the perception of legality by the govt - and the perception of acceptability and morality among the people get a wide enough gap between them- you have a recipe for change or revolution.

This Kokesh thing is a test of where we are with that. If they all get gunned down and nobody gives a shit - then everybody here should be scared - very scared.

Agreed.

 

[xtry51]

What is perceived as legal by the forces that be - and what is perceived to be acceptable and moral by society at large - are two different things entirely.

When the perception of legality by the govt - and the perception of acceptability and morality among the people get a wide enough gap between them- you have a recipe for change or revolution.

This Kokesh thing is a test of where we are with that. If they all get gunned down and nobody gives a shit - then everybody here should be scared - very scared.

Indeed.

 

[Quiet]

The only way I see it working is if no one brings ammo with their gun. You can't fire a shot back if you have no ammo. If this is that "come to God" moment as Calsdad put it, none of those rifles can be loaded and no one can have ammo with them.

Yea it sucks not being able to shoot back. But if you want to get people to see the government for what it is: Tyranny. Then you cannot bring ammo to shoot back. Which means everyone going must be willing to die at the hands of JBTs on that bridge without ever lifting a finger to shoot back.

Interesting idea... just exploring that line of thinking, what about just high capacity mags and no guns? Or something else visible, and legal but not threatening. Loaded or unloaded mags? Just thinking aloud.

 

[calsdad]

illegal to the .gov, legal to anyone who understands the constitution.

A lot of people don't give a shit what the .gov considers "legal" or "illegal" anymore.

Yes.

There are a lot of people who have come to the conclusion that "legal" and "illegal" just don't mean anything any more because the government has stuck it's nose into so many things at this point that they have forced a lot of people to consider doing "illegal" things - just to lead their lives. Once you force somebody to consider that they might have to do something "illegal" just to accomplish some innocous daily task - you have unfortunately opened Pandora's box mentally for that person - because they sooner or later come to the conclusion of "**** it" - I might as well start ignoring all the other laws too.

There's a huge difference between morality and legality - especially in a political system like the one we have in this country now.

 

[soloman02]

I heard him on AJ, he said "loaded" more than once.

If everyone had no ammo, it would be damn hard for the media to claim Kokesh shot first. Because he is going in "loaded" this isn't going to play out the way we want in the media at all. At least if there was no ammo, we would have a chance of good reporting (maybe I'm being optimistic). Now we are guaranteed to have zero chance of good reporting.


You heard it here first, even Fox, the vaunted "conservative" network that so many here think is infallible, will report what happened with Kokesh wrong just like the MSM, assuming shots are fired.

 

[soloman02]

Interesting idea... just exploring that line of thinking, what about just high capacity mags and no guns? Or something else visible, and legal but not threatening. Loaded or unloaded mags? Just thinking aloud.

If you want to bring down some AWB's this is what needs to be done. If 400 people show up to Beacon Hill all toting 30 round Pmags, what are they gonna do? arrest everyone? And if they do, well, now the cost of fighting the charges is spread out amongst 400 vs 1 person. If it costs $100K to fight the charges, dividing that up amongst 400 is far better than 1, not to mention, if that many people get charged, a national/state organization would be more willing to pay for the legal fees.

 

[bullseye]

Kokesh knows damn well that there are easily several thousand pissed off enough folks that will gladly fall in step with him. He may have other things secretly planned as well, just like the .gov. If he does get thousands, last I knew he had around 2500 folks that had signed up, maybe many more now, this will already be written up and proofed by the editors before they even set step anywhere near that bridge, only the opening headline will change to reflect the number killed. Maybe this is what this country needs, a huge eye opener to the reality of what lengths people will go thru to get their message across.

 

[Tyke]

You know what would be ironic? He advertises it as loaded...but they actually go unloaded. Firefight breaks out with all lead going one way. Many killed. LE blows each other on how they did such a great job...

People then find out defenseless protestors were murdered in cold blood......

 

[frenchman]

It's a fool's mission. "They" (cops, DHS) already know what's coming and can plan accordingly. They have all the time in the world to even scout the area, position their people, set up their material, make sure backup/reinforcements are close, but not too close. "They" have now total control over what and how shit will go down. And several hundred/thousand idiots will follow this Kokesh jackwagon right into this trap, guns blazing. Am I the only one who thinks like that?

 

[soloman02]

It's a fool's mission. "They" (cops, DHS) already know what's coming and can plan accordingly. They have all the time in the world to even scout the area, position their people, set up their material, make sure backup/reinforcements are close, but not too close. "They" have now total control over what and how shit will go down. And several hundred/thousand idiots will follow this Kokesh jackwagon right into this trap, guns blazing. Am I the only one who thinks like that?

But what if this is a ploy on Kokesh's part? Get everyone together and at the last minute, change the point of entry to ruin any planning the .gov was able to do. I only hope Kokesh is smart enough to to think like that and is able to pull it off as it would make things potentially go better since the .gov can't scout the area out.

 

[KiloVictorTango]

Pretty good interview from Kokesh

 

[frenchman]

Not gonna fly, IMO. How does he want to get that kind of commuinication done? We're talking potentially thousands of people. It starts with something as stupid as parking spots. Where do you park several thousand cars? How will you give directions to people who are late to the party? Follow the sound of gunfire? You'll piss off VSP and local cops by messing up traffic, so, that's that for the Virginia cops. Nowhere to defecate as well, so hundreds of idiots will urinate in the streets and win the hearts and minds of the residents.
How about one of these clowns gets a heart attack? What then? WOuld you blame the medics who refuse to pick up a guy out of a crowd of hundreds of people who are armed to the teeth? And all that to do the cops the greatest tactical favor of all, to march towards a bridge that works just like a funnel. Smart, really.

 

[cekim]

Not gonna fly, IMO. How does he want to get that kind of commuinication done? We're talking potentially thousands of people. It starts with something as stupid as parking spots. Where do you park several thousand cars? How will you give directions to people who are late to the party? Follow the sound of gunfire? You'll piss off VSP and local cops by messing up traffic, so, that's that for the Virginia cops. Nowhere to defecate as well, so hundreds of idiots will urinate in the streets and win the hearts and minds of the residents.
How about one of these clowns gets a heart attack? What then? WOuld you blame the medics who refuse to pick up a guy out of a crowd of hundreds of people who are armed to the teeth? And all that to do the cops the greatest tactical favor of all, to march towards a bridge that works just like a funnel. Smart, really.

That's your concern? 10,000 armed protestors matching to the White House and you are worried about Porta-Potties and parking?

 

[Jason Flare]

Not gonna fly, IMO. How does he want to get that kind of commuinication done? We're talking potentially thousands of people. It starts with something as stupid as parking spots. Where do you park several thousand cars? How will you give directions to people who are late to the party? Follow the sound of gunfire? You'll piss off VSP and local cops by messing up traffic, so, that's that for the Virginia cops. Nowhere to defecate as well, so hundreds of idiots will urinate in the streets and win the hearts and minds of the residents.
How about one of these clowns gets a heart attack? What then? WOuld you blame the medics who refuse to pick up a guy out of a crowd of hundreds of people who are armed to the teeth? And all that to do the cops the greatest tactical favor of all, to march towards a bridge that works just like a funnel. Smart, really.

For some reason I picture you waving a white flag during this rant