Adam Kokesh's March?

[627 city hunter]

I am not condoning his actions in any way.

He has this march he's planning.

It may seemingly be unprecedented.

It seems risky at the least to our causes as many of us are NRA members.

Opinions?

*Please mods I am not trying to cause trouble. If this needs to be deleted do so.*

[USAF385]

Link? I know not of what you speak.

[627 city hunter]

Adam Kokesh Organizes Rifle March On DC - Business Insider

EXCLUSIVE: Adam Kokesh Calls For Armed March on DC - VIDEO | Peace . Gold . Liberty

Daily Kos: Adam Kokesh Calls for Armed March on Washington on July 4th

Like I see what he's intending, but then again...

[Buffalohunter60]

Personally....big mistake. I would not do anything threatening or to intimidate. Sends the wrong message and will get the wrong responce. Why does anyone need to march with loaded weapons...the opposition has done nothing so far to warrent that. It will give law abiding gun owners a bad name and hurt our cause.
Better to join forces with the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and Oathkeepers and do some actual good. Support the legal fight to stop states that have passed unconstitutional laws that hurt law abiding gun owners. If you want to lose your right to own a gun...join the march and thats probably going to be the result or just one hot head that fires one shot and people will die for no good reason. Its not time for that yet, just my humble opinion. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

[627 city hunter]

That is what I thinking too, Buffalohunter60.

He is seemingly antagonistic especially in a time when so much is at stake.

The anti's much less the government could simply use this march as precedence for who knows what.

In principle he is correct, but sometimes its better to play chess than checkers.

As in this is a very emotional response versus a very slow calculated one.

[Buffalohunter60]

I agree with a march if they want and keep it peaceful...but leave the guns at home. A march in DC with loaded rifles woulc be seen as a threat against the government and would be met with force and could easily get out of hand no matter how much they want to keep it peaceful..I think it sends the wrong message. If the government comes with guns...I would take that as a threat and respond to protect myself...they are going to do the same thing. It can only turn out bad.

[627 city hunter]

That is precisely what I think.

As some of us were surprised the military marching for the most recent presidential inauguration had incomplete rifles.

Something tells me, if this guy carries through with his march he will not get into D.C.

Given D.C. is completely ridiculous regarding firearms in general.

[627 city hunter]

After doing a little more reading on this guy, he may be more out there than it seemed.

Its seems he was also banned from former presidential candidate Ron Paul's events after previously assisting his campaign.

I think that really says something about him. He definitely smacks of rebellion(in his mind freedom) for its sake. He seems to avoid the decorum or regular order of nearly anything in front of him see Jefferson Memorial flash mob event...

I really see this march as disastrous to our 2nd Amendment causes.

I can almost see this guy saying, "Do what you want because a pirate is free."

He really seems to blur the lines of libertarianism and anarchism.

[Buffalohunter60]

exackly...he can only do damage to the Second Amendment and our Cosntitution in general. We certainly do not want to be the ones to break the peace first or be seen as radicals against the government....we just want to see the Constitution respected and honored and same with the Bil of Rights..."Not to be Infringed". and get this country back on coarse through peaceful means. It can be done ...we just all need to get involved and stay focused.

[USAF385]

I think an organized march, unarmed, would be better. I feel a lot of people wouldn't want to get involved with this march. It sounds confrontational going on the guys own words. An unarmed 2A rally would be more beneficial.

This could also skew the reality of how many people support gun rights. Considering the numbers other marches / rallies have gotten in recent years, a march with only "at least 1,000" would look puny.

I can hear it now:

"In a failed attempt to rally for gun rights, only 1,000 gun rights activists showed up for a second amendment rally........"

[tlay]

Something smells like this is a setup by some antis. If these people are stupid enough to march on D.C. with loaded rifles then they will get what they deserve. The problem is all of us will be grouped in with these nuts and it will give them all the ammunition they need to disarm us. The NRA and the rest need to do all they can to stop this.

[627 city hunter]

You know empty magazines without rifles might be a much better form of civil disobedience.

The provocateur, Kokesh, is very dangerous for all involved on any side.

IF this actually happens, I believe it WILL turn violent, unfortunately.

I love liberty and describe myself as a libertarian, but I am not ready for
armed demonstration under today’s government or political climate to
sacrifice more of my rights.

You can bet your last dollar DHS, FBI, ATF, and DCPD not including the
National Guard will be at the other side of that bridge, if they get that far.

I like the idea Kokesh has in theory. I just believe it is inevitably going
to mar gun advocates and the 2nd Amendment. There will be kooks
marching and kooks on the other side too. Some one will have desire
for blood or their own selfish agenda. This march will will spell casualty.
Storming of the Bastille anyone?

Imagine a guy gets pepper sprayed, a kook shoots on either side,
or someone is intoxicated --- suddenly accidental discharge: "OH FUDGE!"

I mean will they even be able to walk a mile without an accidental discharge?

We really are talking about a lot of civilian participants. You don't walk
with motley mob into the gun range with rifles loaded.
In fact even in colonial armies, there were obvious rank and file for marching in formation.

Most of theses people like myself are not trained for any of this.
They could actually stampede themselves in panic.

[df53141]

Maybe we should have NRA publically (representing us) distance itself from this kind of stupid/confrontational act?

[Buffalohunter60]

All it would take is someone to throw a string of fire crackers and it is full on. This has got to be the dumbest thing anyone can to to push supporting the second amendment...No rifles peroid...the govt would not know if they are loaded or not and would not take a chance on that. I would stay as far away from that group as I can get, they will do more to hurt us than to help us and intimidation is not a good tactic to get support of law abiding folks. And no matter how it turns out....they are going to lose. If I am going to spend effort...I will do it where it does the most good....the NRA has a proven track record, the Second Amendment Foundation has a proven track record. The effort we all put forth to defeat the latest gun bills has a proven track record...why would we want to screw that up an armed march that would prove just what the Anti's are saying about us. We are smarter than that. I also believe in the Mission of a group called Oathkeepers...what they are doing can tip the balance in a positive direction...check them out and see their mission oathkeepers.net
A good solid outfit that is making positive progress to restore the Constitution.

[CoMF]

I agree with the principle, but not with the execution. It just feels like a public relations nightmare in the making.

[LoboGunLeather]

A march, yes. With firearms, no!

If they do the tarring and feathering properly there will be no need for firearms.

[jlrhiner]

I'll pick the chickens, you boil the tar.

[gregintenn]

How do you expect an event such as this would be portrayed bt the media?
What would happen if a "plant", or even some well meaning numbskull in the event began firing for whatever reason?

[Old TexMex]

There would be undercover agents, provocatuers and any variety of screwballs in the crowd. Guys got too much spare time.

[BMCM]

NRA & GOA et al. need to get time on the national media asap and publicly denounce this clown before anything ugly happens.

Cheers
Bill

[Poodle Soup]

I think it would be better to just march with everyone holding a 30 round magazine in their hand.

[DigiRebel]

The interesting thing with all of this is that he's well within his First Amendment rights to do this. Case in point, when the ladies protesting "top freedom" in Florida marched topless were arrested they were released because marching topless was a protected first amendment protest. In short they still couldn't go topless on the beach, but if they had a sign, they could.

I think comparing the numbers of people who've been at various protests (especially if you want to say 1,000 isn't enough) is faulty at best. The number of people marching can easily be inflated or deflated depending on who's doing the reporting. There have been plenty of "Million Man (or woman, or mom, or alpaca, or whatever)" marches, I don't think a single one has hit 1 million people yet, with the largest being 100,000. MOST are about 3-500 people. The Million Mom anti-2nd amendment rally was about 500 people total. His number is at 1,000 because he wants to show the majority of these marches up.

Do I think this is a good idea though? No. It strikes me that he's hoping for a Kent State, or maybe a John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry.

The real issue is you'd be marching among a group of people you don't know. Do you really trust that everyone there will be on the level and looking for a peaceable solution to the debate? How many of that thousand will be looking for their own personal Fort Sumter.

No thanks.

[MrJT]

Originally Posted by DigiRebel

I think comparing the numbers of people who've been at various protests (especially if you want to say 1,000 isn't enough) is faulty at best. The number of people marching can easily be inflated or deflated depending on who's doing the reporting. There have been plenty of "Million Man (or woman, or mom, or alpaca, or whatever)" marches, I don't think a single one has hit 1 million people yet, with the largest being 100,000. MOST are about 3-500 people. The Million Mom anti-2nd amendment rally was about 500 people total. His number is at 1,000 because he wants to show the majority of these marches up.

I disagree. In a time when opponents are claiming that 90% of Americans want universal background checks, and that a majority want new gun laws of some sort, a poor display of second amendment supporters would work in their favor. They would say it proves their point. Of all the gun owners in America, only 1000 showed up in support of this.

Look back just a few years ago at the Glenn Beck rally or the John Stewart and Stephen Colbert rally. Those events were huge. Talking about rallies these days, 1000 people is miniscule.

If you think the number of those protesting is not important, you are mistaken. Many Americans lack the ability to form an opinion on their own. A large showing of those in support of the second amendment could show them that yes, there are indeed many supporters. A rally where they fail to meet their goal of 1000 could reinforce to these same people that, gee, Americans don't support the second amendment.

And estimated 40,000 people rallied this February in Washington demanding climate control action.

Last November, 10,000 people marched calling for an end to the LRA in Africa.

In 2010, 200,000 people showed up for the March for America

My point? Even large rallies don't always get much coverage. But a flop attempt at a 2A rally might.

And if something goes wrong..... It'll cement the idea that those who support "assault rifles" are a small, unstable, fringe group.

[DigiRebel]

Originally Posted by MrJT

I disagree. In a time when opponents are claiming that 90% of Americans want universal background checks, and that a majority want new gun laws of some sort, a poor display of second amendment supporters would work in their favor. They would say it proves their point. Of all the gun owners in America, only 1000 showed up in support of this.

Look back just a few years ago at the Glenn Beck rally or the John Stewart and Stephen Colbert rally. Those events were huge. Talking about rallies these days, 1000 people is miniscule.

If you think the number of those protesting is not important, you are mistaken. Many Americans lack the ability to form an opinion on their own. A large showing of those in support of the second amendment could show them that yes, there are indeed many supporters. A rally where they fail to meet their goal of 1000 could reinforce to these same people that, gee, Americans don't support the second amendment.

And estimated 40,000 people rallied this February in Washington demanding climate control action.

Last November, 10,000 people marched calling for an end to the LRA in Africa.

In 2010, 200,000 people showed up for the March for America

My point? Even large rallies don't always get much coverage. But a flop attempt at a 2A rally might.

So you're saying 500,000+ or nothing? What is the critical mass that will force the media to not only report on it, but do so accurately and without injecting opinion?

We all already know that little things like facts, and the truth aren't issues for the media. You know as well as I do that if 1,000 show then the media will carry on about how only about 500 redneck, gun toting losers, who like to murder children showed, while anti-gun rallies where 300 show are covered as though 6.8 Billion people were there.

While I get what you're saying in as far as a small rally could be used to hurt us, I'd argue that a large one could too. Its all spin. Any rally, or march is likely to play on the mass media poorly. They simply aren't interested in facts.

And if something goes wrong..... It'll cement the idea that those who support "assault rifles" are a small, unstable, fringe group

They make that argument EVERY day. They try to prove it with their doctored numbers, and statistical spin every single day. After Boston it took mere hours before they were looking to make a link to guns even though none were involved.

To be clear:
I'm still not in favor of the whole thing...

[act700h1]

I am not saying I 100% agree, but to say it is not warranted is not true. Everyday the gun grabbers are pushing for more laws and less rights. This is about the cops/public defenders not agreeing with the judicial system, and doing whatever they want.
In a landmark court case decided five years ago (District of Columbia vs. Heller), the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ordered D.C. to honor the Second Amendment and protect an individual citizen's right to carry a loaded firearm. The Supreme Court decision specifically struck down the portion of previous laws that required all firearms to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

"Sitting at home on your couch and doing nothing is the most dangerous thing of all." And "illegal rule by a group of criminals who have seized power and who willfully violate the law"
Adam Kokesh