Firewall, the subject of this discussion is whether or not the demonstration is a stupid idea. It is not a discussion about the 2nd amendment as a concept or about its relationship to DC law.
Let me get this straight: This thread is about the demonstration, but you don't want to talk about what the demonstration is about?
Talk about stupid idea...do you believe that through ommitting context, purpose and facts you will uncover deeper insights?
Only if you're interested in this thread.
lol @ the new guy
way to miss the point.
The Firewall:Criticize them for violating illegal ordinances?
No. Re-read the entire thread.
Are you really going to criticize a victim for their own rape?
No. We criticized Kokesh for intentionally going into an ally full of rapists in an attempt to show that he will no longer bend over backwards and take it. Pun intented.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The Firewall:First of all, the statement is predicated on the assumption that you want to be a Citizen, and not an 'outlaw' or 'sovereign citizen’.
But he's not walking into a back alley full of rapists, is he?
What would be stupid is not communicating with the DC police and attorneys and ensuring there is no miscommunication about what is going to happen.
That would certainly be foolish and would place people in danger. Isn't that obvious? Kokesh disclosed from day one it was a 'stunt' - but a stunt to send a message.
Funny, last I read he had NOT communicated with the police. And they are NOT amused by this stunt.
+1 gotlucky :)
The Firewall: But he's not walking into a back alley full of rapists, is he?
Yes. He knows that it is illegal to carry guns in D.C. and he knows that he will be arrested for doing so. The D.C. police chief even said so.
(The alley is D.C.; the rapists are the cops.)
John James: DanielMuff:How many of us are here because we saw Kokesh (or someone else) march down the street? I think the better question is "how many of us are here?"
DanielMuff:How many of us are here because we saw Kokesh (or someone else) march down the street?
I think the better question is "how many of us are here?"
Ok.
DanielMuff:I think a better solution to no longer bending over backwards I'm sorry...you think Kokesh has been bending over backwards up till now?
DanielMuff:I think a better solution to no longer bending over backwards
I'm sorry...you think Kokesh has been bending over backwards up till now?
Dude, re-watch the video that you posted.
DanielMuff:act in disregard to the state and persuade others to do the same. Hmm. so confused as to what we've been talking about Kokesh doing for this entire thread...
DanielMuff:act in disregard to the state and persuade others to do the same.
Hmm.
so confused as to what we've been talking about Kokesh doing for this entire thread...
How is Kokesh simply acting in disregard to the state? He wants to send a loud and clear message that he and his fellow marchers will no longer bend over backwards and take it.
DanielMuff:Go live life. Have business, and preferably a black market one. Have a family and home school the children. Spread the idea of liberty. Hey great idea, chief. Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you.
DanielMuff:Go live life. Have business, and preferably a black market one. Have a family and home school the children. Spread the idea of liberty.
Hey great idea, chief. Why don't you go do that instead of worry so much about what other people do and how you think it might reflect on you.
So, you'll be in D.C. with Kokesh, right, brochief?
The Firewall: Why must everyone obey the Constitution? First of all, the statement is predicated on the assumption that you want to be a Citizen, and not an 'outlaw' or 'sovereign citizen’. If you want to be an outlaw, as long as you’re not infringing on others rights – by all means pursue your happiness. You do recognize though, there will be a majority that want to live in a State for a very long time, and it’s hard to get away from them. If you do want to be a Citizen, then the Constitution contains the rules. Specifically, it defines what other people are 'allowed' to do to you. The idea being, if they don't follow the rules, you have recourse - up to and including exercising your natural rights. In return for the protections afforded to you by the State, your singular obligation is to support the Constitution. Simple. 2nd Amendment infringements are but one example of the trespasses being committed in the name of security and greater good. You don’t have to be armed to attend the march, and most people won’t be armed. There will be families of Citizens love their country. Remaining silent and keeping your eyes away from the face of tyranny – far from keeping you safe from harm – actually places you in greater danger.
Why must everyone obey the Constitution?
First of all, the statement is predicated on the assumption that you want to be a Citizen, and not an 'outlaw' or 'sovereign citizen’. If you want to be an outlaw, as long as you’re not infringing on others rights – by all means pursue your happiness. You do recognize though, there will be a majority that want to live in a State for a very long time, and it’s hard to get away from them.
If you do want to be a Citizen, then the Constitution contains the rules. Specifically, it defines what other people are 'allowed' to do to you. The idea being, if they don't follow the rules, you have recourse - up to and including exercising your natural rights. In return for the protections afforded to you by the State, your singular obligation is to support the Constitution.
Simple.
2nd Amendment infringements are but one example of the trespasses being committed in the name of security and greater good. You don’t have to be armed to attend the march, and most people won’t be armed. There will be families of Citizens love their country.
Remaining silent and keeping your eyes away from the face of tyranny – far from keeping you safe from harm – actually places you in greater danger.
This all sounds like fantasy camp stuff to me.
If the cops come at Kokesh & Co. with tear gas and rubber bullets, then are they going to bend over and take it or are they going to fight back. And if they are going to fight back, then with what are they going to fight back; guns?
the rally is poor strategy because its tactically unsound, achieves no strategic gain, and is rhetorically incoherent.
this last point is why libertarians should not support it rhetorically. kokesh holds no deed to the city of washington. the government, being in undisputed occupational possession of the territory, holds a presumption of rightful ownership. kokesh and his army of ten thousand are threatening armed trespass. the only people who could coherently (to a libertarian) propose to march on washington with guns as a peaceful demonstration of their potency (because they can do so rightfully) would be residents of d.c.
but kokesh and his lot pay federal taxes! you protest. presuming they do pay federal taxes, they implicitly accept the legitimacy of the state. this means that they recognize the state, and duly note state directives. everyone knows that you settle disputes with the state on the states terms. you messwith the bull, you get the horns. if they have a claim to the right to bear weapons in d.c. by virtue of their status as united states taxpayers and citizens, they implicitly accept resolution of that dispute in either govt courts or force of arms as a peer. however, if they do not pay taxes, then they have no claim to a right to bear weapons on land they do not own (and do not have permission to engage in aforesaid activity).
its tactically unsound because youre basically saying "hey govt, come kill us and make an example of us" but this misses the larger point. tactics are only as good as staying alive (see above) and achieving your strategic goals. whats the strategic goal?
it would be much better if these ten thousand patriots would pledge to always be armed and to become economic free agents.
Firewall, seriously, you're failing to consider the MOTIVATION and the MEANS as separate things. They are separate.
You're suggesting that Kokesh's proposed actions are moral because they are motivated by a desire for a thing some consider good.
That's another way of saying "the end justifies the means". Kokesh strikes me as someone who's gagging for an armed revolution, and he'd be happy to be the one who set it off by divisive actions like these.
Re: the paragraph quoted by jmorris84 above, I think you mistake this for a community of Statists. I don't recognize any innate obligations to the State and I don't have any desire for the side benefits or protections of being a slave of such an entity. I comply with the law because morally, I'm only justified in reacting in KIND and DEGREE to the level of force used against me. This government threatens my freedom but not my life or my health, and an insurrection such as the one Kokesh is begging for would target a lot of people who haven't actually harmed anyone personally. It's unjustifiable.
Malachi:tactics are only as good as staying alive
What's Kokesh going to do when the D.C. cops come to arrest him and take his gun? Is he going to resist arrest and maintain possesion of his gun; and if he does, then will it be by any means necessary, including shooting a few cops?
I'm only justified in reacting in KIND and DEGREE to the level of force used against me.
exactly. while the state is having a crisis of legitimacy, that doesnt mean you can just use any old argument. you need to use estoppel.
DanielMuff: Malachi:tactics are only as good as staying alive What's Kokesh going to do when the D.C. cops come to arrest him and take his gun? Is he going to resist arrest and maintain possesion of his gun; and if he does, then will it be by any means necessary, including shooting a few cops?
exactly. this plan is full throttle retard. if he does intend to shoot cops, then he is an idiot. if he intends to allow himself to get arrested, then he has no point. this plan is full of fail.
Has anyone thought that it simply means this much to him?
Politics is so much more interesting to read about and study when it is interesting.
Besides he said that he will turn around and leave if they head him off. No one is going to shoot anyone Malachi...
what interest would anyone have in marching on washington with guns except to shoot people? I mean really? people have an easement for carrying weapons with them on their own business.
Aristophanes:Besides he said that he will turn around and leave if they head him off.
Ben dingo verb ack wards.
what interest would anyone have in marching on washington with guns except to shoot people?
Same could be said for everyday concealed carry.
Why carry a gun unless you are going to shoot someone? you must be joking.
People here are being drama queens. It won't happen, sleep well.
Same could be said for everyday concealed carry. Why carry a gun unless you are going to shoot someone? you must be joking.
thats self defense. deliberately violating ordinances en mass isnt self defense during regular behavior. I thought I made that clear.
again, whats the point? this plan is idiotic.
Malachi:what interest would anyone have in marching on washington with guns except to shoot people?
What an odd thing to say...
whats odd about it? can you answer my question? is that the oddity, that there is no answer?
Coming from Malachi, I kind of thought so too.
Who cares what the point is? it will be interesting if it goes down.
thats self defense.
So, as Daniel said the DC police are "rapists" and if you're planning a tour of DC, wouldn't it make sense to have effective defensive tools?
this isn't exactly my cup of tea, but power to 'em, I say. Entertain me.
We're not gonna change this system. For God's sake Ron Paul was banking on the monetary system collapsing and that event galvanizing support for the cause. So, just sit back and watch.
it wouldnt make sense to announce your tour to the rapists.
and seriously. whats the point? either you intend to shoot people, or you intend to demonstrate your willingness to shoot people under certain conditions. well, guess what, we already decided that revolution is illegal in this country. so youre a dumbass if you announce it, or demonstrate intent to revolt under some circumstance where you can easily be eliminated.
is there a rebuttal to this somewhere or should I go to bed?
Cop out response.
I know you are but what am I?
ps I edited
Malachi:well, guess what, we already decided that revolution is illegal in this country.
Who are you speaking for when you say, "we?" What is, "this country?"
BTW - You come off as paranoid; just saying. Every time someone asks you a question, you seem to get super defensive. It's really weird.
qft. It is only this issue as well.
well, guess what, we already decided that revolution is illegal in this country.
Revolution, by definition, is illegal. Where in the world is revolution not illegal? Or did you mean to say that secession is illegal? We did have to "decide" that that was illegal.
and seriously. whats the point?
Like I said, I don't care what the point is. I just want politics to be more interesting than demographic analysis and abortion/gay marriage issues.
so youre a dumbass if you announce it, or demonstrate intent to revolt under some circumstance where you can easily be eliminated.
This I agree with. And as you said before, tactics are necessary (let's not talk about them). Kokesh likely has none. And if he did that would mean that you are correct in your characterization that 'they are willing" to go further. But, that also means that these people are planning a paramility program which I highly doubt. If they've read their nicaragua manual they would know that there are many steps before you take things to that level.
we means americans. people who identify as americans. frag waving americans, beer can patriots.
you didnt ask me a question. I did however ask you four, and you havent answered one. maybe thats why I'm paranoid.
Malachi: we means americans. people who identify as americans. frag waving americans, beer can patriots.
What does that mean though? Can someone who is born halfway across the world call themselves "American" if they identify themselves as such? Especially if they wave flags and beer cans? This all sounds so fascinating.
I said, "Every time someone." That means, anyone who asks you one.
Relax and take a chill pill. :)
yes thats what I meant. and its stupid because its provocative, sure it might be interesting to an international relations major, I cant fault you for that. it just stinks of managed opposition and its not going to happen, the point was to fill space and get facebook buzzing, see whose family asks which young men "please dont even think of this"
sure they can, why not? they already do, they dont need my permission for it. although I dont know what about it so find fascinating, its rather droll in my opinion.
So if someone doesn't identify themselves as one, it's not illegal if they do it then.
they have no claim to the right to do it, so it defaults to the standards for behavior set by the putative owner, the corporation/state united states federal government. such action is prohibited by the landowner, so its armed trespass, so its illegal.
it just stinks of managed opposition and its not going to happen
Sort of. I think it stinks more of the fact that the Russians successfully promoted someone whom they knew to be more hardliner than Bill O'Rielly. His platform gave him his popularity. A.K.A i doubt the the US would do this for managed opposition. If they are then their backs are against the wall.
Think of this, Glenn Beck's move toward reporting Alex Jones-type information (going so far as to mimic Jones websites) just shows that they are losing ground and were attempting to bring paranoia and more scandalous information to the Mainstream. Fox tried to bring paranoia into the fold to add to the anti-left movement and it backfired because the information that was released ended up revealing the corruption of the right as well. Beck was meant to control the influence of that information, but he could not (he was used not a planner). So beck was taken off of TV.
The US handling Kokesh would be a similar desperate (the desperation cannot be stressed enough) attempt by the right wing interests to destabalize the left wing government. The RNC is mostly an ultranationalist party. The left is an internationalist party and the seuccess of the left is scaring the Republican interests.
So people who call themselves "the state" or "government" have a claim? How did they obtain this claim? Is it a legitimate claim? The way I understand it, people who call themselves government took this land by force, not voluntary action. I don't consider this a legitimate claim just like I wouldn't consider it as such if your neighbor came to your place, whacked you over your head, and called your house his. Or am I missing something?
Gun control debates with statists? More guns more safety.
Gun control debates with anarchists? No reason to carry one planned cointel bloodbath!11
they turned him by showing a tape on john noveskes last moments, perhaps. their backs are against the wall, that much is sure. the crisis of legitimacy is only going to get worse.
Think of this, Glenn Beck's move toward reporting Alex Jones-type information (going so far as to mimic Jones websites) just shows that they are losing ground and were attempting to bring paranoia and more scandalous information to the Mainstream. Fox tried to bring paranoia into the fold to add to the anti-left movement and it backfired because the information that was released ended up revealing the corruption of the right as well. So beck was taken off of TV.
these are attempts to retain market share and control the flow of information that will be exposed regardless. these are, as you say, acts of desperation.
Regarding the dispute over what, exactly, is legal:
Clayton -