Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My M-16's name was Belladonna... I was going for the "deadly night shade/beautiful woman" thing. totally didn't know that it was a pornstar who specialized in the freaky gak.

Yeah... sure you didn't...

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My M-16's name was Belladonna... I was going for the "deadly night shade/beautiful woman" thing. totally didn't know that it was a pornstar who specialized in the freaky gak.

Yeah... sure you didn't...

Yeah...my first introduction to Belladonna was finding her "baseball enjoyment" video on accident. She looked identical to my ex girlfriend, so much so that I thought it was my ex...it did not make for a good evening. Lol

edit: Accident=looking at totally unrelated porn that the site I was on decided somehow had a relation to the video in question, and I clicked on the image because I would have put money down that it was my recent (2 nights before) ex. Stupid site.

Y'all are getting awfully creepy.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So is it a common trend to name your firearm after a pornstar?

Maybe military rifles. Both get drilled after all...

FMJ wrote:Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Tonight, you pukes will sleep with your rifles.
You will give your rifle a girl's name... because this is the only p____ you people are going to get.
Your days of finger-banging ol' Mary-Jane Rottencrotch through her pretty pink panties are over!
You're married to this piece.
This weapon of iron and wood.
And you will be faithful.
Port, hut!
[Recruits grabs their rifles]
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Prepare to mount!
[Recruits step back towards their bunks]
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Mount!
[Recruits quickly hop onto their bunks]

That movie is full of great quotes...

I think we may have gotten WAY OT.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So is it a common trend to name your firearm after a pornstar?

Maybe military rifles. Both get drilled after all...

All I know is it's bad juju to name your rifle after your girlfriend/wife/etc. Androgynous names also have the potential for bad vibes.

Jihadin wrote:Well....lets worry after they get a license to protest...seriously....already stated having weapons on them before they even apply for a protest license/permit....this is a lose/lose for both sides if it gets out of hand....

Oh, I dunno about that. While I'd lament the inevitable loss of life, I think the chaos of a tense situation going to Hell due to a misfire would be a pretty big "told you so" for the anti-gun side.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:So is it a common trend to name your firearm after a pornstar?

Seems like naming the firearm after male pornstars would be more apt.

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe military rifles. Both get drilled after all...

Yeah, but they usually only get drilled by one guy at a time

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
All I know is it's bad juju to name your rifle after your girlfriend/wife/etc. Androgynous names also have the potential for bad vibes.

Sorta like showing a picture of your girlfriend or wife to a squadmate in all the films?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Seems like naming the firearm after male pornstars would be more apt.

Only if you like being on the receiving end of jokes about it for the rest of your military career, and then some

In Sebastian Junger's book "War" about marines in Afghanistan (Also see the Documentary Restrapo) he talks about weapons and firepower becoming a substitute for sex.

This clearly explains why you would name a weapon after a women. Especially when you have been deployed far away from women for a long time.

Also the DC Chief of Police responds to the potential protest: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/dc-police-chief-promises-swift-response-armed-prot/

Gun rights activists plan to openly carry weapons as they march across the Arlington Memorial Bridge into the District on July 4 as part of a protest organized by an Internet talk show host — a plan that drew a swift and confrontational response from the city’s police chief.

“If you’re coming here to break the law, then we’re going to take action,” Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Tuesday in an interview on News Channel 8. “There is a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”

The idea of the armed march, which would start at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia and proceed across the bridge into the District — where it is illegal to carry guns on the street — was proposed by radio show host Adam Kokesh this week on his “Adam vs. The Man” show.

“This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event,” Mr. Kokesh wrote on his website. “We will march with rifles loaded and slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny.”

March organizers will coordinate with law enforcement beforehand in order to determine at what point armed marchers would risk arrest, Mr. Kokesh said.

“We will approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will proceed to volunteer myself to determine what their actual course of action with someone crossing the line will be at which point fellow marchers will have the choice of joining me one at a time in a peaceful, orderly manner, or turning back to the National Cemetery,” he wrote.

As of Tuesday, more than 2,400 people had said via Facebook that they planned to attend the march.

On Tuesday, Chief Lanier said the police department has not been in contact with Mr. Kokesh or other organizers but supported coordination between the group and law enforcement in order to educate protesters about the laws they would be breaking and the punishment they could face.

“We’ll make sure that they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia with firearms, as long as they’re in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms through the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law, and we’ll have to treat it as such,” she said.

Since a the Supreme Court struck down the District’s 30-year near-total ban on handgun ownership in 2008, D.C. residents have been able to purchase and keep handguns in their homes but are precluded from carrying them on the street.

A person caught carrying a gun outside of their own home or place of business can face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, according to D.C. law.

Allie Sin is quite the lady

Personally, I think there is only one name that should ever be given to a firearm: Black Betty (as in the song, think about it )

And "War" is a great book, best part about it is the mention of the Javelin missile.

 Easy E wrote:
In Sebastian Junger's book "War" about marines in Afghanistan (Also see the Documentary Restrapo) he talks about weapons and firepower becoming a substitute for sex.

This clearly explains why you would name a weapon after a women. Especially when you have been deployed far away from women for a long time.

Also the DC Chief of Police responds to the potential protest: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/dc-police-chief-promises-swift-response-armed-prot/

Gun rights activists plan to openly carry weapons as they march across the Arlington Memorial Bridge into the District on July 4 as part of a protest organized by an Internet talk show host — a plan that drew a swift and confrontational response from the city’s police chief.

“If you’re coming here to break the law, then we’re going to take action,” Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Tuesday in an interview on News Channel 8. “There is a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”

The idea of the armed march, which would start at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia and proceed across the bridge into the District — where it is illegal to carry guns on the street — was proposed by radio show host Adam Kokesh this week on his “Adam vs. The Man” show.

“This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event,” Mr. Kokesh wrote on his website. “We will march with rifles loaded and slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny.”

March organizers will coordinate with law enforcement beforehand in order to determine at what point armed marchers would risk arrest, Mr. Kokesh said.

“We will approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will proceed to volunteer myself to determine what their actual course of action with someone crossing the line will be at which point fellow marchers will have the choice of joining me one at a time in a peaceful, orderly manner, or turning back to the National Cemetery,” he wrote.

As of Tuesday, more than 2,400 people had said via Facebook that they planned to attend the march.

On Tuesday, Chief Lanier said the police department has not been in contact with Mr. Kokesh or other organizers but supported coordination between the group and law enforcement in order to educate protesters about the laws they would be breaking and the punishment they could face.

“We’ll make sure that they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia with firearms, as long as they’re in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms through the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law, and we’ll have to treat it as such,” she said.

Since a the Supreme Court struck down the District’s 30-year near-total ban on handgun ownership in 2008, D.C. residents have been able to purchase and keep handguns in their homes but are precluded from carrying them on the street.

A person caught carrying a gun outside of their own home or place of business can face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, according to D.C. law.

I'm thinking in reality all of 7 people will show, with unloaded rifles. Two of them will be wearing dorky costumes. There will be flags. There will be sun burns.

I hope someone is dressed up as a revolutionary war soldier or it is NOT a protest against tyranny!

 Easy E wrote:
I hope someone is dressed up as a revolutionary war soldier or it is NOT a protest against tyranny!

Now we're on the same wavelength.

Frazzled's view:
*They could make it a very fun march with the above, or maybe the Village People version of the above.
*A march with unloaded firearms I am very cool with.
*A march with loaded firearms I am not cool with (unless I am ensconced on the sofa with team Wienie, some popcorn and rum). Then its video it, unleash the tear gas time and let the games begin!

Not used to figuring out the delicate affair of ensuring my government knows I am armed (the smarter thing to do is keep them guessing).

I figure harassing my local member of parliament into representing my rights and political views is a scary enough public demonstration.

We also have people from so many backgrounds in this country, just angering one ethnic group would have them running to the panic rooms.

I agree that if a law appears unfair or to repress, it is reasonable for a thinking citizen to break that law to contest it and fight it in the legal system and public opinion.

This little demonstration seems like creating a an event for chaos to ensue. One accidental discharge of a firearm could be a bloodbath. All it takes is one person in the crowd with an ulterior motive and it will go all pear shaped.

For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.

 Talizvar wrote:
For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.

Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.

Unoaded-peaceful act enjoying our First Amendment in all its glory.

Loaded - someone call Zombie Sherman. He'll know what to do!

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.

Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.

"Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.

 azazel the cat wrote:
"Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.

Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.

Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.

To say "I believe" that bearing arms is a "violent act", ah, no (it would require someone getting hurt) but it would be a joke to consider it an act of peace.
It is a thuggish way of making a point (i.e. intimidation).
"Likely" unloaded, in a sling or holstered is only a difference of a few seconds from use so I fail to see how it takes on the appearance of a flower or dove when stowed.

Is displaying firearms to the intended audience to make them feel comforted? relaxed? safe? that they will never be used?
When they are brought out other than to the gun club or hunting it is no longer a sporting tool.
It is a barely veiled threat.

Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.

I think we all agree this has the potential to be very bad

 Jihadin wrote:
Nothing wrong with naming your weapons. My M4 name Isabella Saprano.....and my personnel M4 is name Allie Sin

My opinion of you has moved incrementally higher. Good taste.

 Talizvar wrote:
To say "I believe" that bearing arms is a "violent act", ah, no (it would require someone getting hurt) but it would be a joke to consider it an act of peace.
It is a thuggish way of making a point (i.e. intimidation).
"Likely" unloaded, in a sling or holstered is only a difference of a few seconds from use so I fail to see how it takes on the appearance of a flower or dove when stowed.

Is displaying firearms to the intended audience to make them feel comforted? relaxed? safe? that they will never be used?
When they are brought out other than to the gun club or hunting it is no longer a sporting tool.
It is a barely veiled threat.

I did not say that it was an act of peace. Furthermore, unless the firearms are brandished in an aggressive and/or threatening manner, I do not believe that you can reasonably say that their actions are "thuggish" or that there is an attempt to "intimidate".
The display of these likely unloaded firearms is nothing more than a group of individuals expressing their right to peacefully bear arms. No more no less. They have said that those taking part in the march will respect the law and submit to requests by the police.

If you see people bearing unloaded weapons, marching peacefully with full respect for the law as a "veiled threat" that is your prerogative, though the facts may not support it.

We can discuss whether or not their actions are sensible (which I do not believe they are, but that's my personal opinion) but that is a different discussion.

 Talizvar wrote:
Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.

Intent is very specific, and having an unloaded weapon slung on your back or holstered is unlikely to meet any objective test for causing fear. Should someone at my table be in fear of a steak knife on the table when it is not being brandished in a threatening manner?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
"Violent" isn't really the correct term, but it's definitely not peaceful. Foucault would argue that merely carrying a weapon openly in public whilst demanding attention for doing so forcefully makes others subject to you.

Even when that firearm is unloaded? I've seen a few people open carry (hip holster) since I moved over. I can't say that I've ever felt forcefully subject to them. Just out of personal curiosity have you a reference for Foucault, I remember studying bits of his work in university.

To very briefly summarize Foucault on "power":

1. Power is not a thing but a relation
2. Power is not simply repressive but it is productive
3. Power is not simply a property of the State.Power is not something that is exclusively localized in government and the State (which is not a universal essence). Rather, power is exercised throughout the social body.
4. Power operates at the most micro levels of social relations. Power is omnipresent at every level of the social body.
5. The exercise of power is strategic and war-like

Here's a link to a very brief summary of Foucault's ideas on the subject-power relationship.

Power always entails a set of actions performed upon another persons actions and reactions. Although violence may be a part of some power relationships, "In itself the exercise of power is not violence" (220); it is "always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action

I'll spare you my take on it, because Talizvar has basically ninja'd me on it, and very eloquently, at that. So I'll just highlight the root idea of applying Foucault's notion of the subject-power reltationship to this situation, as expressed by Talizvar:

Talizvar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
For a "peaceful demonstration" while bearing arms is like holding a hotrod rally for lower speed limits: bit of a mixed message.

Only if you believe that bearing arms, even when likely unloaded, on a sling or holstered is a violent and non-peaceful act.

To say "I believe" that bearing arms is a "violent act", ah, no (it would require someone getting hurt) but it would be a joke to consider it an act of peace.
It is a thuggish way of making a point (i.e. intimidation).
"Likely" unloaded, in a sling or holstered is only a difference of a few seconds from use so I fail to see how it takes on the appearance of a flower or dove when stowed.

Is displaying firearms to the intended audience to make them feel comforted? relaxed? safe? that they will never be used?
When they are brought out other than to the gun club or hunting it is no longer a sporting tool.
It is a barely veiled threat.

Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.

My sound byte: In other words, it's very difficult to convince a person of how safe you are with a knife if you attempt to demonstrate by holding it to their throat; irrespective of whether that person has been told the blade is quite dull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I did not say that it was an act of peace. Furthermore, unless the firearms are brandished in an aggressive and/or threatening manner, I do not believe that you can reasonably say that their actions are "thuggish" or that there is an attempt to "intimidate".

I would suggest it is quite reasonable. Let's use a slightly different circumstance:
1. A cop approaches you, and asks "what's going on?"
2. A cop approaches you, rests his right hand atop the handle of his holdered firearm, and asks "what's going on"?

How one reacts would likely be very different between scenario 1 and scenario 2; yet the only difference is the call to pay attention to the presence of the firearm.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:If you see people bearing unloaded weapons, marching peacefully with full respect for the law as a "veiled threat" that is your prerogative, though the facts may not support it.

First: this is not done with full respect to the law; in fact the purpose of this "protest" is in challenge of it (DC's law against carrying firearms, that is)

Second: I cannot tell if a holstered handgun is loaded or not; nor can I tell if a rifle has a round chambered or not without inspecting the breach; from a distance far closer than I wish to be of someone who may or may not be carrying a loaded firearm in public.

Third: An organized, armed march into a city which was not organized by the state's own sovereignty, has never once in history not been considered a show of threat, intimidation or subjugation.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Assault does not need to involve physical contact, it only needs to have the intent of causing fear of harm in others.
To have readily available tools for armed response can only cause others to assume less than peaceful intent.

Intent is very specific, and having an unloaded weapon slung on your back or holstered is unlikely to meet any objective test for causing fear. Should someone at my table be in fear of a steak knife on the table when it is not being brandished in a threatening manner?

One could argue that in the context of a steak dinner, that steak knife has a perfectly reasonable explanation for being brandished. It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range.

Is it impossible for a martial arts master or a bodybuilder to march peacefully, then?

I'd imagine much like the cars/guns example there is a difference between walking around with a weapon designed to kill and walking around unarmed but having the skills to kill someone.

 azazel the cat wrote:
My sound byte: In other words, it's very difficult to convince a person of how safe you are with a knife if you attempt to demonstrate by holding it to their throat; irrespective of whether that person has been told the blade is quite dull.

Are you honestly trying to compare a slung or holstered unloaded firearm, which poses no immediate risk, and is clearly not being brandished in an aggressive manner, with placing a knife at someone's throat? That is a very egregious comparison.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I would suggest it is quite reasonable. Let's use a slightly different circumstance:
1. A cop approaches you, and asks "what's going on?"
2. A cop approaches you, rests his right hand atop the handle of his holdered firearm, and asks "what's going on"?

How one reacts would likely be very different between scenario 1 and scenario 2; yet the only difference is the call to pay attention to the presence of the firearm.

And walking along the street with an unloaded and slung/holstered firearm, and publicly declaring your intent to march peacefully, is comperable to scenario 2 in what way?

 azazel the cat wrote:
First: this is not done with full respect to the law; in fact the purpose of this "protest" is in challenge of it (DC's law against carrying firearms, that is)

So the organisers stating that they intend to fully comply with the law and requests from the police (including outright stating that they will not resist arrest) is not respecting the law?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Second: I cannot tell if a holstered handgun is loaded or not; nor can I tell if a rifle has a round chambered or not without inspecting the breach; from a distance far closer than I wish to be of someone who may or may not be carrying a loaded firearm in public.

When the group organising the march again states that it will comply with the law of the land, which included t having a loaded weapon in this particular instance I think that it is safe to say that the weapons will be unloaded.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Third: An organized, armed march into a city which was not organized by the state's own sovereignty, has never once in history not been considered a show of threat, intimidation or subjugation.

A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response - people organising a march intending to fully comply with the law and exercise their lawful rights would appear to fall outside the definition of threat
Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened - organising a peaceful march, on a specified day, complying with the law and carrying unloaded and slung/holstered weapons should not cause fear of injury or harm in a "person of ordinary sensibilities". Especially with such media coverage shows the organiser's less than hostile intentions
Subjugation is to bring under control and governance as a subject - once again the march falls outside this definition. It is organised as a peaceful demonstration which will involve people with firearm(s) slung or holstered and unloaded. Clearly this march, which will have police there monitoring it with their own loaded weapons, cannot bring about control of the area of the protest much less any larger area.
Sadly this point you have made is grounded in hyperbole rather than fact.

 azazel the cat wrote:
One could argue that in the context of a steak dinner, that steak knife has a perfectly reasonable explanation for being brandished. It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range.

And in the same vein one could argue that carrying an unloaded firearm, in accordance with the law is also perfectly reasonable. Perhaps not sensible, but still a reasonable exercise of the owner's lawful rights. These are people exercising their right to bear arms, and express their political opinion that these rights are important. Both of which are perfectly legal and permitted in a democratic society.
So is it your opinion that a firearm has no place in the protection of property, self defense in a public place, or hunting if "It is difficult to concoct a reasonable circumstance that could substitute a firearm for the knife outside of a shooting range"?

What if it were a police union marching?

 Frazzled wrote:
What if it were a police union marching?

This is the right question.