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.

The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.

 purplefood wrote:
The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.

1. So are the guys with rifles.
2. Supposition on your part. I'd probably put the crime records of the protesters up against the police any day of the week.
3. if they were marching they would be trying to start something no?

Someone call the 501st for honor guard.

 Frazzled wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.

1. So are the guys with rifles.
2. Supposition on your part. I'd probably put the crime records of the protesters up against the police any day of the week.
3. if they were marching they would be trying to start something no?

1. Can we be sure of that? As far as I understand the dozens of laws the US seems to have there is no real demand for people to be trained in their own firearms. Not to say people don't it just doesn't appear to be a mandated thing.
2. That would be an interesting comparison, for several reasons and I can honestly say I don't know who would win.
3. If they were marching it would be to show their dismay/opposition etc to something but not to intentionally be arrested (Or so I would hope because that would be a very poor police force). These protesters seem to be marching in order to defy the law as it stands in Washington and I might be seeing something that isn't there but at this point it seems like they would prefer to be stopped so they can shout about it. Mostly due to this "If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back"

Now that would be an epic march, especially in step with The Imperial March in the background.


Seem to be a lot of short Vaders though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

1. Can we be sure of that? As far as I understand the dozens of laws the US seems to have there is no real demand for people to be trained in their own firearms. Not to say people don't it just doesn't appear to be a mandated thing.

Your average cop sucketh mightily in the shooting arts. This is based on having shot with a group of them in the past.

2. That would be an interesting comparison, for several reasons and I can honestly say I don't know who would win.

I don't know about these guys but I do know statistically, CCers are just behind nuns in the obeying the law department. Its part of their nature.

3. If they were marching it would be to show their dismay/opposition etc to something. These protesters seem to be marching in order to defy the law as it stands in Washington and I might be seeing something that isn't there but at this point it seems like they would prefer to be stopped so they can shout about it. Mostly due to this "If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back"

And cops would be marching to say something as well. They would both be armed.
They do want to be stopped. They are trying to make a case about it. I'd bet -without researching- that this is an RKBA group. Its a protest.

Oh, so we trust the cops now do we? You guys were singing a different tune last time we talked about tasers. Interesting.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Oh, so we trust the cops now do we? You guys were singing a different tune last time we talked about tasers. Interesting.

Me no trust....anyone.

 kronk wrote:
Someone call the 501st for honor guard.

Spoiler:

When i was around 15 and mega into starwars, I wanted to join them.
Now i think 40k should make something.
Like the Cadians 499 legion.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Oh, so we trust the cops now do we? You guys were singing a different tune last time we talked about tasers. Interesting.

I'm sorry, when did I say I didn't trust police officers?
I trust them more than I trust a random person with a gun.
At least a taser won't kill me (Barring exceptional circumstances)

No just no. The amount of fat, funk, and neckbeardage in one space would rip a hole in time....

EDIT unless they worked out and all were dressed as iron warriors of course.


Zinc Within! Zinc Without!

:(
But it would be cool.
Until that ONE guy that comes in a cultist uniform.

 purplefood wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
The police are trained in their use of firearms, are largely responsible people (To some degree) and they also don't seem to be trying to start something.

1. So are the guys with rifles.
2. Supposition on your part. I'd probably put the crime records of the protesters up against the police any day of the week.
3. if they were marching they would be trying to start something no?

1. Can we be sure of that? As far as I understand the dozens of laws the US seems to have there is no real demand for people to be trained in their own firearms. Not to say people don't it just doesn't appear to be a mandated thing.
2. That would be an interesting comparison, for several reasons and I can honestly say I don't know who would win.
3. If they were marching it would be to show their dismay/opposition etc to something but not to intentionally be arrested (Or so I would hope because that would be a very poor police force). These protesters seem to be marching in order to defy the law as it stands in Washington and I might be seeing something that isn't there but at this point it seems like they would prefer to be stopped so they can shout about it. Mostly due to this "If they do, then we'll either peacefully submit to arrest in order to make a court case out of it or we'll turn back"

Many gun enthusiasts train regularly with their guns, way more than cops do. Imagine how much time you put into the wargaming hobby. Then transition that same time into practicing with your guns.

And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.

Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Many gun enthusiasts train regularly with their guns, way more than cops do. Imagine how much time you put into the wargaming hobby. Then transition that same time into practicing with your guns.

And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.

Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.

That seems fair. It still seems like it is intentionally trying to cause trouble which an unarmed protest wouldn't.

Given that many unarmed protests can turn violent and cause massive amounts of property damage/loss of life I would say the threat is no bigger here than normal. Plus many so called peaceful protests have been anything but, protests with counter protesters standing on the edge of violence. Wanting the other side to throw the first punch.

And I've yet to hear of a gun right's protest that caused massive amounts of destruction and damage.

And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.

Indeed. Often just enough to make their qualifiers which is once or twice a year. Now don't misinterpret. Thats not a slam. Their primary job isn't to engage in gun battles. I'd rather their investigatory techniques and verbal judo were top notch actually.

Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.

Yes, in the pro gun community there is a smaller segment called RKBA (right to keep and bear arms). This group believes in unrestricted Second Amendment, ie US citizens have the absoluteright to keep and bear arms in whatever public space. They are protesting the Washington laws against that (I think??? not really sure why he's doing that) I could be very wrong though, as I've not heard of an RKBA protest with loaded firearms. Then again, if they're going to Washington DC, they just might be trying to stay alive. Its not the safest place...

edit: having re-read it, its at least nominally an RKBA thing. The Alex Jones 9/11 truther stuff is pretty out there though. RKBA'r tend to be paranoid but seriously super patriots and not prone to 911 nonsense. Who knows. As an aside CCers tend to not like them as they make everyone do a collective face palm with stuff like this.

How many of them were all armed?
That said given the unloaded weapons it's hard to argue they could cause more damage...
Assuming they are unloaded...

 purplefood wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Many gun enthusiasts train regularly with their guns, way more than cops do. Imagine how much time you put into the wargaming hobby. Then transition that same time into practicing with your guns.

And BTW, cops are not mandated to be super familiar with their weapons either.

Its a protest march on how the government is restricting 2nd amendment rights. I would compare it to sit ins at restaurants or public transportation during the Civil Rights movement.

That seems fair. It still seems like it is intentionally trying to cause trouble which an unarmed protest wouldn't.

Agreed. They are trying to protest, and get in the news.

Hmmm, let me think about this...

The Quran - written hundreds of years ago, and believed to be the word of God. In fact most strict followers of this religion will say that the word of Allah is set in stone, that due to him being a God, he knew everything that was likely to happen and it's covered in the book.

and

The American Constitution (or to be precise the 2nd Amendment) - written a few hundreds of years ago by mortal men. Many Americans also believe that the words of this amendment are set in stone, that when this amendment was written these men knew exactly how weapon technology would develop. That a piece of legislation written by men in a the black powder flintlock and musket era, would have the vision to know what was coming. Written in an era where there were many enemies at the door, restless natives, a bloodied, resentful colonial kingdom or just the neighbours wanting to steal your land. They realised that these dangerous enemies would be replaced by even worse ones... paying taxes, being told that smoking is bad for you or terror of terrors, the idea of a public health service. Oh how you will need these mighty weapons to protect yourselves from such enemies.

Who needs Scientology, you've got your own religion right there.

Oh and before you try and tear me a new one, I have this to say. As a Brit I will automatically join in bashing the French, it's what we do. However on a personal level all the French people I have met have been very nice. It's the same with American's, as a Brit I will automatically take the "st Michael" out of you, but it's not a personal thing, I've always enjoyed the banter with you guys on this board, but the crazy logic behind this type of thinking is just beyond me.

It's so weird when we make fun of France and call them cowards, despite them having a phenomenal military record up until WW2.

Yep, not only very brave in WWI, but had the nerve to strike, basically told the officer elite to shove it where the sun don't shine

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Sound bytes tend to be like that

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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?

This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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?

It is not. Compliance to arrest and obeying the law for which the violation of leads to said arrest are two very, very different things. If I shoot your in the face, then comply with the police's shouts of "get down and lace your hands behind your head", I have still broken one law (the face-shooting) whilst complying with another (resisting arrest). Likewise, the protesters' willingness to be arrested does not mean that they are not in violation of the anti-gun-carrying laws in DC for which they will be arrested.

Dreadclaw 69 wrote:

 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.

And would you be willing to take the gunman's word on that, if they were marching toward you and your family? Keep in mind, you don't know these guys personally, but you do consider (by your own admission) that they lack the good sense to not start an armed march on Washington, DC.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

1. If this isn't proposed to elicit a negative response, then what is it meant to elicit? A positive one? Are you honestly going to claim that?

2. We have already established, by virtue that it is self-evident, that this protest will be in violation of DC's no-carry firearms law. And I will repeat: would you consider it sensible to express wariness and concern if a bunch of people you do not know, but whom are demonstrating a lack of good sense, were marching -armed- in the direction of your home or your family? And I will play the race card here, simply because of its historical context: if you were a black man in Virginia, would you be afraid to see a militia of non-military, armed white men (they may not be 100%, but let's use the overwhelming demographic here) marching toward your home? I suspect you might be somewhat concerned.

3. Subjugation- again, please see the Foucault suggestion. Any use of force, albeit real or implied, which definitely includes the brandishing of a weapon can be used to subject others to its power. Even if that means you decided to stay off that street to avoid the protest -you have still been subject to its power in that the protest has affected your decision-making process.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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"?

In the home or in hunting, the context is clear, which was the point of my shooting range example (which may have been lazy in not specifiying this). However, in a public setting, this context is far more nebulous and I personally do not consider it to be reasonable; particular when it is in direct violation of DC's carry laws. In fact, because the context is so wildly different than a shooting range or hunting, I would call your comparison to be egregious. However, I'll assume this is your equivalent of my sound byte from earlier.

Now, I would consider the reasonability and sensibility of exercizing a right to be linked together very closely; but this is a difference of opinion that is going to be highly subjective between the two of us, particularly given we come cultures with differing values on rights (Canada's rights are primarily based upon the limitations considered by a "reasonable person" -who is quite liberal in their definition of rights; whereas the US is a far more black-letter-law reading of codified rights. To explain in Dakka's terms, it's similar to the variation between RAI and RAW).

Since this dialogue is already unwieldly as it is, I suggest we abandon this solitary point, at least, on the grounds that it really is rooted in what we both subjectively consider reasonable.



Also of note: this is by far the most civil conversation we have had. We should get trophies or something.

I'm going dressed as David Gregory to negate the possibility of being arrested for violating DC gun law.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.

My point though is how can force be used, or threatened, were one party has openly declared that they have neither the power or the ill to use their firearms in a threatening or otherwise illegal manner. There is not even the potential for there, barring the firearm being used as an improvised weapon.
Also this is a significant difference between "brandishing a knife within arms reach of you" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The other is the waving or flourishing of a blade "within arms length" as a threat or in anger or excitement.

 azazel the cat wrote:
It is not. Compliance to arrest and obeying the law for which the violation of leads to said arrest are two very, very different things. If I shoot your in the face, then comply with the police's shouts of "get down and lace your hands behind your head", I have still broken one law (the face-shooting) whilst complying with another (resisting arrest). Likewise, the protesters' willingness to be arrested does not mean that they are not in violation of the anti-gun-carrying laws in DC for which they will be arrested.

Again you are making an inaccurate comparison and ignoring that the protesters and organisers have said that they will obey the law, co-ordinate and co-operate with police.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And would you be willing to take the gunman's word on that, if they were marching toward you and your family? Keep in mind, you don't know these guys personally, but you do consider (by your own admission) that they lack the good sense to not start an armed march on Washington, DC.

Now the word "gunman" is a very charged word that has its own connotations, especially as it is commonly used to refer to a criminal in possession of a firearm. That is different from protesters who have made public declarations saying that they intend to be peaceful and compliant with the law.
I may not know them personally, but if they are taking part in an organised and lawful protest and co-operating with the police in the matter then that goes a great deal towards establishing their good faith and non-hostile intentions.
I do admit that that I do not believe it is sensible, that is correct, however it is also perfectly lawful.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

1. If this isn't proposed to elicit a negative response, then what is it meant to elicit? A positive one? Are you honestly going to claim that?

2. We have already established, by virtue that it is self-evident, that this protest will be in violation of DC's no-carry firearms law. And I will repeat: would you consider it sensible to express wariness and concern if a bunch of people you do not know, but whom are demonstrating a lack of good sense, were marching -armed- in the direction of your home or your family? And I will play the race card here, simply because of its historical context: if you were a black man in Virginia, would you be afraid to see a militia of non-military, armed white men (they may not be 100%, but let's use the overwhelming demographic here) marching toward your home? I suspect you might be somewhat concerned.

3. Subjugation- again, please see the Foucault suggestion. Any use of force, albeit real or implied, which definitely includes the brandishing of a weapon can be used to subject others to its power. Even if that means you decided to stay off that street to avoid the protest -you have still been subject to its power in that the protest has affected your decision-making process.

1. I have made no such claim one way or the other. I am merely objectively saying that this is a protest where people will be exercising their right to bear arms (albeit unloaded), their right to freedom of assembly and their right to political opinion. On the facts of the matter there appears to be no attempt at coercion and appears to be designed to garner publicity for their cause. Again this falls very short of a threat
2. Why would I be concerned about a group of white men if I was black, who have signaled their peaceful intent and who are marching on the capital and government buildings rather than my home? They are not posing a threat to me, nor to my family. Once again you are making a false comparison and attempting to appeal to emotion by injecting race and danger where none exists.
Once again, this protest march falls short of being objectively intimidating
3. Again, brandishing a weapon suggests on the ordinary construction of the word that it is being done in an aggressive or threatening manner. A slung or holstered firearms is ipso facto not being "brandished". Nor can force be real or implied if the firearm is not loaded per the very clear statements of the protest group. To continue to claim subjugation is a fallacy as the facts do do mean out your accusation.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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"?

 azazel the cat wrote:
In the home or in hunting, the context is clear, which was the point of my shooting range example (which may have been lazy in not specifiying this). However, in a public setting, this context is far more nebulous and I personally do not consider it to be reasonable; particular when it is in direct violation of DC's carry laws. In fact, because the context is so wildly different than a shooting range or hunting, I would call your comparison to be egregious. However, I'll assume this is your equivalent of my sound byte from earlier.

And in the context of this protest in favour of gun ownership it is also very clear when the organisers have outright stated that the firearms will not be loaded. Therefore there is no way that you can claim intent to cause fear, nor harm. Especially not with the media coverage concerning this event.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Now, I would consider the reasonability and sensibility of exercizing a right to be linked together very closely; but this is a difference of opinion that is going to be highly subjective between the two of us, particularly given we come cultures with differing values on rights (Canada's rights are primarily based upon the limitations considered by a "reasonable person" -who is quite liberal in their definition of rights; whereas the US is a far more black-letter-law reading of codified rights. To explain in Dakka's terms, it's similar to the variation between RAI and RAW).

Since this dialogue is already unwieldly as it is, I suggest we abandon this solitary point, at least, on the grounds that it really is rooted in what we both subjectively consider reasonable.

I agree with that the rights and responsibilities makes for an unwieldy topic of discussion that may draw more heat than light. You are quite right to point out the difference between Canada and the US, however I come from neither and have only been in the US less than a year
For rights vs responsibilities - I have the right to exercise freedom of speech, however if a woman asks me "Does this make me look fat?" I also know the potential ramifications of me exercising my right in a manner she may not wish to hear

 azazel the cat wrote:
Also of note: this is by far the most civil conversation we have had. We should get trophies or something.

Hehe Like getting a gold star in school

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is where the Foucault reading I linked to comes in. The mere potential of only one side of two parties to use that element of force (such as a rifle slung over the shoulder in a bush-carry position, which is a perfect substitute for a holstered sidearm in this example) generally negates the declariation of peace. That is, if I am brandishing a knife within arms reach of you, while repeating "I'm not gonna hurt you", you are unlikely to be willing to take my word at face value nor consider my actions to be peaceful; you will still be intimidated to some degree.

My point though is how can force be used, or threatened, were one party has openly declared that they have neither the power or the ill to use their firearms in a threatening or otherwise illegal manner. There is not even the potential for there, barring the firearm being used as an improvised weapon.
Also this is a significant difference between "brandishing a knife within arms reach of you" and carrying an unloaded firearm on a sling or holstered. It is a very different factual and legal situation. One is the carrying of a firearm in a controlled and non-threatening manner which signals a clear non-violent intent. This is perfectly legal. The other is the waving or flourishing of a blade "within arms length" as a threat or in anger or excitement.

I'm gonna abandon quoting the rest of the discussion, and is appears we've both funneled this down into a solitary issue: whether or not the protest is peaceful.

I posit to you that it is not, and your reason for claiming otherwise is circulus in probando: your premise (they are peaceful) happens to be dependant on your conclusion (they are peaceful); this unfortunately begs the question.

If we are to assume they are peaceful by virtue of their declaration of such, then we are quite literally taking it on faith; as common sense would suggest an armed march is not peaceful in its nature, despite the participants saying otherwise.

 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.

What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?

How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?

How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.

Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.

That is the point.

That is theentire reason this is happening.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm gonna abandon quoting the rest of the discussion, and is appears we've both funneled this down into a solitary issue: whether or not the protest is peaceful.

I posit to you that it is not, and your reason for claiming otherwise is circulus in probando: your premise (they are peaceful) happens to be dependant on your conclusion (they are peaceful); this unfortunately begs the question.

If we are to assume they are peaceful by virtue of their declaration of such, then we are quite literally taking it on faith; as common sense would suggest an armed march is not peaceful in its nature, despite the participants saying otherwise.

My premise is based on their intended actions and motivations. They have publicly declared their interest in a peaceful protest and thus exercising their rights to possess firearm, to freely assemble and also to political opinion. That they have declared these intentions in advance and have resolved to co-ordinate and co-operate with police and to remain peaceful even in the event of arrest goes a significant way to establishing their good faith and good intentions. I would respectfully contend that my opinions are more than circular in nature, and that there is ample evidence to support my opinions.

I would contend that a march, that is organised in advance, co-ordinated with the police, with the express and public assurance that it will be peaceful and bearing unloaded firearms that are either slung or holstered, is a very different premise to the loaded phrase of "an armed march", especially given the phrases that have been inaccurately used so far in our discussion (brandished, threaten, intimidate, subjugate, gunman) concerning this protest.

Rented Tritium wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?

How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.

Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.

That is the point.

That is theentire reason this is happening.

So then are you saying the entire point of the protest is to show that Caesar is in a good mood?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?

How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.

Perhaps that it is to show that people can enjoy their right to bear arms without infringing upon another's rights, and that not everyone in possession of a firearm intends to use it for nefarious purposes. Not being an organiser, a participant nor affiliated with the protest means that I can but speculate.

It depends on the firearm concerned. Although given the public assurances from the marchers, and the police presence I think that it is reasonable to say that those protesting will not have loaded firearms.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

What is the point of carrying a weapon if not to impress upon people that you are armed and potentially dangerous?

How is an onlooker to know a gun is not loaded? Even if it is empty, it can be loaded quickly in most cases.

Literally the entire point of this protest is to prove that it DOESN'T mean you are dangerous.

That is the point.

That is theentire reason this is happening.

Then it will fail. Lots of onlookers will be disturbed by seeing loads of people wandering around or marching with guns. It will frighten them and they will be moved towards the side of restricting gun ownership. Can you imagine what it will look like to foreign tourists, for example? (They don't get a vote, of course, except with their travel dollars.)