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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

1. Marching whilst armed = armed march. You can't spin that any other way.

2. This is not co-ordinated with police; it is being done in spite of police recommendations. The police advising the protestors of the consequences does not equate to them being co-ordinated with one another.

3. Again, if I shout "I will not harm you" whilst approaching with a knife in hand, you really are taking it on faith that I am sincere in my declaration until it's maybe too late, aren't you?

4. Good faith and good intentions rarely are in direct violation of laws (such as the DC carry ban).

So again, I contend that your argument is circular. The premise (they are peaceful) is based upon your conlcusion (they are peaceful). A = A.

I'm pro gun.

I'm anti a bunch of bubbas marching down main street with their guns hanging out.

kronk wrote:I'm pro gun.

I'm anti a bunch of bubbas marching down main street with their guns hanging out.

That's basically my position on this one.

Ditto with Kronk and Az. They need to pick another venue to march. More likely though the permit to protest will be a "No Go" and they can still protest. Have a major disturbance/incident. So we can have a new thread similiar to OWS threads

I guess the real topic of people marching around with their "safe" guns is the feeling of how naïve it would be to assume all individuals are there for the common cause.

Many peaceful gatherings had been changed to a riot when rabble rousers of no affiliation with the organizing group get involved.

Just had a thought: Stuff a daisy in the end of the barrel to better show peaceful intent!

Guns are not tools, they have been a symbol of many things to many people (just like the flower I suggested). I like swords and it is not very fashionable to wear one around town.

People with a visible weapon, armor, studs, steel toe boots, etc. are all things that by intent or not can create an emotional response in the viewer. How scary it looks is typically a direct relation of how badly they need sensitivity training...

 azazel the cat wrote:
1. Marching whilst armed = armed march. You can't spin that any other way.

I'm not attempting to spin it. At every turn I have said "firearm", I have been clear in that respect. On the other hand you have used many patently loaded phrases and inaccurate hyperbole while making your argument, and saying "armed march" can look guilty by association based on your conduct thus far. Not to mention that it seems like an appeal to authority by invoking Foucault to make your claim that this is an attempt at force, threat, intimidation and subjugation.

 azazel the cat wrote:
2. This is not co-ordinated with police; it is being done in spite of police recommendations. The police advising the protestors of the consequences does not equate to them being co-ordinated with one another.

From the article in the opening post;

The march's Facebook page promises "coordination with D.C. law enforcement prior to the event," and invites "law enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is appropriate."

 azazel the cat wrote:
3. Again, if I shout "I will not harm you" whilst approaching with a knife in hand, you really are taking it on faith that I am sincere in my declaration until it's maybe too late, aren't you?

If you are merely going to re-word a position that that already been covered then I will gladly re-word my prior response;
There is a significant difference between "approaching [someone] with a knife in hand" 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 has a blade drawn for an unclear purpose where context may play a vital role. If it was your contention that the marchers would be approaching gun in hand then your analogy would be accurate.

 azazel the cat wrote:
4. Good faith and good intentions rarely are in direct violation of laws (such as the DC carry ban).

So again, I contend that your argument is circular. The premise (they are peaceful) is based upon your conlcusion (they are peaceful). A = A.

Again I say that you are incorrect. My premise is based on their intended actions and motivations. Both of which can be tested and have been declared publicly. 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. If you have something that shows that these actions are not peaceful then I would be grateful to see it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

kronk wrote:I'm pro gun.

I'm anti a bunch of bubbas marching down main street with their guns hanging out.

That's basically my position on this one.

Seems we're three of a kind then. My own personal opinion is that this is more provocative than useful. However I do objectively understand their reasons (not to say that I agree with them). In fact, as I said at the start of the thread;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pretty much. It's just needless provocation, and riding the law as close to the line as you can without breaking it in the hope someone opposed to you overreacts.

So instead of getting too far off course discussing this as a intellectual exercise maybe its best that we agree to disagree over the manner in which they exercise their right, and agree that practically its probably not a good idea

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.)

I want you to imagine we are talking about the million man march and you just said that.

I'm really sorry but "it will fail because people will be scared" is just not good enough.

If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?

Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.

 kronk wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?

Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.

3
Unless you're David Gregory!

 kronk wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?

Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.

So being in an organised criminal gang (since they are a group who have planned to do the following knowing it is illegal: ), carrying a loaded firearm in a zone where firearms are banned isn't a serious offence?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?

Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.

So being in an organised criminal gang (since they are a group who have planned to do the following knowing it is illegal: ), carrying a loaded firearm in a zone where firearms are banned isn't a serious offence?

Firearms aren't banned in DC. They lost that court case.

Carrying them anywhere but to and from the range is, however. Though as Illinois has shown us, they'll lose that court case when it inevitably comes up as well.

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.

Well this should go well.

 kronk wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If these people march and are arrested and charged, would that make them criminals and therefore unable to own firearms (legally)?

Only a felony (serious offense) prohibits you from owning a fire arm.

BUT - and here's what our dear friends are forgetting - if arrested their fine rifles will be confiscated. Given this is Washington DC, they'd have a dough's chance in hell of getting them back regardless of final verdict. So boys and girls, don't bring that fine grained rare wood Weatherby 300 mag, bring a cheap $50 .22lr instead. After all, you're donating it to the police.

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

They lost their edge before WW2.

I seem to remember the Prussians handing them their arses.

Have you seen the people quoted in the OP?

The point of this protest is not to show that guys with guns can be nice and friendly. The point of the protest (we are going to march with our guns to an area where it is very illegal to do so) is to provoke in whatever way they can with the sole intention of having somebody disarm and/or arrest them.

That way they can spend the next weeks on news channels yelling about "did you see! The government took our guns! They will take yours too!!!! Also, buy my book or click on my site, I need money for more guns!"

And that's no different than what Civil Rights protesters did.

That might be the dumbest post of the day, and getting into an argument of comparing the civil rights movement with people who think that expanding some gun laws is the same as facing death every time they speak out will just get me banned.

Time to get away from any gun thread for me because the arguments are getting pretty dang stupid. But what did I expect...

Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

eh... I'm sorta with d-usa.

The Civil Rights was more an existential crisis regarding the people of color in US at that time...

So, no... it different.

The difference is simply the 2nd amendment, a DIRECT right's to bear arms is what we're dealing with.

Going to DC in this manner seems... tacky.

“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.”

The US government's treatment of gun rights is what they call "tyranny".

And they're completely serious when they say that.

Bluh. I think I might sign up for that Mars mission, so that I can say that I am trying to no longer be on the same planet as these idiots.

 dæl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?

And a Brit would say that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?

And a Brit would say that.

Probably because most of the time Brits make sense. Carrying loaded firearms in a protest situation is to be frank playing Russian roulette, all it takes is one jackass to start firing, then all hell breaks loose. I'm glad the protest organiser thinks that there will be no fringe idiots there, myself I'm not so sure.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really examine the situation. Both are over very similar types of issues. And the way they are attacking it is very similar.

Yes, I can absolutely see how not wanting to be discriminated against because of the colour of one's skin is exactly the same as not wanting to have slightly more strict gun laws that hope to reduce the frequency of gun related fatalities. What absolute nonsense, did you actually think before you typed that?

And a Brit would say that.

I don't mind you guys having guns, that's between you and your government. It's the comparison between this protest and the civil rights movement that I take issue with.

Bullockist wrote:
Probably because most of the time Brits make sense. Carrying loaded firearms in a protest situation is to be frank playing Russian roulette, all it takes is one jackass to start firing, then all hell breaks loose. I'm glad the protest organiser thinks that there will be no fringe idiots there, myself I'm not so sure.

As previously mentioned multiple times through this thread the firearms in question will not be loaded.

I misread "long arms" as "loaded arms" my mistake.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
1. Marching whilst armed = armed march. You can't spin that any other way.

I'm not attempting to spin it. At every turn I have said "firearm", I have been clear in that respect. On the other hand you have used many patently loaded phrases and inaccurate hyperbole while making your argument, and saying "armed march" can look guilty by association based on your conduct thus far. Not to mention that it seems like an appeal to authority by invoking Foucault to make your claim that this is an attempt at force, threat, intimidation and subjugation.

An armed march is what it is. Let's just call a spade: a spade.

And my "invocation" of Foucault is not an appeal to authority, it is a reference to a concept with a proper citation. It would only be an appeal to authority if I simply said "X is true because Foucault says so"(which would not necessarily make it true). You are still welcome to debate and challenge the merit's of Foucault's ideas; they are not being assumed to be correct by provenance of their author. By saying Foucault's name, I merely chose not to take credit for Foucault's ideas when I expounded on them.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The march's Facebook page promises "coordination with D.C. law enforcement prior to the event," and invites "law enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is appropriate."

I suspect that definition of "coordination" is being used so broadly that it is synonymous with "telling the police we're gonna do this". That's not really coordination; as coordination implies a tacit level of endorsement, which I'm fairly certain will not be the case; particularly given the response of the chief of police as stated in the OP's article.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
3. Again, if I shout "I will not harm you" whilst approaching with a knife in hand, you really are taking it on faith that I am sincere in my declaration until it's maybe too late, aren't you?

If you are merely going to re-word a position that that already been covered then I will gladly re-word my prior response;
There is a significant difference between "approaching [someone] with a knife in hand" 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 has a blade drawn for an unclear purpose where context may play a vital role. If it was your contention that the marchers would be approaching gun in hand then your analogy would be accurate.

A rifle slung over one's shoulder, or in a side carry amounts to the same thing. You might have a case if the rifle was tucked away inside a rifle bag and slung over the shoulder, but anytime the firearm is visible it serves the same effect as a knife being brandished. And "brandished" is definitely the correct term, because this is very much an ostentatious display (that's kinda the entire point to this protest). I'm really not trying to use emotional and loaded language, but the problem is that the mere observational facts happen to be highly charged by their nature, and I refuse to perform the spin-doctoring necessary in order to prevent such. That is, if a group of people are marching whilst armed, it is an armed march. But I will retract the use of "gunmen"; it was meant to imply men wielding guns and was used improperly, as the term itself colloquially denotes criminal acts, so that one was my error.

Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. until a crime of violence occurs it is by default a peaceful protest.

Only in the narrow legal definition. However, you know as well as I that there is quite a difference between a legal definition and a general one.

Grey Templar wrote:And that's no different than what Civil Rights protesters did.

I want you to stop for a minute, and consider the ramifications -the real, factual, non-imaginary, non-slippery-slope-fears, the real ramifications of both movements. I want you to consider the situation for each group (blacks and gun owners alike) prior to the movement. Make sure you take into account the difference between oppressing violations of human rights, and the inability to buy big expensive and extremely dangerous tools.

Now I want you to reconsider you position.

Ok, maybe my comparison is not as strong as I thought, but there is still one to be made.

Both involve rights that are being infringed on. Both involve using civil disobedience as a means of protest.


Unless we say our rights have varying levels of importance, which would be a subjective opinion from person to person, then the difference in importance is the same. Our right to bear arms is just as important as the right to not be discriminated against, and the right to vote, and the right to free speech, etc...