Adam (vs the Man) Kokesh organizing an armed civil disobedience march on D.C.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

fundamentally, what is the difference if they're carrying guns, or signs?...as long as we're talking responsible owners, the only difference i can see is with the signs, they are now unable to defend themselves if/when the cops decide they wanna start something with them....

If they are carrying signs, there will be no reason for the police to do anything but control the crowds. If they are carrying guns in violation of the laws of the city, there is reason.

but the laws are illegal laws...the police are under no obligation to enforce them..if they DO enforce them, then that is a personal choice, or a result of being misinformed, and ignorant of the law..

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Daedalus
i see you went into a form of the "nukes and fighter jets" argument, which i warned you would end this interaction, as that argument is desperate, and nonsensical....

I notice that it often "ends the interaction", but usually because it refutes absolutely the old nonsense about 'freedom to own guns because you should be allowed to own anything you like'. It's a case of hitting an unanswerable argument and pretending you don't like it for other reasons.

It also gives the lie to the nonsense about owning rifles in order to defend against an oppressive conquering power. Those riflemen were pretty useful in the 18th century. Not quite so effective now against a cruise missile.

it is not an unanswerable argument, it is a hail mary...and a horribly ridiculous, and desperate one at that...

it is a silly argument, that COMPLETELY ignores the wording of the constitution, the intentions of the people who wrote it, and demonstrates not only a lack of comprehension skills, but a complete rejection of anything remotely resembling sane and rational discourse....

in short, it's a bulls**t argument for people who can't logically and rationally defend their position, and have exhausted all other options..

Originally posted by Daedalus

I notice that it often "ends the interaction", but usually because it refutes absolutely the old nonsense about 'freedom to own guns because you should be allowed to own anything you like'. It's a case of hitting an unanswerable argument and pretending you don't like it for other reasons.

It also gives the lie to the nonsense about owning rifles in order to defend against an oppressive conquering power. Those riflemen were pretty useful in the 18th century. Not quite so effective now against a cruise missile.

it is not an unanswerable argument, it is a hail mary...and a horribly ridiculous, and desperate one at that...

it is a silly argument, that COMPLETELY ignores the wording of the constitution, the intentions of the people who wrote it, and demonstrates not only a lack of comprehension skills, but a complete rejection of anything remotely resembling sane and rational discourse....

in short, it's a bulls**t argument for people who can't logically and rationally defend their position, and have exhausted all other options..

In my experience advocates of wide gun ownership have four main pillars to their argument

- I should be able to own pretty much anything I want without the govt having a say in it
- Guns are needed in case we have to fight a tyrannical oppressor, from without or within
- Guns aren't as dangerous as cars (or some other widely used object) and they are legal
- I should be allowed to own guns because it says so in the constitution

The 'nukes and fighter jets' argument - as you call it - completely refutes the first assertion and in an elegant reverse pretty much does for the second. As I said, rifles and handguns aren't much use against missiles and choppers, and if you can own a glock because you want one then I want a nuke. QED.

The third is the sort of equivalent of the reductio ad absurdum that you seem to think the fighter jets argument is. It similarly ignores the equation by which we balance the inherent utility of an object as against its lethality - which is quite stupid.

The fourth is idiotic to all but a large minority of Americans who seem to think some slave-owning guys in wigs who lived a zillion years ago had all the answers. Even though they, um, amended the stuff they wrote all the time anyway. Again, these are not people you would want on your quiz team.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

In my experience advocates of wide gun ownership have four main pillars to their argument

- I should be able to own pretty much anything I want without the govt having a say in it
- Guns are needed in case we have to fight a tyrannical oppressor, from without or within
- Guns aren't as dangerous as cars (or some other widely used object) and they are legal
- I should be allowed to own guns because it says so in the constitution

The 'nukes and fighter jets' argument - as you call it - completely refutes the first assertion and in an elegant reverse pretty much does for the second. As I said, rifles and handguns aren't much use against missiles and choppers, and if you can own a glock because you want one then I want a nuke. QED.

The third is the sort of equivalent of the reductio ad absurdum that you seem to think the fighter jets argument is. It similarly ignores the equation by which we balance the inherent utility of an object as against its lethality - which is quite stupid.

The fourth is idiotic to all but a large minority of Americans who seem to think some slave-owning guys in wigs who lived a zillion years ago had all the answers. Even though they, um, amended the stuff they wrote all the time anyway. Again, these are not people you would want on your quiz team.

are you even an american citizen?

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

fundamentally, what is the difference if they're carrying guns, or signs?...as long as we're talking responsible owners, the only difference i can see is with the signs, they are now unable to defend themselves if/when the cops decide they wanna start something with them....

If they are carrying signs, there will be no reason for the police to do anything but control the crowds. If they are carrying guns in violation of the laws of the city, there is reason.

but the laws are illegal laws...the police are under no obligation to enforce them..if they DO enforce them, then that is a personal choice, or a result of being misinformed, and ignorant of the law..

Police enforce laws whether some people think they are illegal or not. The laws have not been struck down by the courts so the police will enforce them. They don't get to pick and choose. This plan actually forces their hand and they will have to enforce the law. Armed marchers will be arrested. If the violation is a felony, they will not be able to legally own guns again. If the goal is to force a confrontation and shooting starts, then more restrictive laws will be enacted. This is what is termed a "lose-lose" situation.

An armed march in violation of local laws is a bad idea. March with signs or stay home.

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by havok

 

Our forefathers didn't whine and complain.
They took arms straight to the oppressors.
We should do the same!

That would be my exact sentiment.

Samuel Adams went out with John Hancock to instigate shootouts against British soldiers just for the fun of it--before the war even started.

Hahaha... and there's no issue with gung-ho cowbows at all.. they're the... minority.

Lets go shoot some brits.. then start the war.. hyuk hyuk.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, in a republic, the sheep has a gun."

You can take your "majority" and shove it.

Originally posted by bg_socalif

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by havok

 

Our forefathers didn't whine and complain.
They took arms straight to the oppressors.
We should do the same!

That would be my exact sentiment.

Samuel Adams went out with John Hancock to instigate shootouts against British soldiers just for the fun of it--before the war even started.

I can't stand the attitude of people who think that "peaceably" protesting is the only recourse. Sometimes you just have to knock someone's teeth out.

Nice talk. So are you going to lead from the front? Or are you one of those that prefers to have someone else do it, while you watch it on TV or from behind your keyboard?

Where's the fun in having someone else do it?

Adam Kokesh is a treasonous, thieving, loudmouthed anti-war liberal who hates the USA and wants to see her destroyed.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that he once worked for Russia Today, a Russian propaganda station which spouts anti-Western gibberish for the Kremlin (switch on to RT and let Vladimir Putin tell you what to think! yeah, great idea...)

reply to post by Daedalus


Nope. But I'm not sure why that's particularly relevant. I guess it's just a way to avoid engaging with the points made?

Perhaps they could have this lot do a flypast over their little march

www.usnews.com...

reply to post by Daedalus


Semantics. The Law in DC says otherwise. debate the 2nd against said laws till you are blue in the face but until the supreme court strikes it down it is illegal in DC. Just saying.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Nope. But I'm not sure why that's particularly relevant. I guess it's just a way to avoid engaging with the points made?

no, actually, it was a valid question.

NOT being a citizen of these United States, and NOT living here makes it VERY difficult to appreciate the situation on the ground here, just as it would be equally difficult for ME to appreciate the particulars of a specific situation in YOUR country. not to mention NOT being a citizen here, not having been raised here, you don't have the same appreciation of the rights we are supposed to have.

it's easy to poo-poo other people's way of life, having never walked a mile in their shoes...it's easy to make assumptions, and make fun of the "crazy americans and their guns", because you don't understand what the big deal is...

that's why i asked..

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Semantics. The Law in DC says otherwise. debate the 2nd against said laws till you are blue in the face but until the supreme court strikes it down it is illegal in DC. Just saying.

and if the supreme court does not strike it down, by ignoring it, they are not doing their job.

that is irrelevant though. the law is the law, and by the supreme court's own rulings, illegal laws are not laws....so really, they don't actually NEED to act on it...precedent has been set with past rulings..

Originally posted by Sankari
Adam Kokesh is a treasonous, thieving, loudmouthed anti-war liberal who hates the USA and wants to see her destroyed.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that he once worked for Russia Today, a Russian propaganda station which spouts anti-Western gibberish for the Kremlin (switch on to RT and let Vladimir Putin tell you what to think! yeah, great idea...)

edit on 23/5/13 by Sankari because: added url...

what in the world is wrong with you?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Daedalus

fundamentally, what is the difference if they're carrying guns, or signs?...as long as we're talking responsible owners, the only difference i can see is with the signs, they are now unable to defend themselves if/when the cops decide they wanna start something with them....

If they are carrying signs, there will be no reason for the police to do anything but control the crowds. If they are carrying guns in violation of the laws of the city, there is reason.

but the laws are illegal laws...the police are under no obligation to enforce them..if they DO enforce them, then that is a personal choice, or a result of being misinformed, and ignorant of the law..

Police enforce laws whether some people think they are illegal or not. The laws have not been struck down by the courts so the police will enforce them. They don't get to pick and choose. This plan actually forces their hand and they will have to enforce the law. Armed marchers will be arrested. If the violation is a felony, they will not be able to legally own guns again. If the goal is to force a confrontation and shooting starts, then more restrictive laws will be enacted. This is what is termed a "lose-lose" situation.

An armed march in violation of local laws is a bad idea. March with signs or stay home.

see, man, this isn't a PERCEPTION problem.....it's an ACCEPTANCE OF REALITY problem.....

it is not my OPINION that state, or municipal gun restrictions are illegal...it is FACT....NO state, county, city, town, municipality, etc may violate the constitution and bill of rights...it is the one universal set of rules EVERYONE MUST FOLLOW.

the supreme court has ruled that any law that violates the constitution is not legal, and is therefore unenforceable...i'm not making this up...

Originally posted by Daedalus

no, actually, it was a valid question.

NOT being a citizen of these United States, and NOT living here makes it VERY difficult to appreciate the situation on the ground here, just as it would be equally difficult for ME to appreciate the particulars of a specific situation in YOUR country. not to mention NOT being a citizen here, not having been raised here, you don't have the same appreciation of the rights we are supposed to have.

it's easy to poo-poo other people's way of life, having never walked a mile in their shoes...it's easy to make assumptions, and make fun of the "crazy americans and their guns", because you don't understand what the big deal is...

that's why i asked..

But I made a series of valid points. I didn't say anything about "crazy americans". You can't just wave criticism away because of its source.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Daedalus

no, actually, it was a valid question.

NOT being a citizen of these United States, and NOT living here makes it VERY difficult to appreciate the situation on the ground here, just as it would be equally difficult for ME to appreciate the particulars of a specific situation in YOUR country. not to mention NOT being a citizen here, not having been raised here, you don't have the same appreciation of the rights we are supposed to have.

it's easy to poo-poo other people's way of life, having never walked a mile in their shoes...it's easy to make assumptions, and make fun of the "crazy americans and their guns", because you don't understand what the big deal is...

that's why i asked..

But I made a series of valid points. I didn't say anything about "crazy americans". You can't just wave criticism away because of its source.

actually, your points weren't all that valid

it's the usual "your constitution is bollocks" "cars are fine, guns are bad" stuff....

i mean, the stats show quite clearly that cars are several orders of magnitude MORE dangerous than guns...i'm not calling for car bans, or any silliness like that..it's just an inconvenient truth....

i asked if you were a citizen, because if you were, you might have a better understanding of and appreciation for the constitution and bill of rights....we don't have the right to keep and bear arms because the constitution says so....we've always had that right. it is what's known as a natural right. the only purpose served by putting it in the bill of rights, is to codify it, and declare it as a natural right, that cannot be granted, or revoked by government.


i'm not dismissing your argument simply because YOU'RE making it...i'm dismissing it because it's not a terribly good argument...

Originally posted by Daedalus

actually, your points weren't all that valid

it's the usual "your constitution is bollocks" "cars are fine, guns are bad" stuff....

Hand wave hand wave.

Your constitution, whether you like it or not, is not immutable. It was written a long time ago by people whose circumstances were very different. It is regularly reinterpreted and recodified and to suggest that its attitude to arms is set in stone is fallacious. You may dislike the notion of limiting gun ownership, but the argument that "some people said its the law" is the definition of an invalid point.

i mean, the stats show quite clearly that cars are several orders of magnitude MORE dangerous than guns...i'm not calling for car bans, or any silliness like that..it's just an inconvenient truth....

It's not inconvenient at all. And that isn't the point I made. Cars are very dangerous, but we accept this because they have a high utility. Without them most of Western society would grind to a halt. If all guns disappeared Western society would continue. Some would argue it might be improved.

The point is that when weighing an object's legality we naturally factor in its usefulness. That's why even the strictest of libertarians rarely think private citizens should be allowed to own, say, biological weapons. There's just no upside in it.

i asked if you were a citizen, because if you were, you might have a better understanding of and appreciation for the constitution and bill of rights....we don't have the right to keep and bear arms because the constitution says so....we've always had that right. it is what's known as a natural right. the only purpose served by putting it in the bill of rights, is to codify it, and declare it as a natural right, that cannot be granted, or revoked by government.

This is why other people in the world think Americans - certain strains of them anyway - are a bit odd. Why do so many of you assume you have this natural right, but not the right to drink unpasteurised milk, or abort a foetus, or smoke weed, or gamble?

Perhaps you're right that I would understand if I came from the US. But given that a majority of US citizens support increased gun control I think it's safe to say that it's not just my nationality that makes me see it differently.

i'm not dismissing your argument simply because YOU'RE making it...i'm dismissing it because it's not a terribly good argument...

That's a novel approach. Don't answer questions because you don't like them. Fair enough, but as you attempt to rebuff tightening gun laws I wouldn't be surprised if that approach doesn't continue to cut it.

reply to post by Daedalus


Then go down there and march with him and see how that works for you.
Just another fine day int he ATS hood.

Originally posted by Daedalus
see, man, this isn't a PERCEPTION problem.....it's an ACCEPTANCE OF REALITY problem.....

it is not my OPINION that state, or municipal gun restrictions are illegal...it is FACT....NO state, county, city, town, municipality, etc may violate the constitution and bill of rights...it is the one universal set of rules EVERYONE MUST FOLLOW.

the supreme court has ruled that any law that violates the constitution is not legal, and is therefore unenforceable...i'm not making this up...

Apparently, the gun laws are not considered to violate the Constitution and, hence, are legal and enforceable. Just as free speech has limitations, so does the right to bear arms.
Interestingly, this is derived from British law, as I remember. Now, the criminals in Britain have the upper hand. Somewhere along the line, Parliament lost its way.