A Gun Nut's Notion of "Subtlety"

[paft.livejournal.com]

Adam Kokesh: We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.

So Adam Kokesh has a GREAT idea! A thousand men marching on Washington DC on July 4th, carrying loaded weapons.

Kokesh says that his intent is "to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated [and] cower in submission to tyranny," which is pretty rich coming from someone whose response to legislation he dislikes is to wave a loaded gun at the legislators. It's especially interesting, if not especially reassuring, to read his comments about the marchers' commitment to non-violence.

There's a remote chance that there will be violence as there has been from government before, and I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting. We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

All of which, of course, depends on every single marcher's interpretation of being approached "respectfully." This frankly sounds more like a barely veiled... excuse me... "SUBTLE" threat that Kokesh thinks they should start shooting if things don't go the way they want it to.

He elaborated further on that same Facebook page:

(Emphasis Added) Now that it's undeniable that this is going to happen, allow me to make clear how. There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event. I will recommend that they do the best they can to honor their oaths and escort us on our route. Failing to provide that commitment to safety, we will either be informed that we will only be allowed up to a certain point where we would be arrested. If this is the case, we will approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will procede 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.

Okay, Everybody clear on this?

I am a woman who wrote graduate papers on Henry James. I attend a Bloomsday celebration of Joyce's Ulysses on a regular basis, and listen with pleasure and comprehension to the readings. I've read every word of Mrs. Dalloway, The Sound and the Fury and The Life and Opinions of Tristam Shandy. Mandarin writing holds no terrors for me. But I have to confess Adam Kokesh's "subtlety" here defeats me. As near as I can figure out, he's saying that, as the leader of a thousand individuals marching with loaded weapons into our capital, he will generously instruct the DC police on how to deal with someone "crossing the line," backed up by lots of armed marchers crowding around and helping him in this negotiation.

As Crooks and Liars Crooks and Liars puts it -- What could possibly go wrong?

Especially given what he Tweeted last week:

When the government comes to take your guns, you can shoot government agents, or submit to slavery.

Comments

[404.livejournal.com]

Guns don't kill people, irresponsible people kill people. Until the people that march start to indiscriminately pick off onlookers, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The point is, as much as you bemoan gun ownership, it is legal. Go do a counter march, I'm sure Obama will invite your group to the White House, and give you a podium to tell everyone how nutty and irresponsible the gun marchers are for exercising their rights.

[paft.livejournal.com]

404: Guns don't kill people, irresponsible people kill people.

Which is why steps should be taken to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.

404: Until the people that march start to indiscriminately pick off onlookers, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

But if they only pick off government agents rather than "indiscriminately picking off onlookers", that would be okay?

This business of giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" when they're walking around in public brandishing a loaded weapon is a recipe for disaster. How far should this go? Public speeches by the president? Strolls into the houses of Congress or the Senate. Walks into banks?

I don't bemoan gun ownership. I bemoan guns being used irresponsibly -- as they would be in this planned march.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

The largest case of the most irresponsible and unjustifiable use of guns is by the government itself. Yet the leaders of the current administration would like to see everyone disarmed but their own agents.


Which is why steps should be taken to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.

The problem is *who* gets to define who these irresponsible people are? If you want it to be the state, you have a real problem. It is one of the most irresponsible institutions in existence with a history of irresponsible operations, filled with irresponsible people.

It's illogical and hypocritical to allow irresponsible people to define those who are irresponsible.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Who in the administration is pushing for a blanket ban on all guns?

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I meant *effectively disarmed*.

My mistake.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If by mistake, you mean intentional distortion.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Actually it truly was a mistake that I apologize for making. It was a carte blanche statement without justified citation. I woukd say that right now there is a strong political current pushing for various
degrees of citizen disarmament in the wake of tragedies like Hook and Aurora etc. that I feel are responding to it ineffectively and in a way that is not mindful of personal liberties. The administration maybor may not
act on that in an illogical, coercive manner.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The idea that the president wants to disarm everyone is a dog whistle.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You're right.

He only wants to disarm you.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[citation needed]. Being neither diagnosed insane nor a convicted criminal, I could pass a background check, so I'm not sure.

But the idea that the president want everyone disarmed is aimed to rile a certain segment of our population. Its also a lie, and a fairly dangerous one.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Which is why background checks need to be stricter.

The fact that a person like you could pass is proof that the standards are too low.

;)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

the current administration would like to see everyone disarmed

[citation needed]

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This business of giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" when they're walking around in public brandishing a loaded weapon is a recipe for disaster.

And yet open carry is the norm in many states, where it clearly is not a disaster.

Perhaps the nutty position is the one requiring more and more restrictions?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Just make sure one of them has a the courtesy to warn the onlookers before any such irresponsible actions take place, so that any that object to the prospect of dying can get out of harms way