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

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Just don't conflate 'gun nut' with 'gun owner' (as the Left is so willing to do). Hell, I even think Adam Kokesh is a lunatic.

I do think that the government needs a reminder of how many of us do own firearms and do value that right deeply. I would recommend everyone put a picture of a firearm that they own on a protest sign, though. We really don't need a thousand survivalist wannabes running around blatantly breaking the law (and I'm pretty sure open carry breaks the law in most places, not just DC).

[paft.livejournal.com]

bd: I do think that the government needs a reminder of how many of us do own firearms and do value that right deeply.

What makes you think they need that reminder?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I think GLBT folk, Native Americans and atheists should adopt this same tactic. In fact, we should all march on Washington fully armed.

[404.livejournal.com]

I will for now on label anyone who calls for more gun control "anti-gun nuts."

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Well, everyone puts all the emphasis on the firearms industry lobbying, for one. The last round of gun control laws failed totally due to lobbying, not anything to do with millions of Americans who just weren't interested. For another, from the Democrats' standpoint the issue is starting to look like the ACA does with the GOP (that is, the issue they're in danger of wasting time and effort on fighting again and again and again, to little if any effect).

[paft.livejournal.com]

You think it unfair for me to call someone planning a thousand man, ARMED march on Washington DC a "gun nut?"

[paft.livejournal.com]

bd: Well, everyone puts all the emphasis on the firearms industry lobbying, for one...

Which frequently consists of citing the large number of gun owners in this country -- along with the assumption that every gun owner is on the side of the NRA (they aren't.)

[404.livejournal.com]

Do you normally label all groups that march on Washington nuts?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Only those that march carrying loaded weapons.

You think it unfair for me to call someone planning a thousand man, ARMED march on Washington DC a "gun nut?"

[404.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I do think you are being unfair, but it's par for the course.

Guns are legal for people to keep, as of right now.

[paft.livejournal.com]

404: Yeah, I do think you are being unfair, but it's par for the course.

You don't consider his idea for an armed march on Washington DC nutty and irresponsible? You don't see the potential for things going very, very wrong there?

404: Guns are legal for people to keep, as of right now.

Your point being...?

[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.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

How do you feel about James Porter, president of the NRA?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Do you know the law on open carry whereever these citizens plan to march? I know I am allowed to carry my gun openly anywhere in NJ as long as it is unloaded, I can carry it loaded in open hunting areas. I can't speak for MD or VA, however.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

[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]

Open Carry is prohibited in DC.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

True, true. I for one don't agree with some of the NRA's stance. Problem is, they're the only ones representing us.

But I wasn't only talking about gun owners. There's a Gallup poll from last month that suggests that the issue is not as much of a priority among Americans in general as it is the Obama administration:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx

Gun control was sixth on the list of most pressing matters, with only 6% of respondents saying that was the country's most pressing issue.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

And yet you don't call those stationed in Washington who use their ARMS (and assorted "non lethal" weaponry) repel those who normally march on it (people assembling more or less peaceably with grievances against the government) WITHOUT loaded weapons (and the people who order them to) "nuts".

How very curious...

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I agree that cultural values are part of the debate. I think a lot of the resistance among Southern and Midwestern gun owners is this feeling that the Yankees are pushing their values on us. Gun control just happens to be the specific issue.

All his rhetoric about the Obama administration and the Civil War is pretty stupid asinine, though. The closest I would come to agreeing with any of that is the states rights versus Federal control issue, which I think is more relevant to my above statement than Porter's BS about the administration.

[paft.livejournal.com]

So?

[paft.livejournal.com]

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

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I am reminded of Catholics and the Pope.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

So the issue may not be in the forefront of the population's minds as the gun control advocates claim it is, just in general.