Peaceful Armed March on Washington

Status
Not open for further replies.
One point that confuses me in this thread - if a provocateur could bring a loaded gun to an 'armed' march on DC, couldn't they also bring a loaded gun to an unarmed march on DC? I'm not sure I agree TJ's proposal creates considerable additional risk.

And, I'm not an expert on history, but I can't recall any successful civil rights struggles where civil disobedience didn't play a part.
 
Jeff Thomas- If we focus first on the march, as JACE suggests, placards, gun balloons, and empty casings at the Supreme Court. Followed (if necessary) by civil disobedience. Our actions cleanly focused, one point at a time, we would be following the steps taken by the Civil Rights Marchers in the fifties and sixties. Peaceful marches and rallies came first then, and separately, civil disobedience against unfair, ignorant and unconstitutional laws.
 
Tom,
This isn't the sixties and we are dealing with a government that has no morals.
The scenario that keeps playing in my mind goes something like this. A large group of gunowners is surounded by a group of VERY nervous LEOs who are concerned that weapons are present, rightfully so I might add.
The "agent provocateur" simply pulls out a concealed firearm, fires a few shots and starts the chain of events rolling. The police, who are now VERY, VERY nervous move in after the shooter, the crowd is now seriously spooked and a riot breaks out. Many hurt, many arrested.
Using this as a example of how "Dangerous" guns and gun owners are the antis scream bloody murder and a week later Congress pushes through a hastily written and total BS major gun restriction.
WE LOSE BIG TIME!
Don't think it can't happen.
 
The civil rights demonstrations started as lawful assembliage of the people. It was escalated to civil disobedience in response to actions taken by police. There is no doubt this will escalate likewise. We should assemble legaly with peacfuly intent. Let the 'government' cause the escalation.

This was the trump card of the civil rights movement and the demonstrations that helped end the Viet Nam war. This is what caught the attention of the American public.

We know the government is the enemy. We need to bring it to the attention of the masses! Force them to show there hand, but don't give them legal grounds.
 
Indeed an agent provocator could start something. The real issue is how 'we the people' handle it.

We spout many facts about the good reasons to own firearms. We say law abiding citizens taking action reduces crime. An agent provocator would provide the opportunity to prove it. Yes, if a provocator pulls a weapon to cause a disturbance then it is the responsibility of those in the immediate vicinity to subdue the perpetrator and turn them over to the authorities.

What you can't do that without a gun? If it is true that guns don't make criminals then it is true that guns don't make heros. It is the substance of the individual that dictates the action not the tool.

By making a demonstration like this we put everything we say about guns and gun owners on the line. Think of every adverse situation and determine the action that will leverage it to our advantage.

It is easy to commit civil disobedience, we need to be sure it supports our cause when it happens.

------------------
It's a good life if you don't weaken.
 
Grayfox, I would agree with you, except that this 'frog' is being boiled anyway. Yes, our current government is certainly immoral at the top, and they will do what they will do. I don't think avoiding any confrontation, and hoping the b*****ds don't do us in sooner rather than later is a viable strategy.

Having said this, I respect what anyone does to support the RKBA, and we can agree to disagree on our personal strategies.

No, this isn't the 60's. It is now the 00's, but that doesn't mean this isn't a civil rights struggle.
 
Jace,
This too has crossed my mind. I would certianly hope the "agent" would be subdued by those around him. The question is that once the weapon is seen, even if unfired, would it already be too late? The scuffle to subdue this person would be enough to attract the attention of the police.

Jeff,
You're right about the frog. I fear the final battle is on the horizon. My hope is that it will happen in the ballot box and not in the streets.
The voices of a few thousand in Washington could go either way, But the voices of millions on election day could turn the tide.

Its not that I oppose standing up and being counted, I'm all for it. I grew up during the Civil rights marches and Viet Nam protests. I remember how well some of them worked. I also remember how bad it was when things got ugly. With the way the policial game is played these days, this idea of a march gives me a bad feeling I just can't shake. Its not just what happens, but also the general public's preception of what happened. The media spin doctors are not our friends and even a peaceful and uneventful march could be turned against us.

Having said all that, July 2001 is a long ways off. Much could change in the meantime. If this march does happen, I may well find myself in the crowd.
 
A couple of criticisms of the march strike me as odd.

(1) Agent provocateurs might start trouble with the police to discredit the march.

As someone above pointed out, this is a problem that is not specific to this march idea. It's hard to see why someone sufficiently motivated couldn't cause trouble at ANY march in the way worried about here. Couldn't someone have carried a concealed gun at Farakhan's (sp?) million man march and attacked the police? Couldn't someone have started shooting at the police in Seattle at the WTO? (Yes, there were "anarchists", as we're told they should be called at any rate, who were violent. But they weren't lethally violent, and their activity only drew attention to the protests rather than discrediting them. By the way, is it just me who notices the ever more crude and propogandistic reporting of these events? "Anarchists"? Our media is getting as cartoonish as the Chinise government organs and their "subversive elements".) So are we to think that no march at any time in Washington is a good idea because it might be subverted by outsiders? There might be criticisms of this march but it's hard to see how THIS is a serious one.

(2) Effort organizing and participating in the march will detract from other forms of political activity which are likely to be more effective, e.g., state and local action, letter writing, etc.

It's not at all clear that this is true. It seems at least as likely that if the march were successful in the way hoped for that it would invigorate support for gun rights. If anything it seems likely that a success could well bring a net gain in breadth and intensity of support. State and local legislators previously on the fence might feel emboldened to introduce "protective measures" for law-abiding owners, anti's would explain defensively how the huge crowd gathered is wrong about their attempt to undermine the right of self-defense of citizenry, etc.

The thing I worry about is getting enough people to something like this. These marches in the past few decades have been the most dynamic when composed of minorities or the young. Politically active gun-owners are not the type I expect to turn out in massive numbers, but this is just an intuition I admit. Unless things go south quite a bit in a year and half, anyway.

But, to paraphrase, if you hold it, I will come.
 
Tom Jefferson: Where can I find the critiques from the unfriendly boards?

Grayfox: A scuffle that makes the news could be beneficially as long as we the people maintain honorable intent and activity. This type of activity puts question in people's minds. It makes them think and do research.

I don't think we could get sponsorship if we have an agenda that will intentionaly break the law. Also we will have to prove sufficeint interest inorder for sponsorship to become a reality.

Someone here stated that we are the minority. A year ago I would agree, today I don't believe it. The school shootings of the past year aroused public concern, a great deal of people asked questions. They ultimately recognize the disadvantage of being disarmed in front of an armed lunatic... Why do you think the media hasn't continued its feeding frenzy on the most recent public shootings? Yes they call for gun control but the huge number of follow-ups doesn't seem to flourish as they did before. The media is the minority.

I thought the Emerson case was going to the Supreme Court this year? Can someone fill me in? If it does, I would expect that a petition and test case in 2001 might be a little late. Perhaps the petition might better get moving now!

Tom Jeferson: You said the petition is to be created by web base comment over the next eighteen months. In light of that I am starting another topic "Petition to the Supreme Court"
 
You want numbers of people to attend? Why not network with Rolling Thunder? the biker activity that rolls to The Wall every year?

These guys get B-I-G numbers whenever they all get behind it. 60K+ is not unheard of.

Old saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
 
Jace, Emerson is on appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals - as I recall, the decision is expected this Spring (these things move with glacial speed). If they uphold the District Court (and, assuming they do so on or including 2nd Amendment grounds), then the U.S. Attorney will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. It is important to note that it is possible Dr. Emerson will win his case, but the 2nd Amendment may not get any review above the District Court in the original case.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited January 04, 2000).]
 
The marchers should be armed and fully loaded. Our government should be made aware that no one will open fire unless our right to free speach and the right to bear arms are denied by things like police in riot gear wanting to stop our march. You've got to show em' you mean business. You would be surprised how many Americans would support a group standing up to what is percieved as a corrupt government out to deny our constitutional rights. I beleive in the constitution and too many politicians are denying our contstituional rights so maybe it is time to stand up with the force of arms in the form of a 2, 3, 4, 5,6 or 8 million man march who will proceed peacfully unless denied their rights to free speach or to bear arms. They wouldn't dare kill us all because it wouldn't look too good to kill a bunch of armed marchers who vow not to use force unless denied their freedom of speach. I'd like to see it and would be part of it. Think they would have roads blocks and weapons searches around DC?
 
I am going to remind you all of the post of
DZ on DEC30,99--12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------
"BEEN THERE, DONE THAT." "30 PEOPLE SHOWED UP"
---------------------------------------------This was refering to The March for Liberty
on Oct2,1999 at Washington DC
WOW ! --30 whole people were concerned about our second ammendment rights. Shooters--we
are pathitic.The state pro gun rallys held aug 2,99 in all 50 states on the state capital steps were also pathetic.Illinois had 12 people show up. Some other states had 5 or 6 people show.43 states had no one show up at all. Conn had 250 people thanks to the efforts of www.gunsafe.org/ which really
planned that rally properly and had 3 network
tv coverage (only local affiliates)not national.Nebraska had a good 125 man rally,with local tv coverage,
again thanks to a well established local gun
organization, Nebraska ccw group. Nebraska is fighting for its right to carry conceled.

Im afraid that if you want any attendance
beyond 30 or 40 people, you are going to have to do some serious organizing or have a Ted Neugent concert. Ted is extreemly pro-gun;
I wonder if he would consider doing a free concert for the right to keep and bear arms.
Couldn't hurt to ask him. Worst he could do is say no. But---what if he says yes and helps organize it!! DOUBLE WOW + THENSOME!

Also, I wonder if there will be any rights left to protect by 2001????
---------------------------------------------

George Bush ,Gov of Tx===position statement on gun control.
SUPPORTS BANN on AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.( Some how
I dont think George means machine guns here.
I think he means semi auto rifles like ar15
ruger mini14 &mini30, ak47 & ak74 and HE may even mean semi auto handguns, which are also
weapons. See, he din't say automatic rifles,
he said automatic weapons. What is the meaning of" is ". What is the meaning of automatic?

BUSH SUPPORTS REQURING INSTANT (read 5 days)
BACKGROUND CHECKS AT ALL GUN SHOWS (which only last 2 days)This equals impossible to
take possession of the gun at the show and a 45.oo next day air fee from UPS added to the cost of the gun.This equals the death of gun shows.

BUSH SAYS HE OPPOSES GUN CONTROL. But I need to seriously consider what guns will be left for Bush to oppose the control of after he gets his way. NO MORE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS,
WHATEVER BUSH DECIEDES THEY ARE, Thats for sure. And I believe I mentioned that Bush"s
defination of "Automatic Weapon" can and probably will include all semi auto rifles and handguns.

If you think Im worried over nothing,
please read my post What HLC has planned for
us --required reading. It is their 5 year
plan to disarm us, 40 % of which has already
been purbatrated upon us, another 35% of which they have tried and failed and 60%
of which will be back in our faces in two weeks when Kongress reconvienes.

Please note especially the 1000.oo fee for
retaining your Federal permit to carry as well as the 500.oo fee for your state permit to carry, both of which expire yearly.These
permits pertain not only to handguns but also to rifles and shot guns; so DONT YOU HUNTERS THINK THAT YOU HAVE A FREE RIDE ANY LONGER.
And , each additional year the price of the permits increases by 200.oo to 400.oo
Handgun Control is appealing to the greed of the gun grabbing socialists and using the money we paid in permit fees to steal our guns.

NO, THEY WONT HAVE TO CONFISCATE OUR GUNS,
BUT THE PRICE THEY CHARGE FOR PERMITS WILL BE SO HIGH THAT WE WILL BE UNABLE TO PAY ENOUGH
MONEY TO BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN THEM. They plan to have huge fines and jail sentences in place for anyone unable to pay to retain the permits who does not surrender their guns to the police.

SO GO AHEAD--JUST SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING.
YOU WILL REGRET IT--I TELL YOU SO NOW.
Join the armchair activists Dues$0.00
obligations $0.00 , acomplishments $0.00
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
,,,,,,,,
--------

Fizzle--fizzle--mutter & grumble. Im not scared that we will lose our rights & freedoms. Im not worried that we are not doing anything. Im not worried that we are not doing enough. Who am I kidding,Im scared spitless!

------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
ernest2 - We need to take your post seriously, we need to contact www.gunsafe.org/ and learn what worked for them. Our goal is to sign up at least 10,000 people for the march and assume 50% no shows. Thus if we are unable to meet this goal we would cancel or postpone the event.
*
*
*
Ted Neugent's concert could certainly help to secure a crowd but we would still want a committed group of at 5000 to actually follow through with the march. I will contact gunsafe if you could look into what steps we need to take (who do we talk to?) in order to make the request of Ted Neugent.
 
Ted nuggent is a NRA member and prehaps he can be contacted through the NRA or nra grassroots div??

www.nralive.com www.nraila.org
------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html


[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited January 06, 2000).]
 
The DC (state of Columbia) constitution was ratified in 1987. The point being that the clear words that it is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" were relevant and modern enough to be formally adopted by the federal city itself only 13 years ago!

a link
link

Constitution for the State of New Columbia (Ratified 1982)
Constitution for the State of New Columbia (Enacted 1987)
United States Constitution
District of Columbia Code

(Above link edited by Staff to eliminate formatting errors only)

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited January 06, 2000).]
 
Tom Jefferson: How about seeing if we could get someone like Lott, Mustard, or Kopel, to speak at a rally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top