WMAL.com : Loaded Gun March Planned For D.C.

[Mad Mike]

BTW, my opinions:

1) I think the folks doing this are loons.

2) And they should be allowed to demonstrate their lunacy. Just like Code Pink, the Nazis, PETA, and the Westborough Baptist Church.

3) And I think that predicting mass slaughter if they do this, is not quite as loony as predicting Obama confiscating all the guns in the US, but almost.

Yeah Larry, It's "loony" to predict that an event designed to attract the most militant far right nut jobs to confront police with loaded weapons might attract someone willing to pull the trigger and start a shootout.

I swear, I believe that if I were to write "give someone you love a hug" you would write a counter post that takes issue with the idea. :doh:

[No_Pressure]

How did I miss this thread? So some nutbag is going to lead a small army of nutbags armed to the teeth into Washington, D.C.?

Remember when the Bonus Army showed up in D.C. and set up a bunch of little Hooverville camps, and then Patton and MacArthur showed up with the national guard and gassed/attacked them?

No of course not, because nobody ****ing cares about history.

It'll be really ironic when one of these idiots with an itchy trigger finger, or who wants to incite some sort of violence, fires off a round and all hell breaks loose.

[Larry]

Do you have enough paint for that broad brush? You're better than that, man.

You work with computers, am I to assume you're a porn freak?

You are a male in a senior position, am I to assume you sexually harrass your female subordinates?

I get what you're saying, especially with this cat in particular... but please go easy on the generalizing. It seems there is a lot of that in these types of threads, lol. If that's the norm, then I guess I'll step out again, but I'm trying to get more involved in these conversations.

Just pointing out the selectivity of your response.

Ellis attempted to generalize, by trying to claim that his person's choice of military service overrides any safety concerns with this idea.

Bang pointed out that generalization is bad.

So, how come Bang is the one you're directing this post at?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I swear, I believe that if I were to write "give someone you love a hug" you would write a counter post that takes issue with the idea. :doh:

Won't that encourage molestation and sexual harassment?

[Larry]

I swear, I believe that if I were to write "give someone you love a hug" you would write a counter post that takes issue with the idea. :doh:

Just a suggestion:

1) Try it.

2) See what happens.

3) When reality doesn't match your opinions, consider changing your opinions.

Or you could keep up like you're doing. It's working so well, and all.

[pjfootballer]

PJ....it would not be the first time guns were collected and the populace disarmed.

a better question would be why should I not be allowed whatever?

Justifying denying me ,or imposing, should be the default....not why I need it

Because then we wouldn't need ANY laws. I mean, without certain laws, people could do just...whatever. Yes the constitution also protects our rights, but it was also put in place to make sure our lands have order to them. Like I said, I'm pretty ignorant of anything that has to do with guns and laws and I'll admit it. I mean, I'd like to go 100 miles an hour without any speed limit, but that would be insane to let people do that. Shouldn't I be allowed to go...whatever miles an hour I want?

I have no problem with your last sentence though. Yes, there should be a justification for denying.

But I did ask other questions in my post besides "why do you need to have them" which was just curiosity on my part.

Not sure I'm going to last in this thread as I just don't know enough about this topic to argue. I was just asking some innocent questions as I'm on neither side of the argument as of now.

[twa]

^Answering a question with a question is in poor taste.

my answer was he is asking the wrong question....or starting from the wrong point.

in a free country why not is the default.

Bang I think he is just a attention whore who lacks the balls to do more than stir up crap or meekly get arrested so he can bleet some more.

[Dan T.]

To be fair to Bang, his broad brush was a counter to my broad brush.

Then Bob Ross showed up and **** got crazy!

But the paintings kicked ass.

[Predicto]

Seems to be that there is a very specific reason why it is considered a questionable thing to have thousands of armed protestors marching toward the Capitol. Whatever your views on gun control or gun registration, or whatever, there have to be time, place and manner restrictions in some situations. It's kind of like arguing that you should have the "right" to bring 50 armed people through airport security. It is the seat of government.

Second, this recent poll gave me pause (I almost started a thread about it).

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

....

The eye-opening findings serve as a reminder that Americans’ deeply held beliefs about gun rights have a tendency to cross over into outright conspiracy theories about a nefarious government seeking to trample their constitutional rights — paranoia that pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association have at times helped stoke. The data help explain why even the most modest gun safety laws face tremendous, intense opposition.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php?ref=fpb

[Mad Mike]

Or you could keep up like you're doing. It's working so well, and all.

OK, I will. Please do tell... Why is it loony to consider that a bunch of right wing nutjobs confronting the police with loaded firearms might get pulled into a shootout because one idiot decides it's a good time to "refresh the tree of liberty".?

[sacase]

From a very Pro-Gun person, this is a STUPID idea. First of all as gun owners, you have a duty to obey the current gun laws and work WITHIN the system to change them. It is possible to achieve this. The idiots who are doing this are pretty much voluntarily giving up their right to bear arms by committing a gun related felony. The only thing something like this will accomplish is to bring negative attention to the gun debate and erase what so many people have tried so hard to achieve by changing gun laws.

[Bliz]

Nubile...here.

Useless without pics. :laugh:

[twa]

Second, this recent poll gave me pause (I almost started a thread about it).

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php?ref=fpb

Might leaves a great deal of wiggle room and is next to useless.

[nonniey]

There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.

-Ronald Reagan, after a similar demonstration in 1967.

Reagan was a Republican not a libertarian. There is a diifference.

[Bang]

Bang I think he is just a attention whore who lacks the balls to do more than stir up crap or meekly get arrested so he can bleet some more.

Could be your right.

Like I said above, no matter what happens, it'll serve somone's agenda.

as far as laws go,, let's face it,, the ONLY reason we need any laws is there are a minority of us who simply can't behave like a decent member of a society.

and those people are who the laws are for.

~Bang

[pjfootballer]

Useless without pics. :laugh:

I'm not sure you want to see that:pfft:.....not that there's anything wrong with it:paranoid:.

[Bang]

From a very Pro-Gun person, this is a STUPID idea. First of all as gun owners, you have a duty to obey the current gun laws and work WITHIN the system to change them. It is possible to achieve this. The idiots who are doing this are pretty much voluntarily giving up their right to bear arms by committing a gun related felony. The only thing something like this will accomplish is to bring negative attention to the gun debate and erase what so many people have tried so hard to achieve by changing gun laws.

I suspect an overwhelming majority of people will agree with you.

Could be this whole idea fizzles because reasonable gun owners realize what a bad idea it is.

~Bang

[DC9]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php?ref=fpb

Next on TPM... President Obama's Marijuana Problem

[Bang]

from that article..

"Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters."

nearly HALF of republicans polled?

THAT is ****ing CRAZY.

~Bang

[Predicto]

Next on TPM... President Obama's Marijuana Problem

TPM didn't do the survey. They were just the first link I found to talk about it. Do you prefer this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/poll-shows-2-percent-voters-think-armed-revolution-might-be-needed/

I still think that the results are disturbing. The Alex Jones/Glenn Beck irrational fear and paranoia has seeped deep into our national consciousness these days. It's not healthy for us as a nation.

[rictus58]

TPM didn't do the survey. They were just the first link I found to talk about it. Do you prefer this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/poll-shows-2-percent-voters-think-armed-revolution-might-be-needed/

I still think that the results are disturbing. The Alex Jones/Glenn Beck irrational fear and paranoia has seeped deep into our national consciousness these days. It's not healthy for us as a nation.

You should see some of the things my brother re-posts on FB from different "conservative" pages and blogs. Disturbing to say the least. Lost of fear, paranoia, irrational thought, and hypocrisy.

[twa]

I think there is paranoia about the paranoid.

I would agree to 'might' and I think it about as likely as Al Gore being President :pfft:

[AsburySkinsFan]

You should see some of the things my brother re-posts on FB from different "conservative" pages and blogs. Disturbing to say the least. Lost of fear, paranoia, irrational thought, and hypocrisy.

Exactly, I have a cousin who is a full blown Tea Party moron...he posts Rightwing crap all day long including a fair amount from TPNN.

[Fan since a Fetus]

You should see some of the things my brother re-posts on FB from different "conservative" pages and blogs. Disturbing to say the least. Lost of fear, paranoia, irrational thought, and hypocrisy.

I have family members like that. They are hard to talk to. I don't know if they post on FB, but I definitely get their emails and some of the things they believe are absolutely bat **** crazy. Sometimes I think to myself, 'there is no way they actually believe this.' Then, I talk to them. Sure enough, they believe it.

The crazy thing is, I can be talking about movies, sports, cars, and it seems like they always turn it into something political. It drives me insane! They also believe that an armed revolution is coming.

[NoCalMike]

I'd be interested to see how many Republicans still think an armed revolution might be necessary soon if a Republican wins the whitehouse in 2016, kind of like how a majority of the left decided to stop caring about Foreign policy when Obama took office.

I always found the notion of an armed rebellion in this day and age pretty absurd to begin with.

First of all, lets say it goes down, since our population is in millions, who would be deemed the leader? Who are the generals, colonels, majors, privates etc etc....who decides this? What is the code of conduct? Who is responsible for enforcing the conduct? How do you assure the rules are followed? What is the purpose of the rebellion? Are people shot and killed on sight if the disagree and want no part of this hypothetical rebellion?

It all just sounds like a nonsensical wet dream from a tiny group of folks who didn't study history very well.