Gun Protesters Plan March on Washington With Loaded Rifles to 'Put The Government on Notice'

[mickeym]

Almost 900 people are RSVPed for a July 4th march on Washington, D.C. where protesters plan to carry loaded rifles. In D.C., openly carrying guns is against the law. But the organizer of the event, libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh, says the march is an act of “civil disobedience” that attempts to prove gun advocates’ point in the “SUBTLEST way

Comments

[schexyschteve]

I'm sure the government, THE ONES WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THE ARMY WITH THEIR GIANT GUNS AND TANKS AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE, are cowering in their boots at the thought of some loons with rifles.

But for real, y'all are delusional and need to gtfo of this country. This isn't the Wild West, and the faster you can realize that the better off we'll all be.

[mickeym]

Plus, seriously, D.C.? Where the President lives? Not really a good place to hold a pro-gun whatever, with LOADED FIREARMS.

[alexvdl]

Yeah, much like the ARMY WITH THEIR GIANT GUNS AND TANKS AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE, are completely in control of the situation in Afghanistan.

The fact is, if it ever came down to a fight between the loons with rifles in America and the US government, no one would goddamn win.

[underlankers]

That's not necessarily the army so much as that the Taliban, if this version is anything like the 1990s version, has an infinite supply of Pakistani cannon fodder. A domestic insurgency in the USA would be crushed rapidly and brutally.

[alexvdl]

That's a pretty simplistic view of the makeup of the fighters in Afghanistan. Sure, there are Pakistanis that cross the border and take place in the fighting, but they don't make up the majority of the rank and file INS you see currently fighting in Afghanistan. You have to keep in mind that a large part of the economy of Afghanistan is centered around opium, which means that in addition to ideological warfare, you're also seeing a lot of narcoterrorism. Since the US tends to leave the whole drug thing alone unless they are in combined ANSF/CF operations spearheaded by GIRoA, you tend to see those groups focus on GIRoA and ANSF officials

[underlankers]

They did make up a huge portion of the 1990s Taliban, so why wouldn't they make up the 21st Century version? Besides, Afghanistan was both broken and in the middle of a civil war when the USA got involved there. We saw what happened 150 years ago when enough disgruntled ideologues got together to form a mockery of a government and an army, navy, and marine corps. The revolt failed and half the country was burned to the ground and quite a few cities were reduced to rubble.

[alexvdl]

You really think that this country would survive another Civil war?

[gloraelin]

Yeah, seriously, because even though the South lost... a whole bunch of cities and civilians on either side of the war lines were devastated. Now, with the weaponry available, and the denseness of urban metro areas... fuck, man, the destruction would be horrifying.

So many people would die. And, like you said... I don't think the government or the "country" would survive. It would likely wind up being several different groups of former states. Not ~The United States of America~.

[underlankers]

Which cities on the northern side of the Mason/Dixon line, and which civilians? Modern firepower is sufficient to break open a rebellion in short order. The USA is not Afghanistan, and North America is not central Asia.

[keeni84]

a whole bunch of cities and civilians on either side of the war lines were devastated.

???

[underlankers]

Uh, yeah. I mean we might not like how it survives, but its surviavl is not in question.

[alexvdl]

The United States of America as a pancontinental democratic organization would cease to exist. It doesn't matter how much "modern firepower" the US Military has. Using the US military against US citizens who have broken no laws would quickly turn this country into a far more dangerous place than Afghanistan. There are far more guns in this country than that one. Our populace is much more advanced in the use of technology, and has a lot more access to the kind of materials needed to fight a guerrilla war. Even if every service member currently extant decided to keep their position and serve at the will of a US government that acted in that way, the military doesn't have the manpower to do much besides hold the bases they've got.

In short, you'd be fighting a smarter, better armed populace that has direct access to, and in some cases IS, your supply chain.

[underlankers]

Bullshit. The United States as a pancontinental state is guaranteed to survive. The rebels now wouldn't like the consequences of losing a war any more than their precursors did, but they'd still lose. Afghanistan has 30 years of experience in warfare to fall back on, 10 of it against the other, far more brutal superpower that was once. North America has a tremendous amount of flat land which is unsuited to guerrilla operations and a culture that relies too much on straightforward confrontation to be good at guerrilla warfare. The modern rebels won't go for it even if they have the potential, they'll try some kind of regular confrontation with real soldiers and be blown up by firepower.

The army has plenty of manpower for what they'd be doing.

[alexvdl]

No. They don't. The armed services make up ONE percent of the US population. That's IF they remain military, which is highly unlikely. America is a helluva lot bigger than Afghanistan, a country smaller than Texas. As for your Psychological profile

[underlankers]

They don't need to make up a great percentage of it. Seriously, a major rebellion against a country with modern firepower was tried, repeatedly, in the Soviet Union. Stalin and company simply went in and massacred, shot, and hung their way through the population when they were a clear instance of minority, terrorist rule. And the modern USA has far more at its disposal than the Bolshies ever did.

Really? You call a bunch of....big-boned...people playing Call of Duty schooling in guerrilla war? Americans don't understand a damn thing about this. Case in point: all the idiots who make comments about revolution openly on the Internet. Smart insurgents do not leave obvious trails for people to find. This in fact is a fairly basic thing about how to do it right, and almost none of the wannabe Wolverines bother with that

[alexvdl]

This isn't 1940s Russia where the Government controls the media and the flow of information through the populace. The American military isn't the the Soviet military. There are completely different ideological stances. There are no commissars in the US military, prepared to shoot you if you don't toe the government line. Comparing modern America to Soviet Russia is freaking laughable. Were the US military willing to perpetuate Stalinist massacres, people would hear about it, far and wide, real quick. And again, the US military, for all of their vaunted toys, is less than one percent of the population. You can take down an MRAP with supplies that you buy at Walmart. For all of the shiny weapons that the US army has got, there are tons of ways around them, and those ways are sold online and in stores