Firewall, the subject of this discussion is whether or not the demonstration is a stupid idea. It is not a discussion about the 2nd amendment as a concept or about its relationship to DC law.
Let me get this straight: This thread is about the demonstration, but you don’t want to talk about what the demonstration is about?
Talk about stupid idea…do you believe that through ommitting context, purpose and facts you will uncover deeper insights?
Only if you’re interested in this thread.
lol @ the new guy
way to miss the point.
No. Re-read the entire thread.
No. We criticized Kokesh for intentionally going into an ally full of rapists in an attempt to show that he will no longer bend over backwards and take it. Pun intented.
I do not want to be a Citizen of the United States Government.
But he’s not walking into a back alley full of rapists, is he?
What would be stupid is not communicating with the DC police and attorneys and ensuring there is no miscommunication about what is going to happen.
That would certainly be foolish and would place people in danger. Isn’t that obvious? Kokesh disclosed from day one it was a ‘stunt’ - but a stunt to send a message.
Funny, last I read he had NOT communicated with the police. And they are NOT amused by this stunt.
+1 gotlucky 
Yes. He knows that it is illegal to carry guns in D.C. and he knows that he will be arrested for doing so. The D.C. police chief even said so.
(The alley is D.C.; the rapists are the cops.)
Ok.
Dude, re-watch the video that you posted.
How is Kokesh simply acting in disregard to the state? He wants to send a loud and clear message that he and his fellow marchers will no longer bend over backwards and take it. 
So, you’ll be in D.C. with Kokesh, right, brochief?
This all sounds like fantasy camp stuff to me.
If the cops come at Kokesh & Co. with tear gas and rubber bullets, then are they going to bend over and take it or are they going to fight back. And if they are going to fight back, then with what are they going to fight back; guns?
the rally is poor strategy because its tactically unsound, achieves no strategic gain, and is rhetorically incoherent.
this last point is why libertarians should not support it rhetorically. kokesh holds no deed to the city of washington. the government, being in undisputed occupational possession of the territory, holds a presumption of rightful ownership. kokesh and his army of ten thousand are threatening armed trespass. the only people who could coherently (to a libertarian) propose to march on washington with guns as a peaceful demonstration of their potency (because they can do so rightfully) would be residents of d.c.
but kokesh and his lot pay federal taxes! you protest. presuming they do pay federal taxes, they implicitly accept the legitimacy of the state. this means that they recognize the state, and duly note state directives. everyone knows that you settle disputes with the state on the states terms. you messwith the bull, you get the horns. if they have a claim to the right to bear weapons in d.c. by virtue of their status as united states taxpayers and citizens, they implicitly accept resolution of that dispute in either govt courts or force of arms as a peer. however, if they do not pay taxes, then they have no claim to a right to bear weapons on land they do not own (and do not have permission to engage in aforesaid activity).
its tactically unsound because youre basically saying “hey govt, come kill us and make an example of us” but this misses the larger point. tactics are only as good as staying alive (see above) and achieving your strategic goals. whats the strategic goal?
it would be much better if these ten thousand patriots would pledge to always be armed and to become economic free agents.
Firewall, seriously, you’re failing to consider the MOTIVATION and the MEANS as separate things. They are separate.
You’re suggesting that Kokesh’s proposed actions are moral because they are motivated by a desire for a thing some consider good.
That’s another way of saying “the end justifies the means”. Kokesh strikes me as someone who’s gagging for an armed revolution, and he’d be happy to be the one who set it off by divisive actions like these.
Re: the paragraph quoted by jmorris84 above, I think you mistake this for a community of Statists. I don’t recognize any innate obligations to the State and I don’t have any desire for the side benefits or protections of being a slave of such an entity. I comply with the law because morally, I’m only justified in reacting in KIND and DEGREE to the level of force used against me. This government threatens my freedom but not my life or my health, and an insurrection such as the one Kokesh is begging for would target a lot of people who haven’t actually harmed anyone personally. It’s unjustifiable.
What’s Kokesh going to do when the D.C. cops come to arrest him and take his gun? Is he going to resist arrest and maintain possesion of his gun; and if he does, then will it be by any means necessary, including shooting a few cops?
exactly. while the state is having a crisis of legitimacy, that doesnt mean you can just use any old argument. you need to use estoppel.
exactly. this plan is full throttle retard. if he does intend to shoot cops, then he is an idiot. if he intends to allow himself to get arrested, then he has no point. this plan is full of fail.
Has anyone thought that it simply means this much to him?
Politics is so much more interesting to read about and study when it is interesting.
Besides he said that he will turn around and leave if they head him off. No one is going to shoot anyone Malachi…
what interest would anyone have in marching on washington with guns except to shoot people? I mean really? people have an easement for carrying weapons with them on their own business.
Ben dingo verb ack wards.
Same could be said for everyday concealed carry.
Why carry a gun unless you are going to shoot someone? you must be joking.
People here are being drama queens. It won’t happen, sleep well.