Shenmue Dojo

silent killer wrote: Also, doesn't this pervert the very idea of a peaceful protest? It's certainly not to meet force with force. That just breeds more conflict.

Jeff wrote: I'm in! Will there be catering available?

Mr. Frozen wrote: Gun laws vary from state to state. Some gun laws are extremely strict while others are fairly weak. Why are there more strict in some states than others? I would say due to the amount of gun related crimes, and the overall political view of the state. This is a democracy, after all. The popular opinion is the one that should come out on top.

Thing is, there is a point where gun laws can get too strict. What if the government gets so corrupt that a militia does need to go against their government? I am sure when I said "this is a democracy" in my previous paragraph at least one person thought "Yea, right... maybe if our votes actually mattered." or something along those lines. We do vote for who we want to place in office, but it is no secret that this is not a perfect system. If the system gets out of whack enough, we will still need to have the ability to be able to rise against the government and protect ourselves from tyranny.

This demonstration is a direct representation to see if it is still possible for people to create such a militia. The law says we can, but giving the current popular opinion of the country, is it even possible? The intent of these people are not to overthrow the government (which is, no shit, illegal as hell). In washington DC, a civilian cannot even get a concealed handgun permit if they had good reason to, which I think is kinda bullshit.

Mr. Frozen wrote:Now lets say your scenario does play out where shots are fired and people start dying. What does this mean? First, it means that the people who took part in this march were not "peaceful protesters" and were in fact terrorists with a very elaborate plan. The only reason a government official will fire is if they feel that their or someone else's life is in danger, meaning a participant of this march points their loaded weapon at someone else. That is clear ill intent which means intelligence failed to get a proper background on the organizer of this event. Since this is a march on Washington DC, it is a potential threat to national security so you can bet US intelligence agencies are following this with a close eye. Depending on what they come up with will determine the government's reaction to this event. This is not anything out of left field like 9/11, the Oklahoma bombings, or any other terrorist attack (it is posted on facebook for God's sake) so I expect this event to be handled extremely well. However, if your scenario does play out for whatever reason, that will just prove the government's sheer incompetence in being able to protect their own people, which is a signal that it may be time for a significant change. Not an american revolution change, but still a change.

beedle wrote: I'm aware of why the right to bear arms exists. I get that. I don't necessarily agree with the outdated justification but, along with the reasoning for the protest, I get it. What I don't get is how this will help your position. If you threaten any government with armed revolt - and let's be honest, despite the claims of peaceful protest, it is still a threat - it will respond defensively, regardless of whether it is corrupt, fascist or democratic (see: my earlier point in regards to the October Revolution). This will not loosen gun laws in any way whatsoever, if anything it will do the opposite, giving politicians a reason to enforce them even further.

It is the sort of half-baked idea that one would expect from libertarians; completely idealistic, ill thought out and - at best - achieving absolutely nothing.

beedle wrote:

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it is a plan, or that the organisers are terrorists. What I am saying is that you have thousands of potentially angry and rowdy people with loaded guns. These people are not soldiers: they are not drilled, there is no discipline or command structure. This is simply a group of people. There is literally nothing to stop one person acting alone and firing shot at the security that would inevitably turn up. Maybe it would be out of malice, maybe out of nervousness. Either way, out of the number of protesters that are going, you cannot guarantee peoples' behaviour at all. Incidentally, this point once again makes me wonder how much thought was actually put into the protest at all.