Another Armed March on D.C. (Load Your Super Soakers)

With tensions among libertarians heightened after Adam Kokesh announced an armed march on D.C., another activist has begun to organize a march on D.C. Austin Petersen of Freedomworks has created an event titled the Armed Toy Gun March on Washington.

Taking a humorous approach to activism, the march will feature toy guns and squirt guns instead of loaded firearms and is set to take place July 3rd, one day before the other march. This is a great opportunity to show your outrage at stricter gun control legislation by using humor to quell an emotional response and strawmanning from the left wing media.

D.C. is known for its strict gun laws, and the police chief of the city has come out saying she will meet the armed march with loaded weapons with full force of the police. This could prove disastrous for a march whose intentions are peaceful despite the misinformed method. As I mentioned before, libertarians are divided on the issue of whether an armed march on D.C. is a way to secure gun rights, and many are concerned about the backlash it could cause the movement and the potential for violence against innocent people. By using humor, we can show that the liberty movement is a peaceful one, but also show the absurdity of gun control laws and public school overreactions over displays of innocuous gun shaped pastries and fingers.

This nonthreatening approach can soften the image of gun rights advocates, many of whom just want to be left alone to coexist peacefully with their neighbors and not start an insurrection. Perhaps the day may come when people have to rise up and take back their rights, but a full on armed march on D.C. may be jumping the gun.

UPDATE: There is another march planned for July 4th that will also not feature loaded firearms. Please support if you are so inclined:



Filed under Humorous/Political

16 responses to “Another Armed March on D.C. (Load Your Super Soakers)

  1. I read and think before I post

    You haven´t even done research about the July 4th armed march, have you? It has nothing to do with gun rights or DC´s strict gun laws. It has everything to do with warning a tyrannical government of the dangers of not limiting itself and let them know we will fight for our liberties at all cost.

    “This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event. We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.” –Adam Kokesh

    • Actually, funny you mention that. I would have to be a complete idiot to not have researched what I was writing about. Yes, I read the Kokesh quote on the original event page, yes I understand what this event is about, and yes I still vehemently disagree and think people supporting it are being myopic as to its unintended consequences.

      inb4 “you’re not a tr00 libertarian.”

      Maybe some of us don’t want to alienate the rest of the mainstream so that we can gain enough support to actually make a difference, and maybe I’m a real person who differs in methodology. Recognizing the effectiveness of humor and peace does not mean I am ignorant to the details surrounding the march, and all I am saying is think before you make a bad decision based on emotions that will put innocent people in danger. Don’t drag the rest of the nonviolent libertarians and anarchists down with you, and don’t be manipulated by Kokesh.

      • Tucci78

        “Maybe some of us don’t want to alienate the rest of the mainstream so that we can gain enough support to actually make a difference….”

        And maybe groveling to “the rest of the mainstream” is what got us in the present – and worsening – mess in the first place.

        You want to get the attention of a jackass?

        Nothing less than a two-by-four will reliably work.

        “Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen!” (loosely translates as “Kick ’em in the teeth, don’t piddle on ’em!”)

      • I’m glad you were born a tr00 libertarian and never had any coaxing from someone who cared about you. I don’t grovel to anyone, but I care about spreading the truth to the people I love through peace with patience and understanding of where I came from. Enjoy that lonely bubble, homie, but no movement exists in a vacuum nor can it affect real change without significant support which does not equate to grovelling.

      • Tucci78

        “I’m glad you were born a tr00 libertarian and never had any coaxing from someone who cared about you.”

        Aw, another touchie-feelie (sweaty, groping) caring nanny statist.

        Down your neighbor’s throat – and up her skirts, too, no doubt – in the name of communitarianism.

        Sheesh. Didn’t C.S. Lewis have you and your ilk thoroughly taped?

        Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

      • Cool ad hom, bro. Got any facts or reasonable arguments?

      • Tucci78

        “Cool ad hom, bro. Got any facts or reasonable arguments?

        Egad. Not only a squishy (“I care about spreading the truth to the people I love through peace with patience and understanding”) huggy-cuddly type, but yet another one of ’em who’s got not the least idea of what the term “argumentum ad hominem” actually means.

        You’ve no familiarity whatsoever with the concept of logical fallacy, have you? You just think that “ad hom” is a fancy way of saying “insult,” don’tcha?

        Working diagnosis of your pathology on the basis of signs and symptoms presenting (and from your writhing, getting the assessment of the disease down pretty solidly) isn’t the substitution of insult for address of what we’ll call – for the sake of charity if nothing else – your argument, but rather an enhancement of value in public discourse.

        You’re not only wrong, but you’re odious in the bargain. It’s not your hatefulness that makes you wrong, even though your obstinate refusal to acknowledge your intellectual (and perhaps moral) bankruptcy makes you a “useful idiot” for the purposes of those who are overt enemies of individual human rights, and therefore worthy of scorn.

        Kokesh’s explicit statement of purpose in bringing this armed march forward in defense of the unalienable individual civil (and constitutional) right to keep and bear the tools of deadly force in a public protest of this nature is critical to the understanding of the real relationship between the private person and the officers of government in our republic.

        Government is (and must necessarily be) goons with guns. The great question of the Enlightenment (17th and 18th Century western) philosophers was how to keep such an agency – with a functional monopoly on the management of retaliatory lethal force – from degrading and destroying the societies they’re supposed to serve.

        The American founders weren’t working in a vacuum during the 1780s. You may be blankly ignorant of this, but their precedents were drawn from the turmoil and bloodshed in Europe generally and in the British Isles particularly throughout the 17th Century (especially during the English Civil Wars) and the first eight decades of the 18th Century.

        Turmoil, bloodshed, and the exchanges of reasoned thought on the subject from both the authoritarian perspective and what we today call the libertarian position.

        But above all else, their focus was on government as an engine of deadly force, a machine for murder that had to be harnessed for the sake of social comity and good civil order.

        How to accomplish this?

        Well, H.L. Mencken put it most parsimoniously:

        The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.

        You getting that yet?

        Be as oodgie-woodgie as you like, but as men like Adam Kokesh undertake to raise public consciousness of the necessity to keep our arrogant governing class reminded that they, too, are mortal, don’t expect to be received with anything but due contempt for your efforts to undermine such diligence.

      • I would be rather silly using words I don’t know the meaning to now wouldn’t I? You have refused to give me any logical reasons why this march is a good idea, and instead have eloquently insulted my reasoned position with personal attacks on my morality and name calling. That is the definition of an ad hominem attack; saying my position is flawed and insulting me for simply disagreeing while not providing any evidence. So original calling me a statist, never heard that one before.

        You know, we probably have more in common than actual statists, but you are bent on being divisive for no reason. Calling me hateful for disagreeing reeks of the brainpolice, and it is kind of hard to be hateful when I haven’t called you any names. I never said I want to force people to not participate in the march, just that it is a bad idea because of all the things that could go wrong. I don’t hate you; I want you to live so we can collaborate on changing things for the better. You are much more useful alive than dead, especially if you die in an event that will not advance liberties.

        Calling me morally and intellectually bankrupt is hilarious considering you don’t even know me or what kind of activism I do. You’d be surprised by the information I have on Kokesh, and hate to burst your bubble, but he’s no saint or hero. He would rather his supporters die for nothing so he can get a book deal or be a “martyr,” and it’s funny you call me a useful idiot when he wants to sacrifice you to the state. He is doing this for publicity and is known as a blackmailer among other activists.

        I am not undermining anything, and do not follow any personalities in this movement. Kokesh and others want us to pick sides and splinter what could be some very effective cooperation. I suggest you read my other entries to get a better feel for my character because you are woefully inaccurate and dishonest in your assessment.

      • Tucci78

        You remind me of a point made by one of my professors half a century ago, on the subject of critical review. He said that what you have of any writer has to be what he’d put before you in the work you’re examining. Not his biography, not his other output, but what’s under your eye from him.

        So what I’ve got of you – emphasis on what you’re presenting right now – is what’s on this Web page.

        Y’see, whatever kind of “activism [you] do” isn’t relevant to what you’ve published right here in the context of the argument you’ve tried to articulate. Nor is “the information [you claim to] have on Kokesh” if you’re not prepared to explicitly present it for appreciation as to its validity and its relevance to the march he’s advocating.

        Come to think of it, your snerk regarding what you claim to know about Adam Kokesh (with the implication that it’s unsavory, and that he’s “known as a blackmailer among other activists”) actually is argumentum ad hominem, an “attack on the man” as opposed to a reasoned attack on his proposition.

        So are you “silly” or just stupid? Both?

        I’m not delivering an uncomplimentary assessment of your character (“insulting” you) for “disagreeing” with me, or with Mr. Kokesh, or with your first commenter on this thread, but because your position on this confrontational planned act of civil disobedience is that of the proverbial “useful idiot,” the counsel of moderation and compromise which has had such a wonderfully well-established track record of getting live frogs thoroughly boiled.

        You yelp: “Kokesh and others want us to pick sides and splinter what could be some very effective cooperation.”

        Ah, “cooperation.” Is that water getting uncomfortably warm for you yet?

        Well, how the hell would you know?

        Gad. I know little enough about Adam Kokesh, but the more I hear from folks of your quality and character about the man, the better I’m liking him.

        To quote Robert A. Heinlein:

        “Take sides! Always take sides! You will sometimes be wrong — but the man who refuses to take sides must always be wrong.”

      • Okay, facts: Kokesh recently blackmailed my friend after secretly videotaping him at a conference, and a few years ago tried to pick up another friend up when she was underage (these are just two examples, btw). Creepiness is whatever, but blackmailing hard working decent people is purposefully divisive and self serving. Factual evidence of his previous actions is not ad hominem if his present actions reflect the same behavior. Plus, I have already presented several reasoned arguments why his idea is a poorly though out one. You would know that if you read the blog post prior to this one, but character assassinating me seems funner for you than having to face logic and reason.

        Yes, I am soooo stupid for having a differing opinion. Are you tired of that insult yet? Let me suggest the No True Scotsman fallacy for you to use next since I cannot possibly be a real anarchist and oppose this event.

        Yeah, *gasp* I want to work together with other (alive) activists and foment a cooperative effort to form a stateless society. If you could show me one place where I recommend compromising with the state, please do. I’ll wait. Quit taking words out of context, I jumped out of the water when it was lukewarm a long time ago.

        I am familiar with Heinlein, and have already taken a side: the reasonable skeptic. My life and actions reflect a philosophy of anarchism, and I don’t need to make it easier for the state to kill me to prove that.

      • Tucci78

        “Plus, I have already presented several reasoned arguments why his idea is a poorly though out one.”

        If you’re referencing your linked article “Thoughts on the Armed March” (6 May), I’ve read it. They’re in no substantive way different from the other unsupported contentions that such a public assertion of civil rights in the face of a clearly unlawful civil administration in the District of Columbia is necessarily counterproductive. There’s the recapitulation of the “agent provocateur” caveat, the observation that the government thugs are better armed (“These dudes have access to fully automatic guns, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers”), the assertion that “It is irresponsible,” but in no way does the expression of your qualms – there or here – offer the reader even the roughest risk/benefit presentation to convince.

        This might happen. The government thugs could use that as an excuse. The Gucci Gulch types may soil their knickers at the sight of Red State civilians quietly demonstrating that the source of sovereign political power in a representative republic really is – surprise! – the private citizen.

        Were the actions undertaken to destroy East India Company tea cargoes (exemplified by the Boston Tea Party of 16 December 1773 and the Greenwich tea burning of 22 December 1774 to prevent a similar cargo from being put ashore in Philadelphia) “terrorism” as our current crop of progressives are trying to portray them, or were they acts of civil disobedience carried out deliberately, even solemnly, to condemn the illegitimacy of the Tea Act?

        I keep remembering quoted comments, damnit. This one from P.J. O’Rourke, back in the days of Waco Willie and the great F.B.I. Munchkin Roast:

        And the Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corps volunteers?

        The necessity for overt, prominent, peaceable but implacable civil disobedience is ever more persuasively arguable. If nothing else, the left-“Liberal” enemies of individual human rights have legitimatized such overt demonstrations in the ordure-spattered impositions of the “Occupy” distraction, their politicians not uncommonly endorsing such manufactured noise as a counterweight against the Tea Party opposition their own transgressions – emphasis on Obamacare in 2010 – had engendered.

        You need not “recommend compromising with the state” when you’re content to endorse no action but a designedly comedic parody of this exercise in the form of an “Armed Toy Gun March on Washington.”

        And you’re doing this without an EEG-detectable spark of brain wave activity on your part as to how both the permanent incumbency and their rah-rah lackwits in the legacy media will use it to dismiss the RTKBA movement as devoid of determination and political validity.

        Were that not enough reason to condemn your presentation in this forum, you’re continuing to blather argumentum ad hominem in your reliance upon the personality-based demonization of Adam Kokesh to attack the proposition of this armed – genuinely armed – march on the District of Columbia.

        Even were your allegations of “blackmailing” and jailbait-jumping to be received as reliable (and the thought of a professed anarchist condemning Kokesh as “a guy famous for smoking poor quality DMT on camera” would be risible if it weren’t so frickin’ lame), what has that to do with the validity of the concept he’s advocating?

        Have you considered what might result from the successful completion of the armed march outlined by Kokesh and his supporters?

        The immediate result of the 1773 Boston Tea Party were the passage in Parliament of the Coercive Acts – known here as the “Intolerable Acts” – chiefly against Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1774.

        But that didn’t stop colonial defiance (indeed, the Greenwich tea burning in New Jersey was undertaken, as noted, by a party of Delaware Valley patriots in December 1774).

        And on 19 April 1775, Lt. Col. Francis Smith and a converged battalion of British regulars – sent from Boston on a “gun control” mission to confiscate the Massachusetts militia’s military stores – were almost cut off and massacred on the road back from Concord, beginning the American colonies’ war of secession from the British Empire.

        Make no mistake: I wish a peaceable resolution to the problem posed by government violating the rule of law. I see the reasoning behind anarchism, and endorse its validity. Most of our lives are lived in a condition of anarchy, where we order our affairs without the influence of government, and there are both efficiencies and felicities in this, the whole of which leads to the old minarchist observation that we’re best off with a government no bigger than can be readily dragged off and drowned in the bathtub when necessary.

        En route to this desired outcome, we live in the presence of Mencken’s bureaucrat (and that bureaucrat’s steroid-amped friends with the ninja suits, jackboots, ski masks, and automatic weapons).

        Let’s get the muzzle of that pistol to the back of his head, and keep him conscious of it.

        And if we need to fire that pistol, we’d frelkin’ better well have it in hand, hadn’t we?

        Hrm. I have to keep wondering whether even an avowed anarchist like you can claim any real education in history and moral philosophy, alleged familiarity with Heinlein notwithstanding.

      • tl;dr

        The risks outweigh the benefits, I believe. But hey, that’s “just like, my opinion, man.” And it happens to be different than yours. That doesn’t make me evil or insincere, just different. You keep hurling the same insults because of my difference in opinion. We’ll see what comes of the march in the long run. Go ahead and keep name calling, I’ll keep freedom fighting.


      • Tucci78

        “tl;dr” (translation: you’ve got nothing, and you can’t evade the fact) […] “I’ll keep freedom fighting” by pushing for an effectively pointless joke that can be ridiculed or completely ignored instead of substantive civil disobedience which cannot.

        So we’ve certainly got “a difference in opinion” here.

        If we can say that Claire Wolfe’s observation still holds (“America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards”), the likelihood that the bastards will eventually have to be shot means that the citizenry must maintain the means with which to do it.

        First priority is keeping the bastards from disarming their victims. Second to this is reminding the bastards that their victims will shoot them, when and if, thus deterring malfeasance in public office.

        The former is essential, the latter desirable, and public statement of the private citizenry’s determination to maintain their rights in this regard accrues to the attainment of both.

        Doing it with Super Soakers rather than loaded longarms is not only worthless but ridiculous.

        Anent “insults,” what you post has to be received and assessed for its content, and the quality of your character can only be inferred thereby. Thus far, you’ve made no case for any judgement thereof divergent from what I’ve already articulated.

      • You have fun shooting at the thugs on a major national holiday after a terrorist attack in Boston. Let me know how that works out for you.

        One thing you have convinced me of is that the lack of humor will probably kill the movement before the government. And I agree with Claire’s assessment; I’d just rather use bitcoin/silver/humorous (nonthreatening) civil disobedience and other means of resisting than giving making it easy for them to take me out.

        You do your thing, and I’ll do mine. It really is that simple.

  2. Pingback: Another Armed March on D.C. (Load Your Super Soakers) | Libertarian Party of Tennessee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s