March on Washington 07-04-2013

[BB62]

You mean like:

Right now, despite any stated position, it sure looks to me like OCDO is de facto supporting this march.

I vehemently disagree, and am puzzled as to how you repeatedly have come to this conclusion. John has stated OCDO's position quite clearly. Allowing reasoned discussion, even to the point of some saying they support such a thing, is not the same as endorsement by OCDO.

As far as "this will come back to haunt us", is there some level of discussion that the press would "allow" any gun-centric civil rights group (like OCDO) to come off looking good? I think not. The press has already chosen their direction, and whether OCDO "plays nice" or not, the media will do all they can to tarnish us and those who think like we do - source be damned.

 

[eye95]

He can state a position all he wants. When he allows blatant support for this march to stand, despite the violation of forum rules, that demonstrates a tacit support for the march on the part of OCDO.

Even if, on a personal level, the owners oppose the march, the official behavior of the site will leave outsiders with the impression that OCDO is part of the underlying support of the march.

This will be a PR nightmare if the march erupts into a violent exchange--unless OCDO can officially, and by its behavior, eschew this march.

Step one would be to enforce the site's rules against LGOC discussions and support for lawbreaking, both of which this thread violates routinely.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

 

[BB62]

He can state a position all he wants. When he allows blatant support for this march to stand, despite the violation of forum rules, demonstrates a tacit support for the march on the part of OCDO.

Even if, on a personal level, the owners oppose the march, the official behavior of the site will leave outsiders with the impression that OCDO is part of the underlying support of the march.

This will be a PR nightmare if the march erupts into a violent exchange--unless OCDO can officially, and by its behavior eschew this march.

Step one would be to enforce the site's rules against LGOC discussions and support for lawbreaking.

You can state and re-state your objections and your fears over and over, and I and others can respond over and over, but there is really no point to it.

Bottom line, we simply disagree, and the horse is still dead.

Good night!

 

[eye95]

Not objections and fears, facts:

Fact: There have been several posts in this thread flat-out stating support for this illegal activity.

Fact: This thread is about LGOC.

Fact: Both are violations of OCDO rules.

Fact: Despite the rules violations, the owners allow the thread to stand.

Fact: It is their right so to do.

Fact: That will be interpreted by many as supporting the march.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Freedom First]

Please reread what I wrote. I am not saying anything critical of militias. I consider myself a member of the militia who will defend the American People and the Constitution should that become necessary. I am pointing out how this march will be perceived by the media and the People at large. It will not help our cause. It will paint OCDO and us as part of a lunatic fringe.

I was being a tad sarcastic Eye. We're all in the militia from a legal sense from 18 to 45. Title 10 USC. Not worried and I understand the premise that the MSM WILL use anything they can to keep their boot on the neck of Americans. I simply choose to live my life as if they don't exist. I could worry all day and night about what they will say about this or that and nothing will change. If I stop worrying and start moving, then things begin to change. Just a thought.

Also, you have a major logic flaw in your post called "false choice." You imply that not supporting THIS march is consenting to the loss of freedom. I contend that one can work for Liberty, not consenting to any loss of the RKBA, and to maintain a strong, principled stand against this Stupidity on a Bridge!

Sir, I am rife with flaws. Part of being human I suppose. The bridge is secondary from my point of view. Either they will or they won't. Can you stop them? Can I? Nope. So, voice your opinion and "move on"...

I implied nothing about the march then you said this:

This march is going to help the antis and the progressives rob us of even more freedom.

I had said this:

The only way we lose more freedom is if we consent to that loss. As in submitting to more illegal laws and unconstitutional dictates from above...

All I'm saying is that these and any other laws rely on our consent. If we refuse and they fail to enforce for whatever reason, then is there a law? It's not a "false choice", it's a hard one with potentially dangerous consequences. It's also one our forefathers made. Take April 19, 1775 as an example. Painful but the correct action at the time. Is Kokesh doing the right thing in this? Dunno but I will be ready for the outcome, either way.

 

[eye95]

Voice my opinion and move on? No.

I see the owners of this site making a dangerous mistake that is in contravention of their own rules. I hope to change their minds. So every time someone challenges the opinion I have voiced, I will explain it a bit more. So, no, I won't move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sharkey]

Time for an update

Going 2978
Maybe 2632
Invitations 56,739

 

[ron73440]

If these folks weren't moved to pull this kind of stunt during the previous administrations "reign", I fail to see what Pres. Obama has done to provoke this response now (other than that tyranical ACA and being guilty of "presiding while black)). NDAA was the brainchild of the previous administration. Pres. Obama didn't resist reinstating it because this Congress, historically, will resist anything the Pres. suggests, even if it is for the good of the country. If Pres. Obama was a dictator, we wouldn't be allowed to have any voice in the govt. As it is, what have we actually lost under him? Do you still have your guns? Can you still vote?

Again with this crap?

Post proof that this is what is driving all this or please stop making stuff up.

 

[Gil223]

Another thought...

Wouldn't an activity of this kind be a terrorists wet dream? Since he (or she) would be on a suicide mission anyway, placing him/herself in the middle of the mob, and expending just one round would most likely result in the deaths of many innocent people. The more I think about this march, the more I find the potential for numerous negative outcomes outweighing the potential for a single positive outcome. (In a perfect world this would be a fine idea, but... in a perfect world this sort of demonstration would be completely unnecessary since everyone would recognize our rights) Pax...

 

[Grapeshot]

When John allows discussion of this march, in a clearly limiting statement, that demonstrates acknowledgement that the event is seen as a thing that has potential to impact (individually & collectively) the members here - that is what is being discussed. One may discuss mainland China or N. Korea's anti-freedom stance w/o being guilty of endorsement. A pastor may "allow" discussion of sin w/o being guilty of "endorsement". OCDO is a mirror into the minds of others - a reflection of what they think.....pro & con.

"The official behavior of the site"? The site has no "behavior" - the site is an inanimate thing. Just like my 1911, it has no behavior. The site is both a vehicle and a place for people to express/discuss/report facts and opinions relative to OC and RKBA. OCDO cannot prevent false assertions/conclusions by those choosing to be critical of us.

This will be a nightmare if the march erupts into a violent exchange--whether or not OCDO even exists.

Step one in the development of OCDO ended with the desire to moderate with a light hand. The rules have evolved, yet in general the moderation remains light. I think that is good. ymmv

 

[eye95]

When John allows discussion of this march, in a clearly limiting statement, that demonstrates acknowledgement that the event is seen as a thing that has potential to impact (individually & collectively) the members here - that is what is being discussed. One may discuss mainland China or N. Korea's anti-freedom stance w/o being guilty of endorsement. A pastor may "allow" discussion of sin w/o being guilty of "endorsement". OCDO is a mirror into the minds of others - a reflection of what they think.....pro & con.

"The official behavior of the site"? The site has no "behavior" - the site is an inanimate thing. Just like my 1911, it has no behavior. The site is both a vehicle and a place for people to express/discuss/report facts and opinions relative to OC and RKBA. OCDO cannot prevent false assertions/conclusions by those choosing to be critical of us.

This will be a nightmare if the march erupts into a violent exchange--whether or not OCDO even exists.

Step one in the development of OCDO ended with the desire to moderate with a light hand. The rules have evolved, yet in general the moderation remains light. I think that is good. ymmv

Again, deny it or ignore it if you will, but there IS endorsement of the illegal (not just sinful) activity going on in this thread. Not discussion of sin, but endorsement of a multitude of criminal acts.

My point is not that there will be a general nightmare when (not if) violence erupts. My point is that (very specifically) OCDO will be named and blamed as a coconspirator in what will be portrayed as an attack on the American People and their government because you have allowed this discussion that contains endorsements of the march!.

Again, you are in fact allowing the violation of your own stated rules here, two of them: This thread contains advocacy of lawbreaking and it is a discussion of LGOC. Like I said, this is your choice. However, you seem to be in a state of denial of this reality.

When this is over, there may be many mistaken impressions of where OCDO stands on the matter, due to the disconnect between stated policy and de facto policy. There will be no such disconnect regarding where I stand in the matter. I hope I can change the former. Not holding my breath though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Grapeshot]

Again, deny it or ignore it if you will, ........... --snipped--

Thank you, sir, for our opinion/statement. I agree to disagree on this.

 

[eye95]

Again, not just opinion:

FACT: There is endorsement of this illegal event in this thread.

FACT: This thread discusses LGOC.

FACT: Both of those are against the stated rules.

FACT: Despite the rules, the discussion is being allowed to continue.

My conclusions about the result of this contradiction may be opinion, but the above are facts--facts about which the management here seems to be in denial.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Grapeshot]

Eye, with all due respect, you are attempting to impose your will/interpertation by the weight/volume of your words. Such cannot be allowed - it effectively hyjacks the thread. Please do us both a courtesy and cease.

 

[KYKevin]

Eye, with all due respect, you are attempting to impose your will/interpertation by the weight/volume of your words. Such cannot be allowed - it effectively hyjacks the thread. Please do us both a courtesy and cease.

+1

 

[eye95]

Eye, with all due respect, you are attempting to impose your will/interpertation by the weight/volume of your words. Such cannot be allowed - it effectively hyjacks the thread. Please do us both a courtesy and cease.

No, I am not. In fact, I have clearly stated that you are well within your rights as an agent of the owners to allow this thread to stand, even though it is clearly a violation of two of the stated rules of this site. You may not like my pointing out this fact. Hell, you will likely take official action to shut me up (again, your right), but it does not change these facts.

I see three courses of action: Most logical would be to enforce the rules and lock the thread. Next would be to realize that the facts I posted are correct, but that you are willing to accept that state of affairs and move on. Third would be to continue to argue with me despite my having posted inarguable facts.

Oh, and fourth, and what I expect, you can use your powers to silence me. That I expect. But, again, your right. However, the irony is that, if you take that particular course, you will be validating what I am saying. So, I'll live.

Not moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[GhostOfJefferson]

https://m.facebook.com/events/25272...if_t=plan_user_invited&__user=100003075314056



I have apprehensions about all this. I can see the group getting tagged "domestic terrorists" and swift, aggreessive measures taken to protect the 'merican way.

I'm going to weigh in simply on the intellectual merits of this as an action, not necessarily what the action is per say.

1. What are the desired outcomes? The best that can happen is that nobody gets hurt or arrested (iow, we don't see mass arrests or the start of Civil War Deux). It goes downhill very quickly from that point though. So the very best is hoping you make it home alive and not in a paddy wagon.

2. Do the goals justify the risks of the outcomes? Well, see, that is the big question isn't it? What are the goals of this? From the 10,000 foot level, we're winning the war on this. The liberal controlled Senate caved on every single measure they put forward. Any bans/legislation is DOA in the House. We're winning. A mass demonstration, armed, then serves what purpose? What are we asking them to do, that they have not done already (e.g. - reject gun control bills)? Simply put, there is no actual goal here outside of "look at us!". What are they going to be chanting and demanding, assuming they're not either mowed down or mass arrested, thus losing their right to own a firearm for the rest of their lives?

As Sun Tzu said: "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

Ideally any kind of mass demonstration of this nature would be better reserved for when we actually see the tide turning against us. When we're winning, it does nothing but feed propaganda to the opposing side and risks knee jerk "emergency" legislation that WILL be voted on in the affirmative by politicians who are right now on our side of the issue.

As an analog, this is like a labor union going on a full strike after winning all of their contract demands from their employer. It makes no sense at any level.

 

[georg jetson]

Eye, with all due respect, you are attempting to impose your will/interpertation by the weight/volume of your words. Such cannot be allowed - it effectively hyjacks the thread. Please do us both a courtesy and cease.

+2

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I wonder how many here came to harm through civil disobedience action during the VietNam protests era? i suspect some have direct experience and that many are talking through their hats. I am a veteran of both, civil action, and military and civil service.

Like the Kent State Massacre?

 

[eye95]

Worse, at Kent State, none of the students were approaching anything (let alone the nation's capitol) with 10,000+ armed people in direct violation of the law!

Now, if Kent State can erupt into gunfire, what do you think the chance of shots being fired at this rally are? I put it at near 100%.

Stupid. And illegal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>