Gun Protesters Plan March On Washington With Loaded Rifles To...

Whats the point? Where is all this fear of guns being taken away coming from? Bane_09

Various "assault weapon" bans throughout the country?

It's my personal view that Americans do not have a right to bear arms. If they did, any American would be able to carry any weapon, regardless of mental wellness and/or criminal history. People who couldn't afford weapons, would be able to requisition surplus firearms and ammunition from the government, much like state-run food banks.

But stuff like that doesn't happen, because a right to bear arms in an asinine concept. Firearms work like vehicles, in America. You need the appropriate money and licensing in order to operate them. If you do not use it responsibly, and people get hurt, that licence can be stripped from you. Americas views on firearm ownership is very lenient, but far from the "inalienable right" that so many claim.

Say,do these people really think that guns can protect their liberty in case the government goes batsh!t crazy?

Because I don't think a horde comprising of this

can survive a battle against a small team comprising of this:

call_of_duty_10

This is stupid and makes responsible owners look bad. I understand their point but its unsafe. I'm very disappointed.

You can protest without carrying loaded rifles and most likely you'll be more effective.

Tezcatlipoca666

It's my personal view that Americans do not have a right to bear arms. If they did, any American would be able to carry any weapon, regardless of mental wellness and/or criminal history. People who couldn't afford weapons, would be able to requisition surplus firearms and ammunition from the government, much like state-run food banks.

But stuff like that doesn't happen, because a right to bear arms in an asinine concept. Firearms work like vehicles, in America. You need the appropriate money and licensing in order to operate them. If you do not use it responsibly, and people get hurt, that licence can be stripped from you. Americas views on firearm ownership is very lenient, but far from the "inalienable right" that so many claim.

Jimn_tonic

The right to bear arms is not a positive right, it's a negative right. The right to own them if one has the means and one chooses to without anyone having the power to take them away for an invalid reason. The only legitimate reason to strip someone of their right to bear arms is when that person has committed a violent offense or if they lack the mental faculties (in which case they probably wouldn't be allowed to drive either).

Furthermore, is there any evidence that crime has actually decreased in Australia and that this can be related to firearm legislation? Mass shootings only account for a miniscule percentage of all firearm related crimes anywhere you look. Hardly a good barometer to judge the effectiveness of so called "gun control".

Tezcatlipoca666

Thats sounds like a great idea until they step out of their cars to start the protest and encounter something like this:

followed by arrest and lengthy prison terms.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

and all they had to do was deal with a 40% increase in assaults and a 20% increase in sexual violence.

australia is a terrible example.

"The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation. Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased. Victimisation survey data also do not illuminate the most significant recorded increase in violent victimisation, against children, as they are collected less frequently and only apply to those aged at least over 15 years. The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation to examine how many recorded violent crimes against children relate to current and/or past events and of the relationship to the offender.

Judy Putt 
General Manager, Research"

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html

and this is a govenment site that is spinning it as hard as they possibly can and still can't get away from the 20% and 40% statistics.

assault and rape are at all time lows all over the world except where?

Riverwolf007

lets look at america over the last couple of decades.

The number of rapes per capita in the United States has plunged by more than 85 percent since the 1970s, and reported rape fell last year even while other violent offenses increased, according to federal crime data.

This seemingly stunning reduction in sexual violence has been so consistent over the past two decades that some experts say they have started to believe it is accurate, even if they cannot fully explain why it is occurring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

do you really think it is possible that american women have stopped reporting rapes.

what is going on in oz?

at a time when rape all around the world is going down you have a huge increase.

i'm not going to say you are not right and it is totally not casual causation but you need to include all the information here.

also i am trying to go out of my way to include legit sources and not some right wing nutbags blogs.

like this one from the washington post who is reporting here on a study showing the gun buyback had little  real effect on homicide.

Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

so some slight evidence of reduced homicides with weak evidence?

i mean come on that's all we have to go off of?

So, this might be a bad idea...

I'm not a fan of civil disobedience, even if I agree with the cause. The law says loaded weapons can't be carried openly in Washington DC. This is a TERRIBLE idea.

airshocker

Since you are a cop and obviously are going to be knowlegable of the law, what kind of sentence could these people be looking at if they go through with this? I am curious because I feel like they will just get arrested very quickly if they attempt this...

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]Whats the point? Where is all this fear of guns being taken away coming from? airshocker

Various "assault weapon" bans throughout the country?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Only you're just pulling causation out of your ass. Assault weapons banned = rise in sexual assault? If only females carried AR-15s to bars and clubs that wouldn't happen as much, right? Jesus. :/ And it's even more lol-worthy when your own link says the rise is significantly attributed to children under 15. Your own research concludes that the rise is due to greater awareness and an increase in reporting to the police, not an increase in actual occurrence of crime. You can't cite a study and then substitute your own conclusion which it doesn't make even slightly. Ninja-Hippo

lets look at america over the last couple of decades.

The number of rapes per capita in the United States has plunged by more than 85 percent since the 1970s, and reported rape fell last year even while other violent offenses increased, according to federal crime data.

This seemingly stunning reduction in sexual violence has been so consistent over the past two decades that some experts say they have started to believe it is accurate, even if they cannot fully explain why it is occurring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

do you really think it is possible that american women have stopped reporting rapes.

what is going on in oz?

at a time when rape all around the world is going down you have a huge increase.

i'm not going to say you are not right and it is totally not casual causation but you need to include all the information here.

also i am trying to go out of my way to include legit sources and not some right wing nutbags blogs.

like this one from the washington post who is reporting here on a study showing the gun buyback had little  real effect on homicide.

Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted. It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

so some slight evidence of reduced homicides with weak evidence?

i mean come on that's all we have to go off of?

i really don't have a dog in this fight.

i don't own a rifle or care about that stuff very much so maybe that is why i can see that all the stats and the arguments from both sides are just nonsense.

even my own because what do any of them really show in the long run? nothing really.

my bullshyt is those numbers that show rape and assault increasing, your bullshyt is showing the huge victory of a .02% reduction in australian homicides.

my side,  your side,  everybodys side, is not much more than people seeing whatever it is they want to see.

but now that you mention it.... if you took all the women... and gave them an assault rifle.... i bet rapes would go down.

lol.

anyway, my overall argument here is that the entire debate is stupid.

350 or so people are killed with rifles in america every year, 6,500 or so are handguns, 25,000 per year are slip and fall accidents, 18,000 a day around the world starve to death.

why is the focus on rifles?

why are they under a microscope?

the whole debate makes very little sense to me.

i mean sure, blah blah blah sanctity of human life blah blah blah, but if that is what it really is about why not focus on something that affects more people overall than the next to nobody that rifles affect?

Just imagine how scare people will be to see 900 armed protesters marching towards the capital. It just takes one stupid person to ignite the fume.

Just imagine how scare people will be to see 900 armed protesters marching towards the capital. It just takes one stupid person to ignite the fume.

klusps

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

 

Furthermore, is there any evidence that crime has actually decreased in Australia and that this can be related to firearm legislation? Mass shootings only account for a miniscule percentage of all firearm related crimes anywhere you look. Hardly a good barometer to judge the effectiveness of so called "gun control".

Ninja-Hippo

As I said, mass shootings are too statistically insignificant. And a general decrease in gun related crime has to be linked to the actual legislation. In the U.S. there has been a significant decrease in shootings since the 1980's however there has been no sweeping gun control measures. Various factors can influence crime. 

The papers that I've been looking at do not suggest that the legislation has had much of an effect except to reduce the number of suicides by firearm. People have instead turned to alternative means to kill themselves. The homicide trend was already decreasing before the NFA was implemented. One of the articles I read.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract

Since you are a cop and obviously are going to be knowlegable of the law, what kind of sentence could these people be looking at if they go through with this? I am curious because I feel like they will just get arrested very quickly if they attempt this...

LostProphetFLCL

It's a class A misdeamor in my state when you carry a weapon illegally. Not sure how DC is, but I'm sure it's similar.

[QUOTE="klusps"]

Just imagine how scare people will be to see 900 armed protesters marching towards the capital. It just takes one stupid person to ignite the fume.

Bane_09

Cant say ive seen or felt any of these assault weapon bans. What states have recently banned assault weapons? Did new york pass something? From what I see from google its still legal to own an assault weapon as long as its registered by 2014. What states have completely banned assault weapons? Im not really sure what youre talking about I have a friend that just purchased an AR-15 recently, doesnt seem banned to meBane_09

So how are people supposed to get one if they don't already own one? Sounds like a ban to me.

CT passed a similar bill as well.

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]Cant say ive seen or felt any of these assault weapon bans. What states have recently banned assault weapons? Did new york pass something? From what I see from google its still legal to own an assault weapon as long as its registered by 2014. What states have completely banned assault weapons? Im not really sure what youre talking about I have a friend that just purchased an AR-15 recently, doesnt seem banned to meairshocker

So how are people supposed to get one if they don't already own one? Sounds like a ban to me.

CT passed a similar bill as well.

This will end badly.

This will end badly.

theone86

Cant really say that warrants the amount of fear these people have, or that it justifies the incedibly stupid protest that they want to do. Bane_09

I don't really see how it justifies the protest either, but it does justify the fear.

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]Cant really say that warrants the amount of fear these people have, or that it justifies the incedibly stupid protest that they want to do. airshocker

I don't really see how it justifies the protest either, but it does justify the fear.

I hope they all get rounded up and arrested.

Eh well I guess I will respectfully disagree then. You should move to south dakota, big gun culture without the insane fear of the government. Pretty nice actuallyBane_09

If I could move out of New York, I most definitely would. I have obligations here, unfortunately.

I wonder what the NRA will say and do about this.

I wonder what the NRA will say and do about this.

jimkabrhel

praise people for being brave enough to be terrified enough to own big ass hulking assault rifles?

hand out red white and blue ammo?

praise people for being brave enough to be terrified enough to own big ass hulking assault rifles?

Riverwolf007

Assault rifles aren't hulking. Machine guns, maybe.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

This will end badly.

Bane_09

I have less of a problem with their intent, even though I disagree with them, and more of a problem with the fact that these people are failing to realize the absolute laundry list of things that can go wrong here and why it is a bad idea.  I have a particular problem with their line about turning back if the police tell us to, because we know it's illegal.  Okay, no, I don't rob a store and give the money back if the police catch me.  You know it's illegal ergo you know you shouldn't do it.  You also know that if you do do it the cops are going to arrest you for it, not kindly ask you to go home.  You get the warning in the form of the law, not in the form of cops nicely asking you to stop when you break the law.  Then you go and say you will resist by force if the cops do anything more than ask you to turn back, dear god this just gets worse and worse as it goes on.

Look, you want to protest something then protest something.  You don't need guns, you can go out and march with signs and megaphones and get your point across just as easily.  This is just asking for trouble and they should really know that.  If the D.C. cops are smart they'll arrest each and every person as they walk out of their house.  Just give them an ultimatum, leave the weapon at home or get in the paddywagon.

I can only imagine all the ways this can go well.

The only issue I really see is when you get a large group of people together there are always small issues. Get these people together in a very emotionally charged protest and tempers can flare. It takes one misfire to set off  a bad chain of events that makes all gun owners look like idiots. Even if there are 899 responsible gun owners, it just takes 1 and all 900 of them look like fools and are at fault. 

I'm all for protests and stuff but they could easily protest without their rifles. 

Also these guys will be walking probable cause. Any gun crimes that happen in the area while this protest is going on is going to associated with them only causing further issues. 

However this is always the bane of gun owners in this nation. 80+ million of us but there is a very tiny percentage that constantly make people question gun ownership. Most often it's those who don't even own the guns legally. By the way the media reports it and the general filter of information on the internet you would really think that our streets are as lawless as the wild west with gun owners constantly shooting up everything they see. It's never good publicity especially when under the criticisms of people who have put all of their faith in the state and/or have no real culture revolving around personal gun ownership. 

This has the potential to end very badly. 

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

hand out red white and blue ammo?

praise people for being brave enough to be terrified enough to own big ass hulking assault rifles?

airshocker

Assault rifles aren't hulking. Machine guns, maybe.

well the whole moniker assault rifle hardly makes any sense to me anyway.

nobody would ever call the unmodified ruger mini 14 an assault rifle but it fires the same ammo in the same quanity everything else does.

huntin' rifle!

assault rifle!

lol, they are the exact same gun.

almost all of them are exactly like this.

one that looks like a rifle and one where you change the stock and put a bigger mag on it and boom, now it is an assault rifle.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

hand out red white and blue ammo?

praise people for being brave enough to be terrified enough to own big ass hulking assault rifles?

Riverwolf007

Assault rifles aren't hulking. Machine guns, maybe.

well the whole moniker assault rifle hardly makes any sense to me anyway.

nobody would ever call the unmodified ruger mini 14 an assault rifle but it fires the same ammo in the same quanity everything else does.

huntin' rifle!

assault rifle!

lol, they are the exact same gun.

Well, this seems like it'd be a great time for anyone who actually wants to commit a gun-related crime in D.C. to do it.  Carry your loaded rifle and pass it off as being a protester.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]to an outside observer, americans must be out of their minds..Netherscourge

They don't look any better from the inside either.

Bunch of gun-toting morons defending an obsolete Amendment that should be deleted from the Constitution.

You're an idiot.

This has the potential to end very badly. 

gamerguru100

That's very true. Definitely not the best way to go about this. 

At least it's more likely to end in  something  than that protest in DC a couple years ago, where the people were walking around carrying guns in holsters, unloaded, and fitted with trigger guards. Literally protesting for their right to carry a non-functioning firearm as a fashion accessory. Bunch of dumbasses, that was.

 

well the whole moniker assault rifle hardly makes any sense to me anyway.

nobody would ever call the unmodified ruger mini 14 an assault rifle but it fires the same ammo in the same quanity everything else does.

huntin' rifle!

assault rifle!

lol, they are the exact same gun.

almost all of them are exactly like this.

one that looks like a rifle and one where you change the stock and put a bigger mag on it and boom, now it is an assault rifle.

Riverwolf007

It's pretty funny, you come in this thread "just playing devil's advocate", but it's pretty clear you actually just want to spout one gun lobby talking-point after another.

I can almost certainly guarantee that out of 900 people there's going to be at the very, very least one who isn't responsible with his gun. I just really hope that in the heat of whatever moment may happen this doesn't go bad.Ace6301

I think it's possible to have 900 gun-toters behave themselves for a day.  Military parades don't turn into rampages.

But what's blatantly obvious is that this is really about deliberate provocation, deliberate intimidation, and confrontation.  If the intent was purely peaceful, the weapons wouldn't be loaded

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]Cant say ive seen or felt any of these assault weapon bans. What states have recently banned assault weapons? Did new york pass something? From what I see from google its still legal to own an assault weapon as long as its registered by 2014. What states have completely banned assault weapons? Im not really sure what youre talking about I have a friend that just purchased an AR-15 recently, doesnt seem banned to meBane_09

So how are people supposed to get one if they don't already own one? Sounds like a ban to me.

CT passed a similar bill as well.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I can almost certainly guarantee that out of 900 people there's going to be at the very, very least one who isn't responsible with his gun. I just really hope that in the heat of whatever moment may happen this doesn't go bad.Audacitron

I think it's possible to have 900 gun-toters behave themselves for a day.  Military parades don't turn into rampages.

But what's blatantly obvious is that this is really about deliberate provocation, deliberate intimidation, and confrontation.  If the intent was purely peaceful, the weapons wouldn't be loaded

Of course if there is one or more loan nuts that ar

I can almost certainly guarantee that out of 900 people there's going to be at the very, very least one who isn't responsible with his gun. I just really hope that in the heat of whatever moment may happen this doesn't go bad.Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I can almost certainly guarantee that out of 900 people there's going to be at the very, very least one who isn't responsible with his gun. I just really hope that in the heat of whatever moment may happen this doesn't go bad.Master_Live

Protesting with... loaded... rifles...

Welp, this can only end... badly.

I love my guns, and I'm all for the 2nd Ammendent, but oh man... what a terrible idea.