Time to set the precedent. Adam Kokesh, an internet blogger, youtuber, and pod-cast host has made plans to have an armed march in Washington D.C. on July 4th. From the moment I heard Adam speak, I knew he was an agent of massive change for our society, whether good or bad. I respect this man for the courage he displays and for always doing exactly as he stated he would do. Though do not mistake my respect for Adam to be full-fledged undying loyalty to him or everything he’s ever said. I do not believe he expects such accolades from any one individual either. I believe his motives are pure and good, that he simply wants to set the precedent that having a loaded weapon on you does not mean you are harmful, dangerous, or a criminal to be treated like an animal and locked in a cage and pumped full of psychotropic drugs. I’d like to try and discuss alternatives to both the current mainstream view on guns and also contrast a few of Adam’s points with my own, hopefully fulfilling the needs of both points of view while avoiding violent conflict but also reaching a higher understanding on self defense, personal liberty, and self ownership without the desire to control or manipulate others with force, fraud, or coercion. Of course no single idea is perfect, but that is why we share them so freely, to communicate with others who may agree or disagree with your assessments and help define a better path for both minds to interact with the world through peaceful interactions with those around them. This is important for both sides of the argument to remember as July 4th approaches. My biggest question is will this march be peaceful? I don’t believe Adam wants there to be any violence, but at the same time I realize he thinks the government will resort to violence and force if their rules are confronted. Adam realizes that in order to assert his belief that he has the right to carry a loaded weapon where ever he wants, he has to risk his life and freedom to do so and that is his main point. He shouldn’t have to be so afraid of doing something so simple and so openly to peacefully demonstrate the idea of owning a weapon but using restraint and learning self defense. Adam doesn’t want to use his weapons as a means of force and preemptive dominance over others, his desires, in my opinion, probably weigh in more along the lines of self defense and as a hobby at the shooting range or even for hunting.
Another point, to see whether or not authorities will tolerate people standing in formation with loaded rifles on their backs. So far, the police have said that the only one’s allowed to have guns are the police. ““Passing into the District of Columbia with loaded firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such,” – Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier said to http://www.wjla.com/blogs/news-talk/2013/05/q-a-with-d-c-police-chief-cathy-lanier-18750.html. Ultimately this means the government official and law enforcement agent is claiming the monopoly on carrying a weapon openly and publicly. In the same breath, they are claiming you as an individual have no right to do so in any capacity. Even if you never harmed a single person, you would be considered and treated like a criminal for merely having a gun on you in public. If the police of Washington D.C. choose to end this with violence and show their true colors I can only hope that it will help others realize the kind of world we are living in and have a change of heart about what governments role should and can possibly be. I would prefer a world in which we are free of bully’s and egotistical men and women gaining larger than life sums of wealth and power and controlling through force, fraud, and coercion all the rest of their minions and the common people who inhabit the planet. I wish I could turn on my television and see a real world of innovation and constant positive growth and change in our species. I feel that we are close to such and event taking place but I also believe things have to take place before this does happen.
If we see this break out into violence on our TV screens, it will more than likely come from paranoid authoritarians who lust for control and power over those who are defying their arbitrary rules and regulations that have nothing to do with peace or equality for anyone. Hopefully people will see that harming anyone here means initiating force, not defense. The history that is unfolding is that either we are free people who can do what we want as long as we don’t hurt anyone or we are not free and have to submit to and be afraid of our government as we are threatened with violence if we do not comply with their orders. As biased as I may have become towards government, I do realize there are some really good intentions at play within the halls of congress, the white house, and other government buildings, however, I believe these people do not understand that for every rule they come up with, people will have to needlessly suffer because of it. It is a function of the state to assert itself on every major issue through the use of public displays of force and dominance. When said so bluntly I realize it makes everyone cringe but that is merely a reaction to the tyranny that exist because of government, not in spite of it. I share Adam’s sentiment that no one individual or group of individuals have a monopoly on defense, gun ownership, or violence. In my opinion it is immoral to coerce or violate physically the natural right of another human being to live in peace and prevent them from interacting with fellow human beings the world over. Claiming such power over others is a sign to me that the person or persons have not considered or have very little concern for their own freedom or safety. Also, this authoritarian mind-set has time and time again showed up in human history and overtly rejected every single time. However, the tragedy here is that people often forget the lessons of history and choose to justify this unwarranted authority by creating a moral high ground which does not exist in reality. In their mind, because of the legitimate services that government can provide its people, it is okay to violate people’s privacy, monetary situation, personal freedom, and even take life from individuals who stand up to them. To be more blunt, it’s okay to mug the banker walking down the street in order to feed the homeless man in the alleyway. I reject this notion outright. Wouldn’t it be better, if you really cared, to talk to the homeless man, convince him to go with you and donate your time to helping them get back on their feet? Wouldn’t it be easier to help them find a part-time job? When does it become clear to “the authoritarian” that using guns to take care of people often has a greater long-term negative consequence than the short-term benefits of welfare? When does it become clear that it would be much easier to help these people without force, fraud, or coercion? What if the threat of violence and coercion that exist in our current system simply didn’t exist in the first place? After all, isn’t it this situation which causes people to become homeless in the first place? All of the lies, violence, and other misdeeds perpetrated by those in power all add up in lending a hand to human suffering and those very same people are trying to convince me that I have no right to defend myself and be armed. That to me says that there are some people in the world who merely believe they have some superior right to do and say as they please while the rest of us have to grovel and bow down to their rulings. In the end, no matter how well intended a law is, if it violates my ability to peacefully interact and live among other people, I reject it out right and with all of my heart.
This armed march in Washington D.C. on July 4th is going to create a new situation. It’s going to cause both sides of this debate to be brutally honest with one another and it’s about time. Either we will find out that we are all indeed free to do and say as we please without hurting anyone else or we are not. It’s not uncommon for such a thing to take place, however, this time it has a lot of weight due to the massive amount of legislation to restrict gun ownership in America. We have been told two things from gun control advocates. The first is that gun control is necessary. The second is that they claim they do not want to take everyone’s guns. To me, the second claim must be exposed for the lie it is. What Adam’s protest is going to do is cause this authoritarian mind-set to come clean with the world on their real stances and intentions. If the government opens fire on these protesters and starts arresting people it will prove that some people do not have the mental strength or capacity to handle being in the presence of a non-government individual being armed. It will prove that all these people can see is the gun and not the human being carrying it. They will prove that they are not for gun control, but rather the control of people who own guns. They will prove this to the world by using guns to enforce their rules on others. In that light, this march is much less a protest on gun control and much more about standing up to unjust authority. It is about addressing the problems presented to independent individuals by authority figures who claim the monopoly on gun ownership. It is about laying it all on the line and starting a revolution of the mind about what it means to be armed, to be a free human being, and questioning the legitimacy of governments role in our daily lives. This is being done to show the world how the United States Government will treat its people. It will go down in history as an important mile stone event. One where either we show this government that we will not be victims of their unjust authority. That we will live in peace and harmony, armed or not, with one another with the goal of prosperity and more freedom for more people around the world. Or, on the other hand, we could see a disaster unfolding. Will the government use violence to quell this revolutionary act of defiance? If so, will it set a new precedent in the hearts and minds of the masses about what is acceptable behavior from our government? What if the government starts shooting people, will people then realize how wrong it is to preemptively attack people who’ve harmed nobody? I have a disgusting feeling that something similar to the latter will occur and a giant “I told you so” campaign will grip the barely beating heart of this anti-political liberty movement and strike it down with fear and violence. That being said, I will not be swayed by terrorist who will do anything they have to do in order to keep their false power. I realize these people rely on the fact that human life is fragile and use that psychology to dominate the hearts and minds of every last individual on planet earth. It’s time to set the precedent. Either we water this tree of liberty with pure, clean, and refreshing water or it will be watered with the blood of the victims of government violence and coercion. The choice is clear.
I realize a large segment of people experience a certain level of fear and discomfort surrounding the ownership of a fire arm, much more the openly carrying of a loaded weapon in Washington D.C. must seem absolutely insane to many of you out there. Consider this though, you support a government which has all the latest surveillance technology, the latest weapons, the latest and greatest in policing technology, and a whole army of enforcers. Why are you so afraid of a few thousand people simply wanting to prove whether or not their own government will use violence against them for exercising a right supposedly guaranteed by The Constitution? Adam Kokesh has several times as of the writing of this sentence that he wants a peaceful protest where the police escort is there to ensure a safe situation. If violence happens on July 4th it will be because of the paranoid authoritarians who cannot allow any kind of questions arise about them. Scott D. Vogler