Home > General Discussion > Armed march across Memorial Bridge… what could possibly go wrong?

Armed march across Memorial Bridge… what could possibly go wrong?
  • Captain_Obvious May 9, 2013 - 3:44 pm #72771 Reply

    Low chance of that happening and even lower you would be shot, BUT, I guess you shouldn’t leave your house, you’re scared of automatic transmission drivers anyway.

    It is unrealistic and therefore, unanswerable.

    There are restrictions on abortions in some states…so what ?

    Votes don’t result in deaths…what a strange comment, even for you.

    novasteve May 9, 2013 - 4:07 pm #72774 Reply

    No, you refuse to answer the question.


    Votes result in policies that lead to death. Don’t you admit that if Bush had not been elected there’d be a few thousand more Americans alive today because they wouldn’t have been killed in Iraq? Let alone the iRaqis unless Saddam started killing a bunch of them again.


    Why do you refuse to answer the question?


    Fine, certain sexual practices are very risky and can lead to serious health consequences and even death as well as great financial costs. If you restrict those practices but allow for others, that doesn’t violate the “keep your laws out of my bedroom” right to privacy stuff?


    You seem to have no issue violating people’s constitutional rights if you don’t approve of them. So how far does it extend?

    novasteve May 9, 2013 - 4:08 pm #72775 Reply

    PS: Low chance of what? Every single friend I have that has even hanged out in the U street area or who went to Adams Morgan from the metro has been mugged, usually at gunpoint. So don’t tell me the chances are low.

    Captain_Obvious May 9, 2013 - 4:12 pm #72776 Reply

    No you can’t assume that about Bush at all.

    I’m not violating anyone’s constitutional rights and neither is DC, NYC, or Chicago, as I’ve proven.

    And you’re last post is an outright lie.  I’ve been to U St and Adams Morgan hundreds of times and NEVER had an issue and neither has any of my friends, 3 of which LIVE near U St. and go out there all the time.

    And yes the chances are low as evidenced by the reduction in violent crime.  But hey, why believe facts when propaganda is so much more appealing.

    novasteve May 9, 2013 - 4:19 pm #72779 Reply

    I’m not violating anyone’s constitutional rights by limiting their vote to just the school board according to your logic.


    How do you know what has happened to my friends? Do you know them?





    Did you hear about this story from this week? Fortunately she isn’t allowe dto have a gun to protect herself. Because there is nothing to fear in DC, right? It’s completely safe unlike gun toting virginia, eh?

    Captain_Obvious May 9, 2013 - 4:24 pm #72780 Reply

    Dude, get over it already…I owned you big time and gave you plenty of FACTS…which you have none.

    If you have only 2 friends total, who were together when it happened, then I believe you, but I guess stories are better when they are greatly exaggerated.

    If she was allowed to protect herself with a gun, there could be 4 dead people…instead of ZERO.

    Not everyone who has ever been assaulted or robbed wanted a gun before it happened.  Not everyone lives in fear every minute of their lives like you.

    Have a good day.

    novasteve May 9, 2013 - 4:34 pm #72782 Reply

    Too chicken to answer any of my questions because you know it would show what a hypocrite you are.

    novasteve May 9, 2013 - 4:51 pm #72784 Reply

    Come on CO, answer a question. How about free speech? Did you know what the Chicago city council is doing?They are about to pass a resolution calling for all professional sports league commissioners to come out in favor of LGBT rights and are asking the commissioners to punish anyone who makes homophobic comments. So in short, a state actor is asking a private actor to punish people speaking constitutional protected speech. But I guess since there are other things they can speak about, it doesn’t violate their first amendment rights, right? It’s  real world example. Does this disturb you?





    Theakston May 9, 2013 - 9:03 pm #72788 Reply

    2 points:

    1) you two really should get a room

    2) I’ve been going out in Adams Morgan and U St every weekend for 20+years and never had any trouble and never felt my safety would be improved had I decided to carry a gun. On the contrary….I usually like to enjoy a few drinks and  adding a gun to that equation would have been much more likely to have resulted in harm to me or my friends.

    Now carry on…..


    KalashniKEV May 10, 2013 - 8:43 am #72795 Reply

    "KEEP and bear arms".  Bingo !  Now you're getting it.

    OK, OK… we’re on track now… stay with me and ignore novasteve for a moment… what would happen if a Citizen (who is not covered by LEOSA) were to bear arms in the District of Columbia?

    1) not every state has open carry, including Texas.

    Not every state is free. It’s what we’re talking about.

    2) neither does Illinois

    Lots of bad things are cultivated there.

    4), not all states recognize each others open or carry permits either.

    Not all states recognize each others marriage licenses- they are in violation of the full faith and credit clause.

    5), no its not.

    Wait… what?

    Its so funny...in that link, this woman, a gun enthusiast, gave step-by-step instructions on how you can own a gun in DC.

    Where are the instructions to obtain a DC CCW? And since my legal residence is VA, will they honor my CCW?

    You guys are basically saying that you can't own a gun in DC...now you are trying to change your words to "bear".

    I think you missed the entire point of this thread while bickering with novasteve- Kokesh is planning to bear arms within the limits of the Distict. It is unlawful to bear arms in DC. Will he be arrested??? Lanier says Yes…

    Now, as Citizens of the United States of America, do we not have a right to keep and bear arms that is affirmed in the Second Amendment of the BOR?

    1234 May 10, 2013 - 9:00 am #72800 Reply

    this thread has “lol” all over it.

    Captain_Obvious May 10, 2013 - 9:52 am #72805 Reply

    If a DC citizen has arms legally in DC, nothing will happen.

    You can’t get a CCW in DC, just like you can’t in Illinois.

    I have not missed any point in this thread.  You guys said at the beginning “You can’t own a gun in DC”.  I proved that wrong time and again.  Now you’re trying to change your words to CCW.  Go back and re-read this entire thread.

    CCW and owning a gun is completely different, don’t you see that?  In some states, you have to get an extra permit for CCW and/or Open carry.  In other words, simply owning a gun does not automatically mean CCW in some parts of the US, like VA, which is a “Shall-Issue” state, meaning you have to be granted a permit for CCW.

    The 2nd amendment doesn’t explicitly say “carry your guns in the open” does it?  If it did, or is interpreted that way in the future, then they can rule DC’s laws unconstitutional (as they did in 2008).

    novasteve May 10, 2013 - 9:58 am #72809 Reply

    So if it’s only legal for you to vote for school board elections, and nothing else and you abide by those rules, your voting rights aren’t being denied?


    What does “bear” arms mean to you?


    The first amendmetn doesn’t say you can engage in free speech outdoors either. So should free speech be limited to only the home?

    novasteve May 10, 2013 - 10:00 am #72810 Reply

    The constitution doesn’t mention anything about gay rights, gay marriage, abortion either.  It doesn’t say that you can engage in free speech outdoors. It doesn’t authorize an Air Force either.

    KalashniKEV May 10, 2013 - 10:08 am #72811 Reply

    The 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly say "carry your guns in the open" does it?

    What does "bear" arms mean to you?

    Now, as Citizens of the United States of America, do we not have a right to keep and bear arms that is affirmed in the Second Amendment of the BOR?

    CO… please just admit that the current laws of DC with respect to firearms ownership are unconstitutional and move on. Your argument it not semantic but… antisemantic, if that’s a thing.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Subscribe to our mailing list