Pink Pistols, a conservative LGBT group, marches for their 2nd Amendment rights |
One of my friends in L.A. County Oathkeepers
read my last piece and commented on it.
She posed the hypothetical scenario: suppose the Muslim Brotherhood or
Hamas was marching up and down my street protesting, practicing both their
First and Second Amendment rights by carrying fully locked and loaded weapons
with them. Would that be an act of war
or an act of protest?
My immediate answer might surprise some
people. I answered that, in and of
itself, a locked and loaded protest would simply be an act of protest. This is a reference to the recent armed march
Adam Kokesh was planning on carrying out in Washington, D.C. on July 4. Needless to say, I’m incredibly glad the
protest was canceled. Kokesh and his and
of merry conspiratarians would merely be carrying an act of protest, although
it would simultaneously have been an act of stupidity.
For starters, D.C. has some strict gun
control laws and an armed march around federal buildings like the White House
or the Capitol simply wouldn’t fly. The
event would be more fittingly called “Surrender Your Gun to the Government and
Get Arrested like a Dumb-Ass Day.” Furthermore,
it would have been a horrible reflection on the libertarian movement, making us
look like a ban of militants and rendering us all responsible if somebody’s
weapon had a misfire.
As much as I disagree with their methods
or even their reasoning, as long as the Kokesh march—or an armed Muslim
Brotherhood march—is carried out by people whose sole aim is to protest, then
it would be an act of protest. However,
there are multiple dimensions to the scenario, and small details could greatly
change the dimensions of such an event.
If the same group congregated in D.C. to protest and display loaded
weapons, demonstrating their Second Amendment right but with no intention of
firing, yet one of the protestors loses his cool and fires a shot, then the
protest becomes an act of war.
If the same group had even the slightest
intention of firing one of their weapons, especially around government
buildings, then the protest was an act of war before they even arrived at the
National Mall or Pennsylvania Avenue.
An armed militia in the streets of Tripoli following skirmishes |
Let’s relate this concept to two examples
from involving revolutionaries and our American countrymen. The first example is the Benghazi killings in
Libya, where four American diplomats were murdered by militants. Though the official reports from the State
Department claim that the Benghazi incident was a protest that sparked into a
violent confrontation, hard evidence points to a militia attack. If it had truly been a protest, then it would
have become an act of war the minute the protestors got violent. However, the protest was a farce orchestrated
by an Islamist militia so they could attack the U.S. embassy. It was an act of war before they even
congregated.
The second example was covered in the
last rant: the local militia at Lexington in 1775.
Though a military body, the local militiamen at Lexington assembled
themselves on the village green as an act of protest. They were locked and loaded, but their goal
was not to fight the British. Firing
their muskets was certainly in their back-up plan, but that definitely wasn’t
their plan of the day. Word from Boston
had already reached Lexington about the British seizing firearms. The militiamen stood their ground, locked and
loaded on the village green, in demonstrating that they wouldn’t give up their
personal property.
The British response to their silent
protest was an act of war. The militia
stood in a silent formation but did not have their muskets aimed at the
enemy. The enemy, on the other hand,
broke the rules of engagement and fired on the militia. That’s when the confrontation at Lexington
became a battle. The local militia
participated in a military operation, but their protest was not an act of
war. Had the British kept moving, there
would have been no battle or shots fired whatsoever.
Going back to the Kokesh march, it
remains in my opinion a very bad idea, but so long as everything went according
to plan, it would have been merely an act of protest. Again, I’m glad it was canceled. I see too much room in this scenario for some
rookie law enforcement officer to get nervous around so many loaded weapons and
possibly fire on the protestors, causing a bloodbath. I also see ample opportunities for an armed
conspiratarian to panic when the police close in, and fire at them.
A final note: as I see it, the Second
Amendment is equally important as the First Amendment. However, armed marches aren’t the best tactic
for arguing our Second Amendment rights.
After all, that just makes us libertarians and conservatives look like
the violent gun nuts the left makes us out to be.
* * *
Pink Pistols image by "russavia" and militia photo by "Magharebia". Both photos were obtained from Wikimedia Commons and are used via CC BY 2.0 license.
Zach, your second example, the battle on Lexington Green, paved the way for the little freedom and liberty you have today. The question of weather this march was a good or bad idea is irrelevant, it is something that needs to happen, as was the Lexington Green thing. You say it was canceled, no, it was just put off until more people realize that we have lost our liberty, by not doing what needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteBill, your view and my view on the Kokesh gun march is a simple matter of a difference of opinion. We disagree. Deal with it.
ReplyDeleteAnd please find the line in the article where I said the Battle of Lexington was a BAD thing for liberty. Let me know when you find it.