13 votes

Oath Keepers Should Appreciate Civil Disobedience

I think what Oath Keepers fails to understand, in condemning Adam's march, is that this is not a military operation. "Tactical experience" as far as warmaking is meaningless.

They ask what the point is of marching into the enemy camp to be captured. To ask the question is to answer it.

Adam clearly is not afraid of being arrested. Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of ones actions. Adam has decided to engage in an activity which should be perfectly lawful but is not. If he is willing to suffer the legal consequences of breaking the DC gun laws then his civil disobedience will draw attention to the injustice of the system.

He puts the power structure in the position of prosecuting an Iraq war veteran for standing up for the very rights the veterans are fighting for. This is an amazing stand that I would think would resonate with our military.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This march is begging to be

This march is begging to be turned into a false flag by sneaking some agents into the ranks of the Kokesh movement. This is a bad idea.

Oath keepers seem a little hypocritical

They stood gaurd for occupy people in front of police, and they were armed, but what Adam is doing is dangerous?

civil disobedience to me means....

You claim your rights to an aggressor....unlawful aggressor...

It doesn't mean you go looking for a confrontation; provoke, then respond in "civil disobedience"....

This STUNT is just that....a stunt!

I have a question for you then

What do you think the Boston Tea Party was about?

Is what they were doing provocation? Or simply exercising civil disobedience?

property damage....

...that's what it was....

Was there an announcement, "we're coming" ahead of time....was it a "stunt" that was published in the newspapers where people were invited to attend?

Don't even dare.compare this to that, gimme a break.....

Think about the effectiveness of the actions taken

Civil disobedience can be effective, but it should be peaceful and nonviolent. This guy is calling for armed rebellion and anarchy. He is providing an easy set up for the federal government to come down and squash it, with about 99% of the population supporting the government in doing so. He is setting up a powder keg for someone to light a match. He is setting up an easy path for the media and government to demonize anyone who supports constitutional government, or the 2nd amendment. I think that anyone who follows this guy is making a mistake that can negatively impact all of us.

Would the civil rights movement have succeeded with armed people going to the front of the bus? Probably not.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Tact is important but I disagree with your reasoning

Please define armed rebellion, and please define anarchy.

I think you are a very very confused individual. No one is calling anyone to shoot anyone, and no one has called for your misconceived version of anarchy.

For the record, I am a minarchist. I'm surprised more anarchists didn't speak up for this one.

All of you that speak ill of Adam, tell me your plan to fix America? He has chosen a show of force to let them know we mean business. Have you come up with another path? At what point will you say enough is enough? You need to draw your line now, or you will push it back to the point you are in an internment camp, still drawing your line for when its right to attack your slave-master via "free speech".

Is there anything stopping some lone nut from going to DC...

and shooting somebody on July 3rd? How about the 2nd? How about tomorrow?

The main difference on July 4 is that there will be hundreds of people around to wrestle to the ground anyone who even reaches for their own or someone else's gun that day...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

When has he called for armed rebellion and anarchy?

Well yes, maybe he has suggested it will be necessary in the future but he has not called for it on this march. He specifically called for unloaded weapons to be carried on peoples backs so it is clearly not a threat. This is to show that our 2nd amendment is being violated. You know the one about the right of the people to keep an bare arms shall not be infringed.
And as for the anarchy, he specifically stated that if they were to be met by police resistance they would allow themselves to peacefully be arrested. This is the part of civil disobedience. He is accepting that it is breaking the law, but doing it because the law is unjust and most importantly unconstitutional.
By having hundreds if not thousands of people being arrested for this (and I would guess a fair bit of veterans) it would bring the peoples attention to the matter.

And while I agree, to use your wording, it sets up a powder keg. You cant create change without taking risk. Hell we started a revolution and fought for the creation of this country that is supposed to protect your rights. So if someone were to use the event to create chaos, then they should be held accountable for their actions. But it is worth the risk.

And your last comment is irreverent, the civil rights movement wasn't about the peoples right to bare arms. Whereas this is about the 2nd amendment as well as many more issues. So in our case people have to arm themselves to succeed. Now the question of using those weapons is a whole different discussion.

Here are some quotes from Adam vs The Man website

May 24, 2013: "...A new American revolution is long overdue. This revolution has been brewing in the hearts and minds of the people for many years, but this Independence Day, it shall take a new form as the American Revolutionary Army will march on each state capital to demand that the governors of these 50 states immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property...."

May 6, 2013: "... We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny...."

Is he called for LOADED firearms? Clearly YES.

He is calling for an "army" to overthrow the federal government and the "reclamation of federally held property."

Is this a call for an armed rebellion? Sounds like it to me.

Under these circumstances, even I would have to admit that the federal government has the right to quell this armed rebellion. Adam Kokesh is calling for armed marches against ALL 50 states as well. It is not an illegitimate use of power under these circumstances for the government to put down a rebellion. Why is Adam Kokesh making it so easy for the government to have the moral and legal authority? My point about the civil rights movement is that the people had the moral authority, and eventually public consciousness changed and the movement could NOT be stopped. If minorities first tried to initiate force, then they would have been crushed and the public consciousness would not have changed.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis


It is a protest not a fire fight. Rebellion does not mean ill intent.

No one on the Kokesh side is initiating force.

Rebellion means being against what the status quo is enforcing.

It is an illegitimate use of power to put down a "rebellion".

When the people wish to express a constitutional right, they should be able to do so unharmed.

I highly doubt that some "armed provocateur" will initiate anything due to the deadly nature of the conflict that can occur.

Do you seriously think that someone is stupid enough to fire rounds into a crowd where they can be shot at and die?


The government has no right to quell protests, and by you agreeing with it, shows which side you're on.

Love thy enemy.

Is this march on DC an effective action?

I'll say the same thing that I wrote in one of the other myriad of Kokesh-related posts:

The Kokesh march on DC is not a threat to the government, it is an opportunity.

For whatever reason, Adam Kokesh has chosen a course of action that is ideal for giving government the legal and moral authority to crush liberty. It is a remarkably stupid action to take. You are right that the government has no right to quell public protest. An armed invasion is another story. The public will applaud the crack down if things turn bad, particularly when the "new revolutionary army" is portrayed as the aggressor.

I am on the side of liberty, but Kokesh's march seems designed to give us the opposite.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

The moral authority?

Where is your argument for that?

It's not an armed invasion, and it won't be considered as one.

You hope it is considered as one. I can see no other reason to spout such nonsense.

We'll never know until it happens. It doesn't seem like it's going to happen, because the march on D.C. has turned into 50 marches on state capitols. Armed or not, this needs to happen and it will happen. You and I don't have that choice. The choice we do have is whether to participate or not. I hope you choose to participate.

Love thy enemy.

I'm inclined to

validate your point - valid, valid, valid, valid, valid...



To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972

+ 1


LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Good call

Plz donate to Oath keepers ( sarcasm).

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972