• Police serving search warrant at home of Adam Kokesh
    20 replies, posted
[quote]HERNDON, Va. -FOX 5 has confirmed that U.S. Park Police along with Herndon Police are serving a search warrant at the home of Adam Kokesh, a pro-gun activist who was seen on a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sAGGoPidEY"]YouTube video posted on July 4th[/URL] loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza. Roads have been blocked off in the area of the 1500 block of Snow Flake Court in Herndon and residents have been told to stay indoors while police serve the warrant. In the video, Kokesh, a former Marine, appears to load red shells into a pump-action shotgun while addressing the camera in Freedom Plaza, which is U.S. parkland. Kokesh said, "We will not be silent. We will not obey. We will not allow our government to destroy our humanity." Kokesh threatened to lead an armed march from Virginia into D.C. on the Fourth of July, but later backed away from the plan. At the end of the video, Kokesh hints it may happen in the future. As Kokesh loads shells in to the shotgun, he tells the camera: “We are the final American revolution. See you next Independence Day." [/quote] [URL]http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22799261/police-serving-warrant-for-arrest-of-pro-gun-activist-adam-kokesh#axzz2YcPEVciD[/URL] Sorry about Fox, but it's one of the few news sources reporting on the subject.
Loading a gun in a metro area and then uploading the video to youtube. Is he that stupid to think nothing would happen?
I love how gun nuts are trying to start a new revolution, not about government corruption, bureaucracy, increased scrutiny of citizens, or even the drone strikes. But about fucking gun laws. Not even bans, even like increased checks and stuff. Do they really think they can garner enough support to bring down the most well-armed government in the world by screaming 'MUH GUNS'?
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;41389745]I love how gun [B]nuts [/B]are trying to start a new revolution, not about government corruption, bureaucracy, increased scrutiny of citizens, or even the drone strikes. But about fucking gun laws. Not even bans, even like increased checks and stuff. Do they really think they can garner enough support to bring down the most well-armed government in the world by screaming 'MUH GUNS'?[/QUOTE] bolded that important bit
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;41389745]I love how gun nuts are trying to start a new revolution, not about government corruption, bureaucracy, increased scrutiny of citizens, or even the [B]drone strikes[/B]. But about fucking gun laws. Not even bans, even like increased checks and stuff. Do they really think they can garner enough support to bring down the most well-armed government in the world by screaming 'MUH GUNS'?[/QUOTE] Certain groups are rustled by certain things. Also whats wrong with the bold bit[aside from civilian casualties]?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41389844]Certain groups are rustled by certain things. Also whats wrong with the bold bit[aside from civilian casualties]?[/QUOTE] there is no aside from civilian casualties
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;41390215]there is no aside from civilian casualties[/QUOTE] Better word would be collateral, but even then, in a war zone you expect collateral damage. If you do not, you are not being realistic. Kill one person(main target), his personal guard of 4 people and 4 civilians you may have ended up costing yourselves less manpower and time than a direct assault, prevented him from going into hiding requiring many more people dead finding him, and a prolonged battle at the cost of 4 civilians a bit of fuel and a single missile and maintenance time. Why not use a sniper you may respond with? If they miss you still have to go with the rest of that massive and costly plan. If the drone is shot down, you would have to go with the plan anyways, and unlike those infantry you would have to send in anyways, it can be replaced. In my opinion drones are little different than a high tech guided airstrike.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41389844] Also whats wrong with the bold bit[aside from civilian casualties]?[/QUOTE] Prolly bombing the shit out of a country you're not at war with?
[QUOTE=Riller;41390287]Prolly bombing the shit out of a country you're not at war with?[/QUOTE] And that has to do with drone strikes in what way? They could do it with jet aircraft and it still be no different a result.
I'm all for gun rights and standing up for them but loading a shotgun in a public place? C'mon now dude. I'm pretty sure that counts as brandishing a weapon which is illegal even for open carry.
Well if you're saying shit like [I]"We are the final American revolution. See you next Independence Day."[/I] you should not be surprised the police are going to take exception to it, more so if you're loading a shotgun in a public park
Yet another person vehemently defending the responsible use and ownership of firearms through the irresponsible use and ownership of firearms
It's happening!
yet another gun nut giving a bad name to gun owners, it's just a bloody gun not a freedom giving disco stick for crying out loud...
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;41390215]there is no aside from civilian casualties[/QUOTE] In that case, we should be angry about [I]all[/I] military action, not just singling out drones.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41390399]In that case, we should be angry about [I]all[/I] military action, not just singling out drones.[/QUOTE] I for one am not too happy about war in general. Gosh, that was easy.
[QUOTE=Megafan;41390461]I for one am not too happy about war in general. Gosh, that was easy.[/QUOTE] War sucks, but in the case of civilized dispute is ultimately necessary when political means fail. War still sucks regardless though.
[QUOTE=deadoon;41390272]Better word would be collateral, but even then, in a war zone you expect collateral damage. If you do not, you are not being realistic. Kill one person(main target), his personal guard of 4 people and 4 civilians you may have ended up costing yourselves less manpower and time than a direct assault, prevented him from going into hiding requiring many more people dead finding him, and a prolonged battle at the cost of 4 civilians a bit of fuel and a single missile and maintenance time. Why not use a sniper you may respond with? If they miss you still have to go with the rest of that massive and costly plan. If the drone is shot down, you would have to go with the plan anyways, and unlike those infantry you would have to send in anyways, it can be replaced. In my opinion drones are little different than a high tech guided airstrike.[/QUOTE] In a warzone, collateral is expected. It is your job as a soldier to keep this collateral as low as possible, and if possible, at zero. Drones are more then collateral, they're machines that take the jobs of grunts, sacrificing other lives instead to kill a single target and multiple others alongside. A well-trained unit could easily kill the one target with no civie casualties what-so-ever. [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] Not to mention specifically targeting emergency services isn't collateral.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;41390752]In a warzone, collateral is expected. It is your job as a soldier to keep this collateral as low as possible, and if possible, at zero. Drones are more then collateral, they're machines that take the jobs of grunts, sacrificing other lives instead to kill a single target and multiple others alongside. A well-trained unit could easily kill the one target with no civie casualties what-so-ever. [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] Not to mention specifically targeting emergency services isn't collateral.[/QUOTE] Towards the first part, guarantee or possibility? If that squad gets wiped or has to withdraw, they are going to have a lot harder time getting rid of a person than if they removed him quickly. The second part has nothing to do with drones specifically, all it is is to make it more emotionally agreeable to those which read it.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;41389745]I love how gun nuts are trying to start a new revolution, not about government corruption, bureaucracy, increased scrutiny of citizens, or even the drone strikes. But about fucking gun laws. Not even bans, even like increased checks and stuff. Do they really think they can garner enough support to bring down the most well-armed government in the world by screaming 'MUH GUNS'?[/QUOTE]What makes you think it's only about gun laws? He's been an anti-war activist for awhile, he's also done protests for other things too. (he was speaking at some Ron Paul thing in the twin cities awhile back) Pretty sure that, as a very out-spoken libertarian activist, he's got an issue with everything else you listed too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.