5 Things That Will Happen at the “Open Carry March on Washington”

The Derp is strong with this one.

Apparently Libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh has no clue how gun laws actually work in America. I’d say I’m surprised, but I’m really not. Militant gun nuts are the ones who think the Second Amendment is all about “protecting us from our own tyrannical government,” despite there being no actual historical precedent for this interpretation. So it’s not surprising to me at all that a group of numbnuts headed up by the master numbnut himself wouldn’t think about what local municipalities’ open carry laws are before they engage in a demonstration that will break said gun laws. Kokesh is planning his “Open Carry March on Washington” to show those mean ol’ government agents that you can’t take his guns from him.

The problem? Washington D.C. does not permit openly carrying firearms. So what will happen to the 1000 or so people who are going to join Kokesh on his little stroll through D.C.?

#5. Millions Of Americans Won’t Give a Shit

Gun ownership is actually on the decline. I don’t know if this is because people feel more safe, or feel less paranoid and in need of a gun. For whatever reason though, the number of people who own a gun is actually down. This means a) it’s more important the NRA than ever to get people scared enough to hoard guns and b) that things like the Open Carry March won’t really have an impact on the majority of Americans. The truth is that most gun owners themselves know the Feds aren’t coming for their firearms, it’s just the easily maniuplated that will be participating in this idiocy.

#4. A Terrorist Plot Will Be Foiled By the Roving Band of Gun Nuts

Haha! Just kidding. This won’t happen. It never will. Ever.

#3. A Bunch of People Will Be Needlessly Frightened

If the point of the Open Carry March is to scare a shitload of people who have no idea why a thousand armed people are walking down the street, then you’d be able to call the march a success. Most people aren’t tuned into libertarian radio, and most people will only hear about this madness after the fact, or as they watch the gaggle of fools traipsing down Pennsylvania with their rifles on their backs. But if they think they’ll win over the hearts and minds of average Americans by marching militia-style down the street, they’re sorely mistaken.

#2. The Federal Government Will Have The Same Level Of Interest In Taking Your Guns as They Did Before the March

That is to say zero. Zilch. Nada. This has been gone over a million times already, but the Feds don’t want your guns. They can’t take them for starters, but more importantly, why would our government need to take your guns when they could send a drone over to say hello instead?

#1. Washington, D.C. Police Will Set a Local Record For Most Morons Arrested at Once

If this doesn’t show the outright lunacy of the gun zealot fringe of American politics, nothing will. Who the fuck in their right minds would think that a thousand people carrying loaded rifles through the streets is a good idea, especially when there are laws specifically prohibiting this kind of behavior. Sure, Kokesh has told those signing up that they need to be willing to peacefully accept arrest, but who are we kidding here? Do we really believe that the kinds of people who feel their Second Amendment rights are actually in any danger and therefore need to march with 999 other gun hoarders with loaded rifles on their backs are going to just hand over their rifles and get handcuffed? Call me crazy, but considering there were four people killed during a recent “Gun Appreciation Day,” I can’t say that I have much hope for a peaceful demonstration out of these idiots.




About James Schlarmann 2617 Articles
James is the founding contributor and editor-in-chief of The Political Garbage Chute, a political satire and commentary site, which can be found on Facebook as well. You definitely should not give that much a shit about his opinions.
  • Robeye

    My exact thought was…wait, DC doesn’t have an open carry policy. Bring the buses and lots of zip ties. They will be breaking the law. Demonstrate…fine. With loaded weapons, insane!

  • Flguyvet

    I’m guessing there will be about a dozen or so Darwin award winners.

  • You forgot, “Someone drunk moron will open fire. The Marines will come in. It won’t be pretty.”

  • Irony here…the banter from the gun-toters say that background checks will not stop criminals from owning guns or violating laws. So, hereby is an instance wherein these said ‘Second Amendment’ adherents are supposedly ‘law abiding’ but are knowingly about to break the law. So, the people they want us to be most afraid of is quite rightly they themselves…(?)

  • M

    You forgot morons accidentally shooting themselves. I bet at least 4.

  • So if they really do this…I just hope no one dies…everyone will be on edge, and one person “accidentally” pulls the trigger…let your imagination take care of the details. This is the scary thing about it to me…it is sad.

  • JC

    Most of this is an enforced attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. The harder these gun nuts push, the more the feds will be required to react. Then they will indeed have their tyranny that they have so far predicted. What I wonder about is how they plan to set up an effective “military” without a hospital or a chain of command. Unless you count James Yeager.

  • William Nelson

    Where can i tune into this Kokesh guy i need a good laugh today !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Better do your homework before blathering about “Militant gun nuts are the ones who think the Second Amendment is all about “protecting us from our own tyrannical government,” despite there being no actual historical precedent for this interpretation.”

    Had you bothered to do a little research you may have discovered that James Madison, you know, the man who wrote the second amendment, said, in the Federalist Papers #46:

    “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

    • James Schlarmann

      I can only assume you quoted that ridiculously long passage for the last sentence, right? Next time, can you do my neurons a favor and redact the shit that doesn’t pertain? I’m guessing you’re pointing to this excerpt, right? “…forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

      Where do you think that means that the Second Amendment is a protection against the tyranny OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT? That line reads in my interpretation that militias form as a protection against invading and occupying governments, hence the reference earlier to the British conflict. You’re wrong, Tom. Dead wrong. All this paragraph states is Madison’s reasoning state militias, but nowhere in it does it say that he believes militias are important for protection against the very government he was creating.

      Enjoy your NRA kool-aid though.

  • Bill Vaught

    Take your A.D.D meds and go back and read it again. The top part of the pargraph talks about the size of a state militia vs the size of the federal forces and how a state militia at a half million men should be larger than a federal force of 35 thousand and therefore able to repel those who would take away liberties (whoever they are). You have to read it all, and pay attention.

    • James Schlarmann

      I did. And I don’t see how that’s a valid argument against gun regulations. I also don’t see where it says specifically it’s about protecting us from the tyranny of our own government. To me it reads like everything else about the Second Amendment — it’s about a national defense strategy. Pure and simple.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :