I am thinking; I was not commenting on the act of marching itself, but on the reasons given by the poster why it would be bad, which were along the lines of:
"you'll be taking guns into prohibited places."
If the marching is a foregone assumption, as was that post, then appealing to illegitimate statutes (what people call "laws") is rather stupid.
That said, if you look up-thread (search Sam Adams, IIRC) someone was saying that he basically did the same: taunting the British into gross overreactions to build sympathy for the revolutionaries.
You don't march into Washington except with a modern military force, and you don't try it until you have enough to defeat what Washington will throw at you, or, preferably, have already defeated its armies. If we ever got to the point where people were taking up arms, as posited, they would only be effective if they were organized into a force sufficient to gain US Army adherents, military hardware and territory to operate from. Hopefully, the feral government armies will fade away and join the army of the Patriots and the march into Washingon, when it comes, will be a triumphant parade with drums beating, fifes playing and joyous celebration. But if that doesn't materialize, if the socialist state is able to maintain a fighting force that has a good chunk of the current military power and, more importantly, hardware, then it may be more judicious to leave the commies alone in their hell holes, form our own forces, and demand to go our separate ways. A divorce. If attacked, we can then defend our own territory. Would be nice to get hold of a few of those nukes in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota. The commie state will collapse at some point anyway, so what do we care what they do, we just don't want to be part of it, and I for one, don't want to have armies enter their territory and fight a war on American soil to force people to live under our Constitution. Let them create a new one; just reading it would be good for a laugh.
"Don't try until you're sure you can win" combines really well with "you'll never be able to organize an effective resistance" for discouraging resistance to tyranny.
There is always hope that the Constitution still works, that there is time to fix this, that the elections in 2014 will go favorably, that a President Cruz will begin the road back to Constitutional rule, free markets will be restored, growth will help keep the debt from imploding the budget, and all will be well with the world. I am still holding out that hope, but truth be told, it is starting to become a long shot.
Yeah... I would bet the GOP elite aren't gonna tolerate anyone who's on the "conservative" side of things... and will push hard against anyone who does.
Remember, patriots controlled the colonial press. They turned what John Adams later proved was a defensive action into the Boston Massacre. A massacre involving only 5 dead. It was therefore effective for propaganda purposes. Suppose we would get the same propaganda mileage today? There is video today, what happened would be shown on TV. How would it look if marchers provoked something and then a few of them were shot at, and mass pandemonium broke out? I'll tell you, it would turn a lot of people off from the message by reason of the way it was delivered. It would be on TV night and day, Tea Party Terrorists running amok on the lawn, next to our national treasures at the Smithsonian, the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, at the steps of the Capital. Good luck selling Constitutional rule at that point.
I said nothing about the argument that "you'll be taking guns into prohibited places". Don't know why you even mention it to me. The post of mine, that you responded to, was when I responded to a poster who is frustrated like we all are, and asked the question, "OK, when will it be ok to do an armed march into DC then"? My response was "never". If things get to the point where we want to take up arms against the existing federal government, the way to do it will never, ever be a frontal assault on the District of Columbia. That is just lunacy.
Your Sam Adams provocation would come if the Red States say "enough" and attempt to peacefully follow the Constitution without being subject to federal feudal law any more. The ferals would probably not allow the "divorce" to proceed peacefully. They will commit some atrocity, some act of aggression, that will steel the resolve of those who have chosen to live free, and that will be what we can rally around.
You are putting words in my mouth, and I don't like that. I didn't say "don't try until you can win." I said "don't attack Washington in a suicide mission". My view is that you come up with a strategy that permits you to prevail, then implement. Marching armed on Washington in response to some outrage is not a strategy, it is just blind rage that will not end well. The future belongs to those who think. The marxists have been pursuing a strategy for 150 years, and it is coming to fruition. They have been patient, clever at times, plain evil and willing to do whatever it takes to win. We will have to be smarter than armed marches on DC to get rid of their threat.
The Second Amendment does protect against tyranny, but not in the sense of allowing the citizens the ability to march on Washington and take it back. Maybe it might have been possible 200 years ago, but not in the era of helicopter gunships, drones, gps artillery, machine guns, bulletproof vests, rpg's, etc. etc. We can't win a battle, but we can resist, in guerrilla fashion, and that ability to resist is what helps keep the government in check. That is why they want to disarm us, not because they are worried about us militarily, but so that when they send an agent to your house to take it away or to take your children, or to take you away, they won't be facing a sniper from the woods. Gun deaths in the inner city don't harm them, but if their agents are not safe in the hinterlands, they can't impose their control as well as they would like. If we ever lost the war, and tyranny was imposed, that would be plan c.