more totalitarian bullshit from the supreme court

[ConHog]

Of course they don't say that. In fact, the group goes to great lengths to say what the are NOT. But my question is why do they think their "extra protection" is necessary? What are they expecting? Seems to me they're already planning for martial law (why?), or total gun control (not on the table so far, and not even in campaign promises), so what do they think they know that the rest of the country doesn't? Why are they already preparing for an insurrection? Against what internal enemy that would remove all their constitutional rights? Who is spreading that kind of irrational fear, and why?

I agree with you, they are paranoid. That makes them loons, not terrorists.

Don't go making much of this, but bin Laden's plan started out as a small, defensive one too, simply proclaiming that he wanted all foreign troops (especially Americans) out of his country (then Saudi Arabia). Then he got caught up in hero worship and the rest is history.

You of course realize that Bin Laden was is and never will be afforded the protections of our CON?

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with you, they are paranoid. That makes them loons, not terrorists.

Don't go making much of this, but bin Laden's plan started out as a small, defensive one too, simply proclaiming that he wanted all foreign troops (especially Americans) out of his country (then Saudi Arabia). Then he got caught up in hero worship and the rest is history.

You of course realize that Bin Laden was is and never will be afforded the protections of our CON?

Your point? Mine was comparing bin Laden and around 300 ragtags with rifles defending the sovereignty of SA to the Oathers defending the sovereignty of the US. Dangerous "movements" always start small until they start recruiting angry people already prone to violence.

 

[ConHog]

Don't go making much of this, but bin Laden's plan started out as a small, defensive one too, simply proclaiming that he wanted all foreign troops (especially Americans) out of his country (then Saudi Arabia). Then he got caught up in hero worship and the rest is history.

You of course realize that Bin Laden was is and never will be afforded the protections of our CON?

Your point? Mine was comparing bin Laden and around 300 ragtags with rifles defending the sovereignty of SA to the Oathers defending the sovereignty of the US. Dangerous "movements" always start small until they start recruiting angry people already prone to violence.

My point is that the Oathers are afforded the right to be as insane as they want without government suspicion unless and until the actually do something illegal. DO you really want some government asshole to have the power to decide that man that Maggie she is talking some smack, she MIGHT be dangerous at some point in the future if we don't put a stop to her before she does something illegal.

It's a very real hazard of living in a free society.

 

[MaggieMae]

You of course realize that Bin Laden was is and never will be afforded the protections of our CON?

Your point? Mine was comparing bin Laden and around 300 ragtags with rifles defending the sovereignty of SA to the Oathers defending the sovereignty of the US. Dangerous "movements" always start small until they start recruiting angry people already prone to violence.

My point is that the Oathers are afforded the right to be as insane as they want without government suspicion unless and until the actually do something illegal. DO you really want some government asshole to have the power to decide that man that Maggie she is talking some smack, she MIGHT be dangerous at some point in the future if we don't put a stop to her before she does something illegal.

It's a very real hazard of living in a free society.

They can carry on however they want, but I simply suggested its recruited members be apprised of the law regarding subversion and to act (or act out) accordingly.