Originally Posted by El Argentino
Yep; That whole Thomas Jefferson quote about revolution needing to be re-blooded every so often to stay fresh. I think the Oathkeepers are within their Constitutional rights to claim they'll do as much. I didn't mind people issuing threats about defending their property against the BLM either. FedGov should be scared of its people.
If they actually did go through with it, it would require me to actually reflect and see how closely identify with / support / deny their ideals. The line between terrorist and freedom fighter is often only defined by the winner.
That's basically false. Don't buy into the post-modern "Deist" crap that's shoved at everyone as a way of rectifying the Founders' profound believe in base-Christianity as some sort of existential crap.
Let's be real. It's beyond reasonable dispute that whatever Jefferson quotes these folks may seize on, what they're really saying (whether or not with credibility is a different issue) they're willing to resort to violence to oppose SCOTUS's saying it's unconstitutional for state officials to deny marriage licenses to gay couples. If it were about freedom of religion generally, they've missed quite a few opportunities to adopt other rallying points. At the level of generality you're suggesting you can wrap any bullshit or batshit crazy basis (federal income tax is unconstitutional, they're trying to poison me with flouride in the water suppply, they're withholding evidence of extra-terrestrial visitors) in some general "only by consent of the governed" rhetoric.
Here, we're talking about a bunch of asshats who use some mostly contrived arguments about Christianity and religious freedom to justify threats of violence because they don't want them homo perverts to be able to get married. You can admire that "ideal" if you want, but let's call it what it is.