So, just out of morbid curiosity, I checked through the site linked. The 'Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey' is... interesting.
#1's proximate cause is at least identifiable, although the supposed supporting logic of 'effective final recourse to arms' is wishful thinking in its purest and most futile form.
#2, to my even greater surprise, expresses support for a legal principle that has been under assault by the neoconservative bloc in the recent past, although, again, the reasoning for doing so is based off of a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of disarmament.
#3 is something that is not only legally reasonable but an active issue, and is genuinely worthwhile, although the idea that a government could conduct an 'act of war' against private citizens is as far as I know unsupportable and certainly outside the constitution's very specific definitions of treason. The 'militia movement' has de-facto criminal goals, of course, but they're rarely acted on, and in any case that does not deprive them of their right to due process.
#4 is completely out of left field. The closest thing I can think of to relevance is federally mandated desegregation, which, besides being a racist dogwhistle, is extensively supported by the Supreme Court.
#5 is, again, so directly against legal precedent that it's impossible for me to take as anything but more 'South Shall Rise Again' nonsense. Individual States explicitly have no such rights.
#6 is completely irrelevant to anything. Like, literally, I have no idea where they're getting this lunacy. The only Police State Walls I've seen suggested were to keep people out of the national borders.
#7 astonishes me. It is based on accurate historical information, it draws ethical conclusions... it is, in short, sane. Except for the part where no one has suggested anything of the sort in the last sixty-five years.
#8 is obviously some sort of anti-UN dogwhistle, but frankly, the idea of the United States Government needing anyone else's help on its own soil - at least, outside of things like importing earthquake recovery specialist teams from halfway across the world, which everybody does - is laughable.
#9 is another 'Okayyyyy... where did this come from?' bit. And...
...As long as the Westborough Baptists remain unlynched, the United States demonstrably maintains an order of magnitude more protection on the freedom of speech than the founders themselves would have imagined, and #10 is another 'admirable but irrelevant'.
And you're plugging these people?
Khagler, for your own safety and the safety of others, I must strongly recommend that you seek the help of a mental-health professional immediately.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
#1's proximate cause is at least identifiable, although the supposed supporting logic of 'effective final recourse to arms' is wishful thinking in its purest and most futile form.
#2, to my even greater surprise, expresses support for a legal principle that has been under assault by the neoconservative bloc in the recent past, although, again, the reasoning for doing so is based off of a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of disarmament.
#3 is something that is not only legally reasonable but an active issue, and is genuinely worthwhile, although the idea that a government could conduct an 'act of war' against private citizens is as far as I know unsupportable and certainly outside the constitution's very specific definitions of treason. The 'militia movement' has de-facto criminal goals, of course, but they're rarely acted on, and in any case that does not deprive them of their right to due process.
#4 is completely out of left field. The closest thing I can think of to relevance is federally mandated desegregation, which, besides being a racist dogwhistle, is extensively supported by the Supreme Court.
#5 is, again, so directly against legal precedent that it's impossible for me to take as anything but more 'South Shall Rise Again' nonsense. Individual States explicitly have no such rights.
#6 is completely irrelevant to anything. Like, literally, I have no idea where they're getting this lunacy. The only Police State Walls I've seen suggested were to keep people out of the national borders.
#7 astonishes me. It is based on accurate historical information, it draws ethical conclusions... it is, in short, sane. Except for the part where no one has suggested anything of the sort in the last sixty-five years.
#8 is obviously some sort of anti-UN dogwhistle, but frankly, the idea of the United States Government needing anyone else's help on its own soil - at least, outside of things like importing earthquake recovery specialist teams from halfway across the world, which everybody does - is laughable.
#9 is another 'Okayyyyy... where did this come from?' bit. And...
...As long as the Westborough Baptists remain unlynched, the United States demonstrably maintains an order of magnitude more protection on the freedom of speech than the founders themselves would have imagined, and #10 is another 'admirable but irrelevant'.
And you're plugging these people?
Khagler, for your own safety and the safety of others, I must strongly recommend that you seek the help of a mental-health professional immediately.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."