I don't think the epitome of patriot was attacking the government when the nation was founded.
Really? And exactly how did the US become an independent nation? Could not of been people who considered themselves Patriots that attacked the existing British government, could it? Our Founding Fathers very much believed in violent revolution to over-throw unjust rule, if they hadn't, we would all still be British citizens not Americans. These people who are idolized as the epitome of Patriotism in America were in fact rebels against the then existing government.
The founding fathers also recognised the possiblity that tyranny and an unjust government may once again arise and included the right to keep and bear arms as a means of stopping it. The rise of militias to return to America a just and constitutional government if the government seized enough power to start deny fundimental rights, siezing properties and many other similar things that were happening in America at the time of the revolution is exactly what they envisioned and made allowances for. And of course, any government, so accused, would deny these claims of unconstitionality and being unjust and would indeed claim that those militias were acting illegally and not in accordance with the constitution.
Are these groups right in their exertion that the government has now become unconstitional and unjust? Just like in 1776, each and every citizen will have to make that determination on their own, chose their side and live with the consequences of their choice.
While I may not support violent actions against the government, I can forsee a time when it may indeed become necessary. If violence were to escalate into a new revolution in the near future, I would definitely have to chose the side opposing Obama and the Democrats agendas, but until that time I can still work for a peaceful settlement of the differences. While many of these groups may be "nuts", not every point they bring up is inaccurate or wrong. Partisanship has been growing in this country for more than a decade. We have been becoming more and more divided and whether today or in the future, at some point, these divisions are going to break out into violence. I am not overly concerned about the radical fringe groups, I am more concerned with just how wide that "fringe" is becoming. Just how wide, consider this, Texas Governor Rick Perry made a quip about Texas re-establishing it's independence, he won by a landslide in his re-election bid and the subject of Texas indepence once relegated to a few "nut jobs" became a common and regular subject of conversation. Is there enough effort so far to actually see a break, probably not, but then I wouldn't bet anything on it either.
What these groups lack and what prevents them from being a real danger is the lack of coherent leadership with a widely accepted agenda. Without that leadership and plan, they are nothing but widely dispersed small groups that have a limited ability to cause real harm. The potential harm, at least economically, that these groups are currently capable of doing would not equal in a decade what enviro-terriost cost us in a year. Funny how the article doesn't bring those nut jobs up or the amount of damage they cause every year. But then again, I guess if you are supporting the Democrats, burning houses and apartments being build, destroying forestry equipment and throwing paint or blood on people wearing furs or leather is justifiable and not dangerous or damaging.
