Sovern's and Malitia

[NYGman]

Sovereigns are a predictable lot and I have seen, all be it on Twitter so sources are not perfect, some Soverin' talk from these Militia men showing up at protests. It may be bringing out the best/worst in them. I also fear they may use this as an excuse to justify the use of their Militia to ensure the security of a free State, even if they don't believe in the government supporting that right.

This story is about an arrest of one of these Militia men who shot at protestors in New Mexico.

"Groups such as the New Mexico Civil Guard and other armed far-right counterprotesters, often referred to as "militias," have been a controversial presence at Black Lives Matter protests across the United States. At an Albuquerque protest this month, video of police talking to an armed "militia" spurred allegations that officers were coordinating with the group in an official capacity, although police denied the claim."

"This is not the first report of heavily armed civilian militias appearing at protests around New Mexico in recent weeks. These extremists cannot be allowed to silence peaceful protests or inflict violence," Heinrich said on Twitter on Monday night.

Soverin's and Malitia's don't mix. I am not a 2nd amendment guy in the scholarly sense, it isn't one I care to focus on, but doesn't it call for a well regulated militia? These rag tag folk seem quite far from well regulated.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But what do I know, I do know Soverin' ideas and Malitia's shouldn't mix.

Hope this isn't viewed as political, it wasn't intended to be, just commentary on something that has been on my mind since going down a militia/soverin' rabbit hole last night.

[The Observer]

When terms like "far-right" get thrown in, it certainly raises my eyebrows in terms of wondering why there would be a question in the mind of the poster about whether their post was political. And tying it into the 2nd amendment and the presence of guns only certifies in my viewpoint that the post is politically motivated.

Let's look at it in another way. Currently in Seattle we have a left-wing movement that has taken over 6 blocks of the city near the downtown area; that area was taken over with armed occupiers and reports have come out that there has been intimidation, physical violence, extortion and enforced segregation based on race of the people that are living in the area. There have been conflicts in the "CHAZ" zone as the leadership splinters in disagreement over how they implement their policies. Of course they have not been able to contain looting and vandalism because they cannot even agree on how to maintain any sense of order.

Yet you decided to focus on the "right-wing" of the political spectrum, despite the fact that what has happened in Seattle includes every issue that you are criticizing in regards to what happened in New Mexico. I could certainly jump to the conclusion that you approve of this kind of behavior as long as it is motivated by left-wing politics, or that you just have a blind-spot in regards overlooking the nonsense of the radical left because, darn it, the right-wingers are just more dangerous.

Regardless of how you arrived here, the point is this: We don't allow posts that are political in nature or are politically provocative. They only tend to get people on side of the spectrum or the other to respond. And then the conversation goes downhill after that. I know this to be a fact because it happened here over several years and degraded the site. So I am locking this thread down.

There is certainly no problem with reporting on the incident in New Mexico and keeping the commentary limited to what happened there, without going off into the traditional political arguments over the 2nd Amendment.