Uh-oh! No good will come from this...

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: shooterbrody

True and True but, for what cause. They should be headed to the south side of Chicago with that ambition and firepower.

For whatever cause they want.
That is how the constitution works.

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Give them canada

I vote for this

a reply to: shooterbrody

Right..Doesn't make it effective though. displaced aggression never works..even if it's "legal"

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Give them canada

Wut?
😳

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Give them canada

I vote for this

Come on guys we already have Justin!

Hey, how about we trade?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Weird...I missed the part where the constitution guarantees the right to kill whitey. Carry legally all you want armed men threatening violence will get people killed. Sounds like you're all for that though.

a reply to: recrisp

So, tell me what exactly is the difference between a real "Patriot" and someone who you consider to be a "Boogaloo boy."

Pretty sure many of the "Patriots" you fantasize about would consider themselves to be what you would label as a "Boogaloo boy."

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Give them canada

F off! We don't want your garbage.
We have our own crap to deal with.

I thought people here supported the right to bear arms 🤷‍♂️

It was one march by some black people doing open carry and everyone has lost their minds. They were within their constitutional rights to do so. In the video, the leader, commander, whatever the hell he calls himself makes it clear not to point your gun at anyone.

It was a shock factor demonstration and true to form, it's making heavy rounds all over the internet as intended. Hook, line and sinker. All of the speech before the march was done for effect.

They're never going to get together and start shooting people. If they did, the military would take care of them and they know that. They're also on the radar big time for even doing that. The feds are watching.

How many times have white people gotten together for open carry demonstrations? Too many times to count. Did they go anywhere and start killing anyone? Of course not. It's all demonstration and theatrics. Makes them feel powerful.

We're used to seeing groups of far right white people getting together for a shock demonstration with rifles. We never see it with black people so they orchestrated it and y'all are triggered exactly as they intended. Scary, angry blacks with guns during heightened racial tensions.

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

The race doesnt matter...the fact they want to make a splash and use legal open carry to do so...great no issues...but when you talk about killing people especially a specific race of people, can you not see where that would be bad for everyone and is wrong and shouldn't be ignored?

a reply to: RickyD

It's wrong and it's ugly.

We should all react over triggered nonsense that we cannot change. It's for the greater good. If enough of us do it, God might hear us and intervene, smiting them.

My apologies, I'm all out of material and have already wasted too much time on this crap. Please carry on.

originally posted by: recrisp

Why this is scary is not so much them, but what they can start, buy having this "I don't care" attitude, which is exactly what was is said in the first video, they will "shoot to kill".
Doing that will surely change politics, cities, and life itself.

Are you some liberal pussy? Good on them, I hope they have fun, march all over the damn place with their guns...its called the 2nd BTW...

originally posted by: recrisp
...
The Patriots are not bad guys, they are actually good guys, and really, being honest, some are playing 'Army', dressing up and looking cool with their toys.
The Patriots are for the people too, this Marxist militia group is not, they are against white people, so there is a significant difference.

That may be so but patriotism is still the precursor to the more dangerous nationalism. One dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.” A former UN secretary-general wrote: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes​—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously. Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

In a flurry of published information celebrating Albert Einstein’s centennial around 1979, news columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote. He called nationalism ‘an infantile disease . . . the measles of the human race.’”

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist's expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war; . . . unless altered, the system of sovereign nation-states will trigger World War III.” The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to wars.

Source: War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.” As The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “Nationalism has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world.” (See also Nationalism in a Global Era, page 134, and Nationalism and the Mind: Essays on Modern Culture, page 94.)

In our age, “nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag,” wrote historian Carlton Hayes. “Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” Nationalism, he added, also has its “holy days,” such as the Fourth of July in the United States, as well as its “saints and heroes” and its “temples,” or shrines. (What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.) In a public ceremony in Brazil, the minister general of the army acknowledged: “The flag is venerated and worshiped . . . just as the Fatherland is worshiped.” Yes, “the flag, like the cross, is sacred,” The Encyclopedia Americana once observed.*

The aforementioned encyclopedia more recently noted that national anthems “are expressions of patriotic feeling and often include an invocation for divine guidance and protection of the people or their rulers.” The book The American Character stated: “That these daily rituals are religious has been at last affirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases.”

*: “The flag, like the cross, is sacred. . . . The rules and regulations relative to human attitude toward national standards use strong, expressive words, as, ‘Service to the Flag,’ . . . ‘Reverence for the Flag,’ ‘Devotion to the Flag.’”​—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Volume 11, page 316.

Nationalism, Patriotism and the Mark of the Beast

Associated commentary on ATS.

a reply to: recrisp

All ex-military. Well, so are a large portion of 1%ers.

A fraction of the right-wing militias in Texas could snuff them out simple enough. The United States military wouldn't even need to waste a couple of hours!

Aaaaand that's how we know it's all words. They know that we know that they know they don't pose a viable threat especially in Texas. We all have guns here. They can't even play the race game in the woods because most country black folk would be shooting back at 'em.

The NFAC is just the new, new, new black panther party. No big deal.

a reply to: recrisp

The ALT-LEFT is just as radical as the ALT-RIGHT.

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

The guns aren't the issue. The rhetoric is. They have a right to speak it, but one has the right to form opinions about the rhetoric.

Nobody gave a crap about the Black Panthers walking around Huntsville, TX, carrying assault rifles during a certain high-profile execution. Nobody really cares this time.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: recrisp

They have the right..I agree. It's just unfortunate.. they/some don't understand they're empowering the actual racists.

No, they are the racist.

And this folks is why guns make societies so much better, look how free you all are, all this freedom and all you want to do is kill each other.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: shooterbrody

Weird...I missed the part where the constitution guarantees the right to kill whitey. Carry legally all you want armed men threatening violence will get people killed. Sounds like you're all for that though.

Who did they kill?
I dont like their words, but will defend their rights to say stupid crap.

a reply to: recrisp

Am I the only one that noticed that they are all wearing paper wrist bands? Like the kind they give you when you are getting into the club or like (I don't know) the kind they give extras in a movie so they know were to be. Go back and look at the video and tell me there is not something fishy about it. It smells of paid actors to me!

Edit: They are also all wearing the same boots. Wonder who paid for all that?