On Apr 5, 2:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

You missed both my point and my second point.
You said militias were not
dangerous loons the way, say, skinheads and KKKers are.
I said tou were wrong on that, and
pointed you to a website that gave many examples of
dangerous loony militia groups.

Classic Daneliuk--ignore the reason the information was
presented, especially in in answer to a question he posed,
and instead criticize in for some completely unrelated
and irrelevant reason.


And you missed my point. The fact that some militias
may be nutcases does not make all or most of them so.

Yet ALL of them are immune from republican criticism. Why
is that?



Yes, you and SPLC are all exorcised because some private citizens have amassed large
caches of weapons. That's why I pointed you to the Constitution - that behavior is
*protected* by the 2nd Amendment.

You mean like Noam Chompsky who engages in a behavior
that is *protected* by the 1st Amendment?

Are we to understand that so long a a person or a group
engages in a behavior that is protected by the Constitution,
our politicians should refrain from criticising them?

--

FF