Defend the Constitution with Violence?
Kurt Nimmo's article, "SS Agents Confront We Are Change Activist after Clinton Confrontation" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/171207_b_SS.htm
should cause your skin to crawl for several reasons.
Obviously, we're all a little creeped out by the SS brigades "questioning" a publicly recognized journalist like Nick Carangi.
What sent a chill down my spine was the inquiry, as quoted in Kurt's article- "'...They asked him if he would use violence' to defend the Constitution."
...my god! I certainly hope SOMEONE DOES!
woven into the perspective of their question, are several premises, that if popular, are very dangerous to all. 1. Only the SS, similar agencies, and "accredited" people are responsible to "use violence to defend the Constitution." 2. Choosing to defend the Constitution with violence is not okay. That it's a quick way into serious trouble (and the SS would be your enemy). 3. The Constitution needs not defense in the form of violence (sorry to the rest of you who took the military oath, like myself- you were just killing in some other name, but not the Constitution's).
If I was in Nick's shoes, to that question I would have answered, "just as much as any other responsible citizen, such as yourselves, would do."
... Just because a highway brigand has a certificate, and a shnazzy outfit, repleat with a piece of shiny metal... it doesn't change the fact they're still a highway brigand. Let's not forget that.
My advice to Nick- best not to answer informal questions, when they're doing nothing more than intimidating. Next time, tell 'em to sod off. But then again, we're going to catch some heat whilst over our target... ;-)