Texas Open Carry Coordinator Advocates Committing Treason and Nullifying our Constitution in Armed Revolt

Kory Watkins, coordinator for Open Carry Tarrant County poses for a portrait holding his Romanian AK 47, Thursday, May 29, 2014, in Haltom City, Texas.  (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Kory Watkins, coordinator for Open Carry Tarrant County poses for a portrait holding his Romanian AK 47, Thursday, May 29, 2014, in Haltom City, Texas.
(AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

I’ve often mocked these gun nuts who believe that guns give us the right to overthrow our government. It’s easily one of the most ludicrous beliefs we have in this country. Just think about that premise for a moment. Our Constitution sets up a system by which we elect the members of our government. And while we often complain about our government not representing us, the fact remains that we are the ones who put these men and women in power. If we want better politicians, then we need to elect better ones.

But it’s never made any sense that someone, or some group, feels that they have the right to overthrow elected officials if they don’t agree with them. How does that even make sense? Isn’t that basically telling all those Americans who did vote for, and support, these politicians that their voice/opinion doesn’t matter? How is it “freedom” to tell tens of millions of Americans that their votes are suddenly nullified because a gang of armed individuals doesn’t like who they elected?

The bottom line is we have a system put in place to “overthrow” our government and it’s called elections. If we want better politicians to serve us then we need to vote for better individuals to represent us in our government.

Though apparently one of the most well-known open carry advocates in Texas, Kory Watkins of Open Carry Tarrant County, feels differently. In fact, in a Facebook post he advocated for at least 10,000 people with guns to march on Washington to “arrest crooked bankers and politicians”:

Have you ever thought we might just need to organize a very large group of our own people. Like 200 from each state so we can march armed to DC take over the city, arrest the bankers, crooked politicians and restore liberty here in our country? I’m not scared. I mean really…..voting and waiting is not working!

First, I’m not sure why he would go to Washington for “crooked bankers” considering Wall Street is located in New York and that’s where most of those individuals reside. Then it’s amazing how he seems to want to take it in his own hands (armed hands mind you) to pick who he and his followers think are corrupt and “arrest them.” Then considering that these politicians and bankers aren’t technically charged with breaking the law, I guess he would want his followers to set up some kind of tribunal where they would place these people on trial themselves because no real court would try someone who hadn’t been legally charged with crimes via our system of criminal justice. A system, by the way, that’s set up by our Constitution.

What if a group of 10,000 people I gather disagrees with the politicians his group arrested? Is Mr. Watkins now appointing himself some kind of authoritarian leader? Should only the people he thinks need to be arrested actually get arrested?

And never mind that Watkins’ entire premise is based upon 10,000 unelected individuals overthrowing and arresting elected officials who were voted on by American citizens via our Constitutionally protected right to vote. I guess to Kory Watkins, the personal opinion of some private citizens matters more than any kind of actual legal ground.

Oh, and then who do we replace all these politicians we’ve just arrested with? New elected officials who would be elected by the same people who elected the people he just arrested, or will these people appoint who they think should run our government? And if we go back to our system of elections, as is set up in our Constitution, what happens if we still elect people with which he disagrees? Will he just stage another armed overthrow of those politicians until the ones he wants get elected?

In other words, Watkins essentially wants to be some kind of quasi-dictator under the guise of “protecting Constitutional freedoms” by advocating for a complete disregard for the judicial and electoral process our Constitution gives us – to basically do whatever the hell he wants.

Because nothing says you’re “standing up for Constitutional values” quite like advocating for an armed treasonous overthrow of our elected officials who tens of millions of Americans voted to represent them, while simultaneously arresting private citizens simply because you think they should be in jail.

Though the truth is, Watkins is nothing but a government-hating fanatic who really couldn’t care less about Constitutional values. If more people believed how he believes we would have the kind of government he wants. But we don’t, because most Americans disagree with his radical nonsense. And the fact that he can’t get his way, because our Constitution doesn’t allow for him to, is what’s really pissing him off.

And that’s the sweet irony in all of this. The very same Constitution he claims to be “fighting to uphold” is the very same thing that’s preventing him from getting his way.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    “But it’s never made any sense that someone, or some group, feels that they have the right to overthrow elected officials if they don’t agree with them. How does that even make sense?”

    It has always made perfect sense to anyone familiar with history and who understands the circumstances behind the fact that we are the USA and not a British colony like we once were.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      Your reading comprehension is that of a rock. ………..even your words,” like we once were”. Not now. So……..your peashooter is capable of overthrowing the greatest military force in the world because YOU disagree. Get a new passport picture and a bottle of whiskey. Southwest has cheap tickets………..

      • Jim Bean

        Are you nuts? In what country do you live? Does it border on Mexico?

        Our peashooters do not have to be capable of taking out the military. They only need to be capable of taking out the occasional judge, police chief, politician, or, equally effective, their wife or daughter to get them adjust their behavior.
        How do you think the drug cartels overthrew the Mexican government – and many others for that matter? Duh?!

      • Mitch Black

        Yeah go take your gun and kill A judge and then we will watch the cops blow you away on the evening news….live.

      • Avatar

        You’re thinking too much about killing instead of being logical. Typical Ammosexuals’ basic argument that doesn’t have any place in real world.

      • Pipercat

        “Ammosexuals,” holy shit!

      • Thanatopsis

        “Greatest military force in the world”. Haha. They’re a fucking joke. All the people I was in school with that joined the military were the dumbest people in our class. It particularly annoys me when you see one out in public wearing their uniform. Apparently they don’t realize how stupid they look.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        Those are ammosexuals that couldn’t do well in school as yourself. You do realize that officers graduate college right? And your re-re school and choice of friends doesn’t represent our military. Just your opinion. Enjoy.

    • theyak47

      And Conservatives were against that too.

      • Jim Bean

        Yes they were. But they don’t suffer from the severe learning disorder that is epidemic among the Left.

      • maariyathomas313

        Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do…

        ———-> w.atch.me/BP85dO

      • Avatar

        It was liberals and progressive who fought against British while American conservatives fought with Brits against us. Like I said your attempt to revisionist the historical points are tantrum and embarrassing.

      • strayaway

        Why do so many liberals diss the founders for being white, male, property and slave owners if they were “liberals and progressives”. You can’t have it both ways.

      • Avatar

        George Washington; Liberal. Thomas Jefferson; Liberal. John Adams; Liberal. How on earth do you think liberals are dissed that founding fathers are white people? History has already been written and it’s an inevitable fact that nobody can change. Your comment… Okay!

      • strayaway

        If you mean “liberal” in its earlier meaning you would be right. “”Classical liberalism” is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.” That is quite different than the definition of modern “liberals”. Classical liberal better describes Rand Paul than Hillary Clinton.

      • PoppaDavid

        No, liberal as in practically socialist in some cases. Patriot Thomas Paine in his “Agrarian Justice” book advocated public social security payments from the government for retirees and startup capital for young people.

        Conservatives of the day supported the monarchy, while liberals supported either direct democracy and elected representative legislatures. Read the original sources, the Constitution was a COMPROMISE between the liberals and conservatives, between republicans and democrats, and between federalists and confederates.

        There was broad agreement on some items. Most colonists wanted the states to have independence from the British Parliament and King. Most wanted rule of law rather than rule of power or anarchy.

      • strayaway

        Your description of Paine’s book does make him sound like he had something in common with modern liberals but these guys signed onto the 10th. Amendment. Modern liberals pretend the 10th. Amendment doesn’t exist yet the Founders put it into the Constitution to limit the scope of the federal government. I think its quite possible for two groups of conservatives to find themselves at odds. Just because they didn’t support British Tories, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t rather keep the profits flowing to England for themselves.

      • PoppaDavid

        The Constitution does not revolve around the 10th Amendment. Remember that the Constitution was written and approved in Convention without any of the Bill of Rights. Those were added during the approval process as another compromise to entice the legislatures of the flagging states to join the union. Some of the Convention approved of those items and others did not. There is a habit of modern writers to treat the American rebels as a group of like-minded people.

        Some strongly held the position that you prefer. Others did not. The Tenth Amendment does exist, but please note that one of the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government is the authority to “Promote the general welfare”. Conservatives want to believe that that doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Even though it appears as often as “provide for the common defence”.

      • strayaway

        You imply that I said the Constitution revolves around the 10th. Amendment. I didn’t. I just noted that modern liberals pretend the 10th Amendment doesn’t exist. The 10th. Amendment just emphasizes that the powers “granted” (Article 1, Section 1) the federal government are limited and delegated. However, powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states and the people. So take heart, if you want a single payer health care plan or gay marriage, just pass it in your state. The Democratic party and much of the Republican Party would cease existence at the national level if they observed the 10th Amendment. That’s why they ignore it. Centralization of power and corruption would be so much more difficult were it considered.

        the Bill of Rights was ratified only about 3 years after the Constitution so the same bunch of founders were mostly still around.

        The general welfare is the opposite of parochial interests. In other words, legislation and other measures of the government are supposed to benefit the general welfare instead of those of the 1%, a religious group, cronies, or other parochial interests. Since “welfare” as we know it today was then mostly taken care of by churches and the federal government did not run large scale “welfare” programs, that meaning hardly existed then. The key word is the adjective “general”.

        Liberals, of course, would prefer to interpret the welfare and commerce clauses to override the rest of their imaginary living Constitution.

      • PoppaDavid

        Most people understand that the federal government was established by the Constitution to “provide for the common defense” and that justifies the American military establishment. That same Constitution says that the federal government was established to “promote the general welfare”. That doesn’t JUST mean that legislation must be general in nature. It means that the government may actively PROMOTE the general welfare.

        Bad air impacts our general welfare, so the government has the authority to promote clean air. Same for water. Same for food quality. Same for truth in advertising. Those are issues that affect welfare of the general public. And, the quality of health care in America is a general welfare item. The parochial interests of private for-profit corporations are not general welfare.

        BTW, if you happen to believe that our Constitution specifies “belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism”, you are welcome to identify the part that requires that.

      • strayaway

        You still don’t get it. the general welfare is the opposite of parochial interests. I didn’t say “general in nature”. What I wrote was, “legislation and other measures of the government are supposed to benefit the general welfare instead of those of the 1%, a religious group, cronies, or other parochial interests.” I don’t even know what “general in nature” means. You misquoted me.

        I agree that some of the things you mentioned do affect the general welfare and if they cross state lines and are powers delegated to the federal government, Congress does have a say. Health care is something not generally relegated to the federal government. The health of DC residents and federal employees yes but otherwise the states have that power. The Supreme court ruled that since Congress can tax and the (un)ACA is a tax, it is covered under the 10th. I think that’s ludicrous but that’s where it stands. It logically means that the government can do anything it wants if it includes tax provisions. The governor of Vermont just gave up his plan to have a state single payer plan by the way because of the (un)ACA. I’m not sure how the (un)ACA provided for the general welfare of the residents of Vermont by gumming the system. The general welfare is not an exclusive prerogative of the federal government. What the Federal government is allowed to do, however, must be done for the general welfare.

        Where did I say I believed that “our Constitution specifies “belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism”? That’s the second time in one post you misquoted me.

      • PoppaDavid

        The 10th Amendment reserves to the states those powers that are not explicitly granted to the federal government. The federal government is explicitly granted the authority to promote the general welfare. If you accept a literal reading of the Constitution then federal action that promotes the general welfare doesn’t have to be a tax to be legal, it just has to promote the general welfare.

        I accept that health care was not the province of the federal government in the past ( except for military, natives, federal workers, legislators and staff, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Centers for Disease Control, Aid to Dependent Children, tobacco warnings, and a few other programs). I accept that states are allowed to provide health care. That doesn’t change the Constitution, the federal government is still allowed to promote the general welfare as it applies to health.

        Your description of “Classical Liberals” five days ago made that connection with the founding fathers and the Constitution and laissez-faire economics.

      • strayaway

        You sure are wiggling to turn the “general Welfare” clause into some sort of a blank check to do whatever the federal government wants. But, as I’ve suggested, it addresses whom the government must serve rather that being a blank check and is still moderated by the wording of the 10th Amendment limiting federal powers to those delegated. If the commerce and general welfare clauses cover so much territory as you want to think, then there was no purpose for mentioning all the delegated powers as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2. Maybe you should support an amendment that would eliminate everything in the Constitution except the general welfare clause since the general welfare clause seems to trump everything else anyway. Then, for instance, presidents could serve give their favorite groups of supporters and financiers goodies without all that sticky stuff about congressional delegated powers to write uniform Naturalization laws. The president could jut do it himself like in some other countries. This is, of course, is why Democrats, at least at the federal level can never acknowledge the 10th Amendment. They don’t want to be subject to limitations of power.

        Your quote was, “if you happen to believe that our Constitution specifies “belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism”, you are welcome to identify the part that requires that.” As you just pointed out, my reference was with regards to Classical Liberals rather than Constitution wording.

      • PoppaDavid

        If you want to object to federal health care, argue on the merits. The Constitution was written before the Bill of Rights, and the words chosen were selected as a compromise of the various proposals. It does say “promote general welfare” and that is what was meant. Either read the document literally or don’t, just don’t do one and claim the other.

        The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution and we may reasonably presume that the authors knew the words “promote general welfare” were in the document. The Amendments don’t mention it, so they didn’t change it.

        Why are there items in 1-8 and 2-2? Because there is a real difference between the enumerated powers of those sections and the authority to “promote general welfare”. One is an obligation and one is optional. Congress has the authority to create a federal health system, but no obligation to do so.

        Re: Laizze-faire economic theory. The Constitution regulates the political life of our nation. Economics is economics. The constitution references private property, but that doesn’t preclude ownership if property by corporations, whether those corporations are private, non-profit, for-profit, or publicly owned (socialism).

      • strayaway

        The Constitution was written just about 3 years before the Bill of Rights by largely the same cast of characters. Again, everything the federal government does is supposed to promote the general welfare rather then parochial interests. Promoting the general welfare also has to be consistent with other parts of the Constitution including Article 1, Section 1, and the Tenth Amendment. It is not a super delegated power overriding the 10th Amendment as you wish it was. You are still living in a fantasy in which it can mean whatever you want it to mean as opposed to a structures of delegated powers limiting federal power. Actually they don’t limit power as the amendment process, for instance, makes it possible to end the Constitution or at least everything but the general welfare clause.

        Besides, the (un)ACA doesn’t do much for the general welfare. Its great for insurance company profits and does benefit several million people who used to have to show up in hospital emergency wards but when and if the corporate subsidies end at the end of 2016, it might screw up the economy.

        Optional? You mean like Obama issuing edicts? No, those are the powered granted and delegated. If you want some more, amend the Constitution or support fiat executive rule. I must have missed the part in the Constitution explaining that delegated powers are optional and which are obligatory. Where do you get this stuff?

      • PoppaDavid

        History lesson: The Constitution was written in 1787 by a Convention of 55 members, 16 of them did not sign the document. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison, based upon the Virginia constitution and the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by John Mason. To say that they were “largely the same cast of characters”, is based upon ignorance.

        The 10th Amendment references “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”. Since the power to “promote the general welfare” is delegated to the United States, it isn’t covered by the 10th Amendment.

        Unless of course, you don’t want to read the Constitution literally.

        Earlier you wrote, “If the commerce and general welfare clauses cover so much territory as you want to think, then there was no purpose for mentioning all the delegated powers as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8”

        You do realize that the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 specifically lists “provide for … general welfare”? If they didn’t want it as a delegated power why did they include it?

      • strayaway

        You continue to wiggle. As I initially noted, Democrats have to ignore the 10th Amendment to do the things they do. Fact: the Tenth Amendment is part of the Constitution no matter how much you try to separate it. Again, the delegated powers found in 1-8 have to serve the general welfare rather than parochial interests.

        Until Roosevelt, the 10th Amendment was taken seriously. Although the Constitution gives the power to tax to Congress, the Constitution was amended to allow Wilson’s income tax. Although many thought prohibition served the general welfare, the Constitution had to be amended to allow it and then again to repeal it. Now, such things are passed as laws or the president issues executive edicts in lieu of congressional legislation. This is a far cry passing a health care bill written by insurance company insiders that made it infeasible for Vermont to have an affordable single payer plan. If, in Vermont, an affordable single payer plan was thought to serve the general welfare, that sentiment was blocked in Washington because Democrats there thought it was more important to have a national health care system that looked after the parochial interests of trial lawyers, bureaucrats, and insurance company profits.

        The only way your interpretation makes sense is if the general welfare, which you consider a delegated power rather than whom the Constitution serves, trumps the 10th, or for that matter, any other part of the Constitution. It is a rationalization for a dictatorship. That’s a major reason I can never consider voting Democratic or for many Republicans in national elections. I prefer liberty.

      • PoppaDavid

        Do you have a copy of the Constitution? Find it. Open to Article. I., Section. 8. Read the first paragraph, it starts with “Congress shall have the Power to…” followed by a list that includes “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare …”. Providing and promoting general welfare is mentioned twice in the Constitution, in the Preamble and in Art. I, Sec 8. That qualifies it as a power delegated to the United States.

        If you move to the Bill of Rights, Amendment X, you will read, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution …”

        In simple English, that means when Art. I, Sec. 8 says Congress has the Power to provide for general Welfare, the 10th Amendment doesn’t take that power away.

        No interpretation required.

        Part of your problem in understanding this is that you have mentally moved “general welfare” out of the first paragraph and placed it into the last paragraph of Section 8. In you mind the last paragraph reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper … ; but only if they are for the general welfare.”

        That is not how it was written. Providing for the general welfare is a designated power, not a restriction upon the use of power.

      • strayaway

        What’s you point? The key word is “general” Everything Congress does is for the GENERAL welfare as opposed to parochial interests. Nowhere does it say that your interpretation, Bush’s interpretation, or King Obama’s interpretation of welfare cans spring forth new never delegated powers. That’s just in you head in your attempt to minimize the 10th Amendment. You express an autocratic mentality so perfect for being a Democrat.

        affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
        “books of general interest”
        synonyms:widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream; More

        considering or including the main features or elements of something, and disregarding exceptions; overall.
        “they fired in the general direction of the enemy”
        synonyms:broad, imprecise, inexact, rough, loose, approximate, unspecific, vague, woolly, indefinite;
        “a general description”

      • PoppaDavid

        My point is that, I can quote the Constitution literally to support my position. You are unable to do anything more than reference the name of an amendment.

        The 10th Amendment only applies to those items NOT contained in the body of the Constitution including all other Amendments.

        Because “Provide general Welfare” IS included in the body of the text, the 10th Amendment has no authority over it.

        And please note, the correct use of English grammar allows the text of Article. 1., Section. 8. to be understood as reading “The Congress shall have Power To provide for general Welfare of the United States”. It says that Congress may enact legislation that provides general welfare, like national health programs.

      • Angela Monger

        Liberals wouldn’t own slaves and I seriously doubt that these men considered themselves liberals. Washington also hated my Native ancestors and killed them so I sincerely hope genocide is not a liberal attribute. It seems the longer these people are dead the more of a mythological makeup they get.

      • Angela Monger

        Actually most people in the colonies were against the Revolution. Not to mention that the colonies were Christian theocracies so I don’t see a lot of liberals in this.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      Actually, Jim, the slightest understanding of historical context would make quite clear that these are two completely unrelated ideas. The American Revolution was not a revolt of a tiny selection for the population against elected officials with whom they did not disagree, which is what Mr. Watkins is calling for.

      The American Revolution was an armed revolt, yes, against a government that did not include any of the revolters in any part of the legislative process. The Founding Fathers were not objecting to elected officials that they did not like, they were objecting to a SYSTEM in which they did not get to elect any officials in the first place. They were rebelling against Monarchy and Parliamentary rule, and taxation without representation. They did not have the option to change their country via the ballot box, so they took up arms.

      It’s amusing that you are pontificating about the “learning disorder that is epidemic among the left” when you don’t seem to have any clue what you’re talking about.

      Mr. Watkins is represented in the US government. If he does not like his representation, he is free, as are all citizens, to elect a replacement. The fact that he wants to take to the streets with his guns shows that he has nothing but contempt for the Constitutional process established by the Founders. They didn’t take up arms because they voted and then regretted picking the people they chose. They took up arms because they did not have the right to vote in the first place, which seems to be what Mr. Watkins wants to impose on everyone who doesn’t share his world views.

      • Jim Bean

        The Colonists officially cast their ballot with the Declaration of Independence. The British Government refused to accept those election results until 7 years later and only did so then because they were still getting shot at.

        Mr. Watkins is just another harmless crackpot that the author seizes upon to give him an excuse to launch into yet another anti-2nd Amendment rant. He did the same thing with the Bundy affair.

        Watkins is no more anti-social or anti-American than the NYC protesters chanting ‘What do we want? DEAD COPS!! When do we want it? NOW!!” You can be certain the author will find that much, much, less troubling.

        “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
        – George Mason – Co-author, Second amendment.

        “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
        – George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

      • Mitch Black

        The British are not armed to the teeth and they do not seem to be enslaved.In colonial times the British did not have drones and other high tech weapons.I would love to see you standing out their firing away at a drone with a hunting rifle

      • Avatar

        Better yet, try with flintlock musket.

      • Jim Bean

        I would have loved to see one of the hostages in the Sydney coffee/chocolate shop packing a concealed handgun.

      • Avatar

        LMAO, you’re trying too hard to be history revisionist. This is progressive site, you can’t even change our minds.

      • strayaway

        “The Founding Fathers …. were objecting to a SYSTEM in which they did not get to elect any officials in the first place. They were rebelling against Monarchy and Parliamentary rule, and taxation without representation. They did not have the option to change their country via the ballot box, so they took up arms.”

        Not to argue with that too much but the official wording they agreed on is found in the second paragraph of the US Declaration of independence and includes “That whenever ANY form of government becomes destructive to (unalienable rights), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it” and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.”

        We are, in my opinion, a long way from being a total North Korean type dictatorship. Sure, the president is testing the waters issuing edicts and administrative interpretations of law to see how much he can get away with but so far that has just resulted in losing some seats in the Senate so the system is working out as it should as you point out. The ballot box is to place to change government. However, you were wrong, according to the Declaration of Independence’s wording as to why some colonists revolted. They didn’t revolt specifically because of the monarchy and parliamentary rule. The revolted because that government had began destroying their unalienable rights and they believed they were headed toward absolute despotism – not that they were there yet.

  • theyak47

    Protesting the Socialist Dictator by carrying a Communist made rifle.

    • Javenis Mydaus

      I was unaware that Romania was still Communist.

      • Avatar

        Romania is under control by near-despotic dictator.

      • Javenis Mydaus

        Do you mean the one that was just defeated in the elections?

      • Avatar

        Well new left-leaning parliament is far more promising for better future but right-lean President is still in the power.

      • Javenis Mydaus

        I wasn’t aware that left/right paradigm had anything to do with dictatorship?

      • Avatar

        I said near-dictator, not full blown like Hitler, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Saddam.

      • Javenis Mydaus

        One might deduce from your statement “Well new left-leaning parliament is far more promising for better future but right-lean President is still in the power.” that left/right has bearing on potential dictator status.

      • Eg Kbbs

        Javenis – and the odds that the rifle in the picture was made in the last few months is………?

        Not to mention seems fairly likely that your comment was made just to derail discussion from the issues and the point of the article – namely that folks claiming to be patriots are talking about taking over the government.

      • Javenis Mydaus

        Eg, the picture itself is 7 months old, so the rifle is probably a couple or few years old. Democracy in Romania is close to 25 years old, not a few months. So that rifle was made in a capitalist country. Does that not make it a fitting comment to Ak’s post?

        For those that are derailed easily let me spell that out. No Ak, it was not made in a Communist country. Eg, any rifle bought legally (and every rifle should be legal) is a representation of his right to purchase and carry the gun of his choice. Therefore it is a valid symbol of his Patriotism.

  • Stephen Tucker

    Come for our guns and 1776 will happen again.

    In April 1775 on orders from the Crown, British soldiers, or redcoats as
    Americans referred to them, marched west from their station in Boston
    to Lexington and Concord. They were to confiscate colonial weapons and
    gunpowder and capture John Hancock and Sam Adams, the leaders of the
    “rebel militia.” When local Patriots heard the purpose of the British
    troops, they sent Paul Revere and William Dawes on their famous rides to
    alert the countryside and warn Hancock and Adams that the British were
    coming. When the redcoats arrived at Lexington, about 70 Minute Men refused the
    British solders’ orders to disperse, and a shot was fired. No one knows
    which side fired the shot, but it was, in the often quoted phrase of
    Ralph Waldo Emerson, “the shot heard ’round the world.”At the end of
    what many consider the first day of the Revolutionary War, the British
    troops had suffered over 250 casualties, while the Americans had fewer
    than 100 casualties. A British General reported to London that the
    rebels had earned their respect.

    • Avatar

      Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to renact the Paul Revere’s famous ride? Rush Revere books are New York best top seller books yet many people haven’t seen children reading these books.

    • Alberto Mora

      That was then go ahead try it now against the most powerful army in the world (USA ARMY) and see what happens, besides all this idiots are all talk and no action

  • Judy Jackson

    This was tried back in May. It was called Operation American Spring. It was an EPIC FAIL. This was tried last week. It was called Operation American Freedom. It was an EPIC FAIL. Kory Watkins can organize an armed march on Washington. It will be an EPIC FAIL.

    • Avatar

      For justice for all protests are much bigger than POS teabaggers’ protests.

      • Judy Jackson

        OAS, OAF, Bikers, Truckers, insert bat shit crazy “patriot, freedom for all, ‘Murica” group. They have all FAILED. Watkins is a failure.

  • Avatar

    A self-proclaimed ‘Patriot’ holding non-American gun in this picture. Now that is real unpatriotic act by teabagger pleb.

  • Avatar

    A self-proclaimed ‘Patriot’ holding non-American gun in this picture. Now that is real unpatriotic act by teabagger pleb.

  • Macdoodle

    The AK-47 is a truly amazing rifle I own several.Ill be waiting for this man’s call.

  • Wonko The Sane

    Want to end the “open carry movement”? Get large gangs of blacks and middle-easterners to walk around exercising THEIR right to open carry. The laws will be changed quicker than you can say, “…but…but…muh freedums…”

    • JASSICAmgonzalez2014

      My profit for last month was 11 thousand bucks… I earned it by doing simple online work from my home for 3-4 hr each day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me 95 bucks/each hour…
      Try it yourself C­a­re­e­r-re­p­o­r­t­­.c­o­­­m

    • OpenMinded

      Very good point. Also, I love your handle. I was just explaining the asylum to a friend the other day.

    • Mick

      It’s already happening, moron. There’s an all black open carry group in Dallas Huey P. Newton Gun Club
      And as a white, Texan, US Army veteran, police accountability and open-carry advocate, and member of the Constitutional militia…We couldn’t be happier to see it. Open carry and cop blockers love to see this shit because it’s bringing them our position. So stick that in your medicinal pot pipe and smoke it, you insufferable statist lackey.

  • Pipercat

    Love the trilby!

  • Seth bright

    Hold the phone who the he’ll wrote this lmao he’s a retard think about it Thomas Jefferson u know the one who helped write the declaration bill of rights ect. Says if u read a little more into it that the 2nd amendment was in fact to help the American people overthrow a government that would try and take away the rights of the people in fact what the he’ll do u think they just got done doing before they wrote it… overthrowing a government lol some people I swear away and to think I have to share calling myself an American with them….

  • Angela Monger

    While I agree with the premise of the article, the only way we can vote for better candidates is if we are offered better candidates. The Fortune 500 makes the selection of who we vote for which will always be people who are
    beholden to them. I think there are some very serious changes we need to make when it comes to who can run for office. You can’t vote for better candidates if the better ones can’t afford the millions it costs to run. We all know that Corporate America gives millions of dollars to candidates and expects the candidates to answer to them. Not us. So while this guy’s idea is crazy we do need to make changes.

  • Mick

    Meh, so much moronic bullshit you post.
    I’ll just leave this here:

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

    “…it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

    Declaration of Independence

    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

    Abraham Lincoln

  • Thanatopsis

    That doesn’t sound like a bad idea at all. Someone should overthrow the US government.