It's distressing to read all the bloviating by folks claiming to be "Oath Keepers" or "Three Percenters" on the situation out in Oregon, with the general gist being "well, yeah, maybe there's a problem there, but it's not the time for armed insurrection."
Incidentally, I happen to agree that it isn't the time for armed insurrection.
The ugly reality is that when it is time it is also probably too late to utilize such a tool, and history shows this pretty-conclusively, making any such statement by anyone intellectually dishonest at best.
As I have pointed out myriad times over the last 8 years history provides an unkind analysis of those who start civil (or uncivil, if you prefer, as most of them are quite uncivil!) conflicts. Not only do most of them fail (e.g. our Civil War) in their claimed objectives a majority of the time you are far worse off after the conflict than before.
I don't know about you but from my point of view if I'm going to die for something I'd prefer to have a materially better than even-odds shot at those who are still here having a better world rather than a worse one.
The real problem with these groups is that I can't square what they say with what they do -- or more to the point, don't do.
Let's start with the most-simple: The claim that The Constitution is worthy of defense. I happen to agree.
So let's look at the Oath Keepers in particular:
More @ Marker Ticket