I have no idea how organized/disorganized militia organizations are. If the Oregon and Nevada ranchers were loosely organized under the principles of a national group that changed it's face regularly but were the same people and had the same funding from the same donors; and that the local militias changed their goals along with the national group; and the groups had organized activities across the multiple groups; and the groups sacrificed people to say what controversial thing they wanted out there and then disavow that the leader was ever a part of the group; and any one of a number of other things that act like a national/international terrorist organization rather than a local group of militant whackos. If all of that and more, then yeah, it's the same.
Okay, I'll meet you half-way.
Yes, BLM is very well funded and organized in some aspects, especially compared to local militias. In that regard, you're totally right. And in that regard, the well-funded BLM should be held responsible for people using their name when they are among other BLM protestors.
So, again, I'll meet you half-way, you're points on differences are very valid.
The NAACP is a political organization with a clear central organization, clear and stable structure, and constant activities that are done in the broad daylight. Their mission statement is relatively consistent, their efforts are legal, and they are transparent to regulators. It is not the same at all.
Yes, and the NAACP caves to local pressure too ... unlike BLM who only seems to gain people working
'against' the local community.
I'm not sure what you mean about the Zimmerman debacle but that's another conversation.
Short-version ...
The Zimmerman case was a good example where the national chapter of the NAACP, let alone US Media, was working against the local minority communities of Sanford-Seminole. The NAACP was wrong, and it took both the local chapters as well as the Urban League, to prevent even more damage than was already done by the national control of the NAACP.
As for BLM being 100% valid, how can you say that when so many of the examples they use for their narratives are so demonstrably false and the data they cite is so often dramatically skewed or completely wrong? Everyone can agree that police and black community relations need to improve, but does that happen when you have a group building the foundation of that discussion on inflammatory lies?
Because of how African-Americans are treated with regards to law and opportunities. I'm 100% with them on that.
Even Pro-2nd Amendment Colin Noir and others are totally on-point with that as well. The problem is how African-American communities are treated. From law enforcement to justices to laws to politicians, including the left-wing politicians giving them lip service, and definitely the US Media
not representing their interests. Too much of the establishment right is right there making
'tough on crime' laws with the left too.
It's a systemic issue that BLM is trying to bring to the front, and I 100% support them in the matter.
For the past 25+ years, we've increased the prison population 7-fold, and yet violent crime has gone down. Sadly, Joe Biden was part of the reason for that, Kamala Harris even more so, far, far less than Trump's few missteps. I only wish Trump would have made far more good on his criminal justice reform, and he did so little, while he had the chance to do far more.
It was one of the few things I liked about Trump, along with his 'non-interference' foreign policy. At least he largely kept his word on most of the latter.