I have never really understood schizophrenics, either. Their behavior has an internal logic - to them. It is one thing to identify behavior patterns and actions, an another to label, or claim labeling. I have tried to do the former, but their actions are criminal, and their approach is gang-like. Most gang members don't "join" to engage in criminal activity either. They join for protection, to safeguard their families, to have a sense of belonging, because they feel alienated. Which of these traits do not apply to these "patriots"?

It is simply wrong to give more credence to their justifications. Also wrong to assert they don't have "leaders." Who do you think the "oath keepers" are? I agree that it is important to understand their motivations, just like it is important to understand the motivation of any gang, or band of terrorists: not because they are "reasonable" or "justified" - but because they need treatment, and the public needs to be protected from them. I think we all agree they are dangerous, and getting more so. Moreover, law enforcement action feeds into their paranoid fantasies... just like for a schizophrenic.

Personally, I feel that they need to be on the watch list and that they do pose a public threat. That is just cold, hard, reaslism.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich