Agreed.
If mentally ill people and their anointed grifters were not trying undermine U.S. democracy and turn us into a White supremacist theocracy, I’d be more sympathetic to getting them the psychiatric care they need rather than just trying to hold the line against the the fuckers. I mean, even brain guzzling zombies are only that way because the poor things are infected with a virus, but in an apocalyptic scenario I’m not going to put my cricket bat away until the world is safe.
Well to be fair, the crazy “queen of Canada” and the sad examples who follow her are not trying to undermine US democracy. Her followers are just deluded folks who are now getting evicted after having their utilities cut off. And the “Queen” of the movement is living in a trailer in a vacant lot.
If you think you can succeed in getting everyone associated with the QAnon movement sectioned as a danger to themselves and others, I will wholeheartedly support that. I’ll happily subsidize their psychiatric care with my tax dollars.
Until that happens, they are a dangerous enemy.
I can guarantee that the crazy queen and her followers are on the RCMP watch list, and are being followed quite closely.
You can’t be in crazy, but you can be insane.
A seat belt violation requires a criminal investigation??? Why not just issue him a ticket? Or better yet, move on with your lives since no one caught him in the act?
Even in these over-policed United States, you’re not getting a seat belt ticket retroactively. A cop has to catch you in the act. And I think, in most states (though I could be wrong), it’s a secondary offense, meaning they have to pull you over for something else (like speeding) first.
I think this sums up a lot of that crowd (and their supporters)
Prosecutor Michael Gordon showed an online post in which Barnett declared anyone who “does not support the Constitution” to be his enemy. Asked how well he knew the document himself, Barnett eventually acknowledged that he knew the First and Second Amendments well, but had little knowledge of others.
i’m gonna figure he does not have a full knowledge of amendments one and two as well.
“God says you can have guns. And ain’t nobody can tell me different.”
Just like the hypocrites the ‘Oath Keepers’ take an oath to defend the constitution and defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic, and then attack the government.
I read this earlier today:
“You love the Constitution?” asked the prosecutor. “Love it!” Barnett said. “First Amendment?” the prosecutor said. “Yes,” said Barnett. “Second Amendment?” the prosecutor said. “Yes,” said Barnett. “Love the Third Amendment?” the prosecutor said. “Yes,” said Barnett. “What’s the Third Amendment?” the prosecutor then followed up. Bigo paused and said, “I don’t know.”
I was going to post the article here, but the Third Amendment hasn’t really been something that needed to be used for a couple-hundred years; and I thought, ‘Meh. He should know, but I don’t think his ignorance of it is that egregious.’
Emphasis added…
… ??? 
Ohhhhh!!
I was thoroughly baffled for a bit there, wondering what was so disruptive about trying to pawn some old municipal regulation against ships.
He, thinking of himself as a soldier for the ‘real’ America, certainly made himself at home in that office.
If Jimmy Kimmel had stopped him on the street and asked him out of the blue, sure. But if I were going to trial with the intention of painting myself as a well meaning patriot protecting Constitutional values from evildoers, I think I might do a little homework.
I studied the US Constitution in high school (I even took Advanced Placement US History which I needed to apply for and pass a test to get into). I’m very aware of what’s in there. I know the substance of it. But I can’t off the top of my head tell you which amendment is which, aside from the ones that get mentioned all the time (1st, 2nd, and 5th).
So I wouldn’t know immediately what the 3rd is, but I look it up, oh it’s the one about quartering of soldiers. I know what it means, what the history is behind it, and why it used to be important. (The British would basically just take over your house and make you give beds and food to soldiers and you had to let them.)
But no, I don’t remember that it’s the 3rd one that says that.
I don’t expect anyone to memorize the whole freaking thing, but anyone who had a full basic education in the US should at least be aware of what’s in it. I’m guessing this guy probably didn’t pay attention and doesn’t care.
I also didn’t participate in an attempted government coup with the stated goal of “protecting the constitution”. If I did, I better make damn sure I know it really well.
I remember the 3rd because it no longer really applies.
I do! 
Perhaps if he had been familiar with the 5th Amendment, nobody would have discovered that he is not familiar with any Amendments past the 2nd.
I believe that the Third Amendment is the only one that hasn’t had a single Supreme Court case adjudicated about it, which means it’s the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that hasn’t had it’s provisions incorporated to apply to the states via the 14th Amendment.
Which means if some National Guardsman decides to take up residence in your spare bedroom, the case might have to go all the way to the Supreme Court before you got any justice*.
* Not really, plenty of lower courts would rule it as having been incorporated, so the Supreme Court probably would just have to deny certiorari. Or they might just take it up for giggles. Who can say these days?