They always get the sharp end of the stick:
“The answer ought to be to sort of pause. Because the instinct to do something is something I’m really quite afraid of,” said Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American Institute, one of more than 130 civil and human rights organizations that say the FBI already has the tools it needs.
“White violence is consistently perpetuated and then used as justification for increased surveillance or increased state power against communities of color,” said 26-year-old Iranian American activist Hoda Katebi, who is Muslim, wears a headscarf and grew up defending herself against harassment and being called a terrorist in the years after Sept. 11, 2001.
I consider myself a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but our current gun laws are a big mess. And "Open Carry" is one of the worst ideas that has emerged from the gun culture, and the lawmakers who embrace this trend have no business holding elected office. It has only served two main purposes; to intimidate other citizens, and to "normalize" dangerous and misanthropic behavior in the public square. Law enforcement has become inured to the inherent danger of open carry in our society, which is (of course) one of the main goals of these groups. Back to the potential statutory backlash of the failed coup:
The Justice Department has not said publicly if it intends to seek any additional powers, or whether it even needs new ones to deal with domestic extremism. Though there is no federal law that explicitly charges crimes as domestic terrorism, prosecutors have successfully used other statutes to cover conduct that might reasonably be seen as terrorism, including at the Capitol.
There are, however, additional legal tools available for combating international terrorism.
Federal law, for instance, makes it a crime to give support to designated foreign terror groups, affording law enforcement greater flexibility to arrest people who donate money or otherwise aid such an organization, even if they haven't harmed anyone or threatened violence themselves. No comparable law exists for people aligned with U.S.-based extremist groups, which enjoy expansive free speech protections.
The funding of domestic terrorism most definitely needs a closer look. A footnote of this story about prosecutors wanting to take Kyle Rittenhouse back into custody is the fact his $2 Million bail was posted by a right-wing "nonprofit" group:
Prosecutors on Wednesday sought a new arrest warrant and higher bond for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people amid protests in Kenosha, Wis., last summer, alleging that the 18-year-old from Illinois failed to notify authorities of a change in address.
In a three-page motion filed Wednesday afternoon, prosecutors in Kenosha County alleged Rittenhouse had “minimal incentive to comply with his bond conditions” because his $2 million bond had been paid by a “dubious Internet fundraising campaign.” Championed by some gun rights groups and conservatives as a hero who shot in self-defense and wanted to protect the community from rioting, Rittenhouse left custody in the fall with bail raised by a right-wing nonprofit group.
FWIW, when your "gun rights" obsession tips over into material support for a murderer, you are no longer defensing the 2nd Amendment. You are defending and supporting domestic terrorism.