Here's my comment on Juan Cole's not very informed comment about Alex Jones:
In order for Alex Jones to be properly tried and convicted of advocating the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government of the United States under the US Constitution, Alex would have to be guilty of not at the exact same time advocating the restoration of the republican form of government of the US where the definition of republicanism means more than simply having a "President" but means also the absence of dictatorship, creeping or otherwise.
Who here hasn't had issues with imperial aspects of the US presidency?
Juan, you mentioned Gitmo, but certainly that only works to substantiate Alex's point.
You may not agree with everything Alex said, but he'd say he'd defend to the death your right as an American to say it while he'd insist upon his right the keep and bear arms for the day that real patriots in his mind would form well-regulated militias to, again, restore the republic by ousting the dictator usurpers undermining not just the 2nd amendment but of course the 1st and 4th and likely others.
So before you condemn him for treason, you better think this whole thing through to completion.
By the way, I don't own a gun (never have) and I'm not going to kill anybody for anything.
You see, once a government of the US overreaches and grossly violates the Bill of Rights and the Congress doesn't stand up to impeach and remove, etc., under the US Constitution, then Alex Jones believes that that government is no longer duly constituted but rogue and that all of the powers of government are still vested in the people to rise up, including violently if necessary, if it comes to that, to reconstitute proper government.
Calling Alex Jones a terrorist or a traitor to the US Constitution is more than problematic for anyone who knows that this nation was formed by revolution against anti-republicans. It's technically slander and when put in writing, libel. Think what you will about him, but Alex Jones is no terrorist or traitor to the US Constitution.
If you want to solve the 2nd amendment issue, then amend the US Constitution (if you are able) to remove well-regulated militias of regular citizens armed with their own weapons they can keep and can bear. Also, you do understand that anyone who refuses to be conscripted into any such so-called reasonable militia doesn't have the right to keep or to bear, right?
Where's the line between a 2nd amendment civilian army and non-civilian military-service personnel. Is it clear in your mind? It better be before you attempt to change the 2nd amendment.