I understand defending the rights of those who can legally posses firearms. I'm a firm believer in it, and if this guy had a legal right to be in possession of firearms these would be some good solid arguments.
Yes it would be comical if some of his weapons were from Fast and Furious, but we know absolutely nothing when you come down to it right now. I know some believe that anyone should be able to be in possession of firearms regardless of what they have done in their past. I believe that to an extent, considering that perhaps if someone was convicted of a non violent crime, perhaps that should have nothing to do with being able to posses firearms.
If this guy was convicted of a violent crime, no I don't think he should have a firearm or firearms. That's just how it is, but if he indeed had pipe bombs - then he needs to go to the slammer. IF HE WAS PLANNING AN ATTACK, he is no better than the scum that came here and lived off our dime to kill our citizens. If he was / is so chicken crap to bomb innocents, he is no less a terrorist and should be treated as such.
If this guy is innocent of what has been said, LEO then becomes the terrorist. But in fair play, for everyone to make assumptions until something concrete does come out is simply that - assumptions. Yes freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and something that should be honored, but there are limits even to free speech - yes as it should be. Making violent threats against others should not be tolerated.