My post refers to why it's prudent to have a police presence in certain situations. It also attacks the excessive fines and the killings, which I believe were probably committed by police who shouldn't have acted in that way -- we'll see.
In reply, you equated the Cossacks and Bandidos with the BSA or somebody's every other Wednesday bridge club. Not hardly.
As for "gangs", when the defining characteristic is: 'similarly clothed and wearing patches', that covers everyone from Brownie Scouts to the Navy SEALs to the Yakusa (who have their patches tattooed on).
My point, to clarify, is that wearing patches is probably an unconstitutionally vague qualification for being considered a member of a "Biker Gang" (AKA: motorcycle club).
Wearing a specific club patch may indicate membership in group known to have a large proportion of members who have been arrested and/or convicted of crimes compared to people wearing polo shirts, for instance, but wearing the patch alone is not a crime, nor is membership in the group.
Beyond that, when we vilify and thus justify raiding or summary justice against entire groups on the basis of one or even a few members, the NRA, the BSA, even the Bridge club may well be open to being raided as 'criminal organizations'.
We do not want that future, and it is best to keep that camel's nose out of the Republic's tent. There are people in all of those who have committed some crime.