I'm thinking about this and why MaR still has heartburn with the BLM, even though he agrees that Bundy is a deadbeat and the malicia folks aren't necessarily doing the right thing. Ardy is hunting the state ownership thing.

So it seems to boil down to this: MaR believes the BLM shouldn't have brought guns to a law enforcement action and the Federal government shouldn't own the land.

I can't think of any basis in the law, or logic, that supports these two beliefs.

Is there any?

Why isn't MaR more upset that civilians brought weapons to a legitimate enforcement proceeding occurring on public land and threatened officers of the law?

Why doesn't MaR care about the fiscal implications of the whole event? Hmm

_________________________
You can’t solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.