Loc: One of the Mexicos
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?
You can’t solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.