Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
16624 messages in 810 discussions
Latest May-21 by MerlinsDad
2051 messages in 201 discussions
4140 messages in 240 discussions
6546 messages in 426 discussions
2790 messages in 217 discussions
3562 messages in 77 discussions
1395 messages in 106 discussions
966 messages in 94 discussions
3271 messages in 202 discussions
2276 messages in 102 discussions
5463 messages in 482 discussions
1228 messages in 86 discussions
6489 messages in 378 discussions
9970 messages in 544 discussions
162 messages in 9 discussions
I don't believe Out of State armed militias should be allowed to protest (or act as bodyguards for protesters) for local state issues. National issues, maybe. But if the protesters are protesting against local elected officials, doesn't the presence of out of staters, particularly armed ones, present a false level of state support or objections to a issue?
I don’t even understand this. Are the gun toting militias liberals or conservatives? Guns for hire? Mercenaries?
They are mostly anti-government who call themselves constitutionalists. Seldom liberals. But what does that matter? My question is should armed people be allowed to protest a state issue if they do not live in that state?
That is what I’m asking. Are the protestors armed or the people stopping them?
The protestors. And law enforcement are armed if required to stop the armed protestors.
Well that is just crazy. They should stay home.
The Constitution places no restrictions on WHERE people can assemble.