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!
21332 messages in 979 discussions
Latest 5/21/20 by MerlinsDad
2863 messages in 220 discussions
5641 messages in 300 discussions
6617 messages in 435 discussions
2969 messages in 237 discussions
6220 messages in 142 discussions
1097 messages in 540 discussions
966 messages in 94 discussions
3578 messages in 216 discussions
2895 messages in 126 discussions
7088 messages in 593 discussions
1822 messages in 96 discussions
8204 messages in 415 discussions
12823 messages in 639 discussions
793 messages in 21 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.