Then watch to see how many of his supporters come out and repeat that line, brandishing their rifles. I have a nervous feeling many of them will act a little more aggressively than Democratic Party supporters did in 2000.
So a heavily armed mob stormed the Michigan state capitol building today and tried to gain access to the legislature floor. You're doing a better job than many psychics.
Thanks for the endorsement! :-)
From news sites I read that the protestors were wanting their freedom back. Fair enough, the right to freedom is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, so I understand how it lies at the bedrock of what it is to be an American (plus the Governor's restrictions do seem odd). But if I remember the wording of the DoI correctly, it talks about inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So what happens when one person's right to freedom comes at the expense of someone else's right to life? Or is that too subtle an argument for these patriots?
Also, and this is something that I've been thinking about since a discussion over at UM about gun rights a year or so ago, these people brandish their firearms in order to reinforce the point that they claim to be acting against a tyrannical government. Well, at first sight that seems reasonable - the people in theory should be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. But it raises two questions for me. First, seeing as the government isn't threatening them with weapons, the balance of power lies with the armed protestors and not the government, meaning the armed protestors theoretically have the power to impose their will on the government. And as the government is elected and the protestors aren't, then surely that means you have tyrannical protestors and not a tyrannical government. And second, in cases where the armed protestors are in the minority, what gives them the right to impose their view of how things should be over the rest of the population?
