I think you should reconsider. This particular trial was not about whether or not Bundy had the proper permits—he did not. However, the bind he was in was the government refusing to issue them as they had before, due to environmentalism.
But, still, I admit even that is open to much debate.
Still, the trial was about the following:
Do the citizens of this country have the right to protest against the government, and even be armed while doing so? Federal agents ordered them to stand down and leave and they would not. Many protesters were arrested because they were protesting on federal lands, and the government thought they should have been confined to a caged “protest area”, while they themselves had free range to follow their orders.
In this trial the government tried to make the case that the people have no such right, and what they did was threaten and aggrieve the federal agents, who were just doing their jobs.
The results seem to be in favor of the citizens. This time.
However, there is still the larger issue of Bundy, his operations, and whether or not a desert tortoise is more important than an American family. I say no.
Environmentalists, democrats and pretty much the entire Left says yes.
In the end, we still have a Left/Right struggle underlying it all.
I favor public lands. I hate the BLM. I am no environmentalist, and agree that Americans are more important than turtles.
However, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Do we want armed protests to become the standard? When the left feels particularly passionate about their side, and they do, are we OK with them bringing weapons?
I think it's a good idea to think this whole thing through very carefully. I believe the framers intended free speech, not free-fire.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Most people showed up to remind the federal government that they still answer to We the People. They do need to be reminded......