[gone_to_heck_back_soon]

If he used a gun in any situation except in self defense or to foil a criminal act, then I'm glad they're mopping his insides off of some sidewalk.

Government agents attempting to take him by deception IS self-defense.

That's why we have a second amendment, but believers in it are seen as fringers and nutjobs, just like the plantation masters want it.

[Justin Thyme]

Government agents attempting to take him by deception IS self-defense.

That's why we have a second amendment, ....

The second ammendment states nothing about deception as a law enforcement technique being illegal or unconstitutional. There are protections against entrapment...but that applies to tricking the accused into commiting an unlawful act. They already had lawful warrants for his past actions, and were just using what methods deemed appropriate to capture a suspect who has repeatedly avoided and evaded capture. And I think most jury's would acquit if the guy shot plain clothes cops who didn't identify themselves. But if the undercover policemen DO identify themselves, and if anyone resists arrest with lethal force, whether the apprehending officer is uniformed or not, then the offender will be in a tough spot.

Lawabiding citizens who care to own weapons are not routinely seen as "fringers and nutjobs". Some militia's, and many groups who try to avoid obligations to their country, taxes, military service, etc., are sometimes seen as "fringers and nutjobs".

[_Jim]

Government agents attempting to take him by deception IS self-defense.

You know, it's inferences like this by the totally mindless that do this site a disservice.

Stop it.

It was the Sherriff's office that did it for Pete's sake ...