True, but their possession could have been legal. I'd say ill-advised and suspicious, though. If a demonstrator does have bad intentions, why would he need a gun?
I'd settle for dipping them in tar and sending them on their way.
Edit: That should have read, "If a demonstrator doesn't have bad intentions, why would he need a gun." I miss adding an "n't" so often I could scream.
True, but their possession could have been legal. I'd say ill-advised and suspicious, though. If a demonstrator does have bad intentions, why would he need a gun?
I'd settle for dipping them in tar and sending them on their way.
Edit: That should have read, "If a demonstrator does**n't** have bad intentions, why would he need a gun." I miss adding an "n't" so often I could scream.
Multiple of them had firearms too, but as the article mentions only one is receiving a firearm charge.