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.
No memes or images. Exceptions may be made in the case of images of an ongoing news story becoming available.
User-edited titles are not allowed. Copy the headline directly and use it as the post title. Corrections in spelling or minor alterations may be acceptable.
News articles written over a month before posting must have the date of the article in the post title.
No paywalls. Use an archived link to post a paywalled article.
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.