So do you think the guy was there legitimately? WOuld you mind him out in front of your house with his magazine in place in a prone position looking towards your house?
What would your reaction be if you were out there at the other end of his rifle? Would you be worrying about the legality of whether he has ammo chambered?
AT the very least he is not following gun safety regulations right? I mean either way you look at it he was aiming in the direction of living humans. And there was no need for him to do what he did photo op or not. Just him standing around would have sufficed the Bundy's admitted plan to intimidate the BLM.
But what was that guy doing there on the bridge?
A quick look at his facebook page reveals that Eric Parker (the guy that you said had no magazine in place, what no sorry for that mistake?) is a ancient aliens/new world order agenda 21/and about every crazy ass conspiracy nut type of guy. My money is on him having not only a round chambered but that the magazine was full and he probably kept checking if it was full over and over again. ANd he probably had a hard on and fantasized about shooting those evil new world order BLM guys that were in his sights.
Dutch Medal count Paralympics Rio 17 gold 19 silver 26 bronze
BLADE BABE STRIKES AGAIN!!!
It is funny to you that I know who Sean Hannity is? OK, hard to imagine anyone in the country with a TV set or radio who does not. Which brings us back full circle to the fact that you can't answer the first question I asked. Where I pointed out the fact that people and pundits from all over the political playing field, left to right, denounce both Bundy and the BLM's mishandling of this situation. This thread is pretty ample proof of that, so what are you talking about again? Can you give some examples? Aside from throwing out juvenile nicknames and Hannity? And since you seem to follow Hannity, has he in fact just blindly supported Bundy and not found him at fault as well? I don't know, you tell me, this was your argument. I don't watch Hannity but based upon your post in this thread I don't get the idea you can be trusted to not indulge in over heated rhetoric and name calling, which does not make for a convincing argument or debate.