I think it is very wrong when a lot of conservatives keep pointing to the constitution to get their way but then turn around when someone else blast someone as a dumbass for doing the same.
Because even before the holy second amendment (according to a lot of Americans) there is something like the first amendment:
Because not only has this "dumbass" the right to think that this eyesore (because it is big and very "present" for any visitor of the place that ought to represent everybody in Bloomfield, and not just the people who believe in the bible) is almost tantamount to establishing of religion but he has even a bigger right.Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
He has the right, as stated in the first constitution, to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And that is exactly what he did and the judge ruled in his favor. You can be angry about that, but just like Hobby Lobby has the right to petition the courts for the ACA rules, this person had the right to petition the courts for his problem with this monument. I think it is very unfair to say he is a dumbass.
And FYI The dumbass won!!