“Domestic terrorism” is a legal term, defined by U.S. Code. It’s prosecutable. Assets can be seized, including assets of supporters. Provisions of the Patriot Act could kick in, with all that implies. And felony convictions would certainly result in those found guilty becoming “prohibited persons” under federal law from owning a gun.
Assuming PR considerations would preclude Obama from ordering drone strikes, is the foregoing really what Harry Reid has in mind? In spite of the efforts of Oath Keepers and others to ensure that a peaceful resolution is paramount, does “true champion of the Second Amendment” Harry Reid want everyone on the side of the Bundy family who has been on the ground near Bunkerville — and those providing them with material support — to be prosecuted as domestic terrorists?
FK – If the so-called ‘liberty,’ or ‘pro-gun’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘libertarian’ et al groups allow anything, that’s the anything that’s in the dictionary, to be done to those supporting the Bundys then they fully deserve the outcome.
And I’ve been in this 20 years and I’ve never heard of barnhardt. Glancing over her graph on that issue she seems incredibly ignorant of what’s going on out there.