Man Kills Deer. Gets To Not Admit It. That's His Right.

   Today the Supreme Court allowed a man who refused to answer a Ranger's questions about a dead deer in his back yard permission to refuse to answer a Ranger's questions about a dead deer in his back yard. Since this was a news item transcribed by a toddler journalism-major intern from a transcript emanating from a "newswire" the contents of which are composed by uncurious, agenda-driven hypnotics…there is no way in hell to determine if this ruling resulted in an end to the fellow's bullying by the Federal government. All we do know is that "he was within his Constitutional rights" in refusing to answer the Ranger's inquiries about the dead deer on the man's property. Apparently the dead deer was the property of the Ranger. As are all the deer in the forest. The Rangers own them. Apparently. I assume this because they are so protective of them. They are the government's deer. Not yours. That is apparently a lot larger right granted to the government than the right granted to you - the right to not answer questions. However being given the right to not answer questions does not save you from arrest. The Constitution does not save you from arrest. Oh-ho nosir. Uh-uh. Not by a long shot. It does however grant you the right to be taken quietly. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Let's defend that with our lives, Citizens. A government document fucking you hard in the ass composed by bad writers is certainly worth dying to protect if anything is. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!