[lentulusgracchus]

HOWEVER, when you use one it had better be for a damn sight better reason than "SOMEONE SHOT MY DOG", particularly if they are federal agents.

Interesting. Do you think it makes a difference, if someone breaks into your home under color of authority? If someone, to use your incomplete description of what happened on Ruby Ridge, "shot your dog," would that person enjoy a presumptive power to do so, in your eyes, and would you consider yourself powerless and prostrate before him? Would your "rights" extend no further than imploring him to forbear?

To teach your CHILDREN to behave in such a manner is irresponsible, negligent, and immoral.

Hmmm. If I teach my children my values.......then it depends on whether my values are "okay" with you, whether I'm "irresponsible, negligent, and immoral"?

Randy Weaver, and his ilk, ......

He has an "ilk"? What "ilk" would that be? A racial or ethnic "ilk"? Would that be a confessional "ilk" or maybe a philosophical "ilk"? Is he an "ilk" because he associates with known "ilks", or is it enough for him to show forth some quality of "ilkiness" to satisfy you that he is an "ilk" rather than a citizen?

.......are cretins at best, and, at worst, just as much enemies of our country as any foreign enemy could ever be.

This is getting a lot more interesting with every sentence. So now you're promoting him to "enemy of our country"? This is sensational -- I didn't know he was so dangerous! Because he didn't accept an invitation from the BATF to spy on other American citizens?

And what is the IQ level for "cretin"? If he tested well on a Binet test or maybe his college boards, or on some standard assessment of ability, would you still consider him a "cretin" because of his opinions, or would he have to fail his boards first?

Please don't tarnish the cause of conservatism by defending the indefensible.

Whether Randy Weaver is defensible was put to a jury. They sided with him, and against the United States of America. Would you like to reconsider your statement?

[lentulusgracchus]

Correction to my last -- the United States caved, before it went to a jury. Guess we'll never know what the jury thought, but at least we have a good idea what the Government thought, when they saw the elephant coming.

[singfreedom]

It is my understanding, from everything I've read or heard, that the dog shooting incident was what precipitated the gun battle.

Although I cherish the right to defend my home, I understand as well the necessity of having SOMEONE to maintain law and order outside my little sphere of influence. Unfortunately, sometimes those "someones" may have issues with me (I do my best to see that they don't!), but I think I could find a better solution than shooting it out.

Just what did Mr. Weaver think he was going to achieve? Victory, retribution, justice? I see him as an enemy because his actions paint a grim picture of conservatives. Liberals love to portray us as reactionary, gun crazy, et al, Mr. Weaver's actions do nothing to allay those claims. It's an insidious sort of threat that endangers us as much as any external threat. (Forgive me if this isn't making too much sense. I've been up since 5 am yesterday morning and thinking and typing at the same time have never been my strong suite. The 3 glasses of Port didn't help much either.)

Can you tell me, I've never been able to gain a consensus, exactly what it was he did/was accused of doing that drew such ire from the Federal government in the first place? I've heard "trouble with neighbors", buying and selling illegal guns, his kids weren't in school------?