Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
Randy Weaver was an individual who was framed by the BATF,or in other words, the U.S. government and took a stand against them. Do you defend the actions of your U.S. government that resulted in the murder of his wife, his son and his dog?
Interesting that nobody has suggested the guy was emotionally disturbed, though his actions indicate he was unbalanced.
You are right 100%. The shooter was obviously a nutcase. What a shame.
You are right 100%. The shooter was obviously a nutcase. What a shame.
Uhm, the man most likely purchased the land with the easements. Secondly, they weren't going to permanently change his land. The guy was a nut (and you may be too).
--Randy Weaver was an individual who was framed by the BATF,or in other words, the U.S. government and took a stand against them. Do you defend the actions of your U.S. government that resulted in the murder of his wife, his son and his dog?--
Totally different case. As I remember, it was the government that initiated the shooting. In this case, it was a whacko that decided to kill a few innocent people.
i believe there was to be a change in the easement, but it doesn't elaborate... i owned land with a power line easement... which allowed power line employees access... they broke into my shed and stole 400 bucks worth of tools... from then on i demanded to be notified of their access or i would put up a fence... they called...
i believe he was pushed...
teeman
The Colonies did not prevail until many years after the Tea Party. Also, we didn't conquer the British. In other words, they were able to retain history of the events. You're quote would apply much more to a people who were conquered.
--Randy Weaver was an individual who was framed by the BATF,or in other words, the U.S. government and took a stand against them. Do you defend the actions of your U.S. government that resulted in the murder of his wife, his son and his dog?--
Did Randy Weaver go around shooting innocents? I think not.
You a politician? You didn't answer the question.......
There's a reason for that. I think it's because if someone said "It's about damned time" they might be shown the door.
164 replies · 2,942+ views
The ratio is back to about normal now, -- 20 to 1 or so...
As to being "shown the door", - I think that ratio may be down a bit..
That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.
L
--You a politician? You didn't answer the question.......--
You require me to answer your question which presumes a position that I have not taken.
--You a politician? You didn't answer the question.......--
Your logic is nonsensical. Just because I find that a whacko shouldn't go around whacking innocent people you assume that I would defend that government going around and whacking people? Does not make sense.
Soldiers are only required to obey "lawful" orders. An officer that gave such an order should be disobeyed and then courts martialled.
I am pleased learn that you can distinguish between the ones who are responsible for this incident and those who were charged with implementing it.
Our good friend Vin included some other interesting material in that article:
"We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason."
No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise."
It would seem that both you and I are in agreement that the way Mr. Watson handeled this incident was somewhat excessive.
In post #32 above HEY4QDEMS wrote "Some governments fail to analyze how far they can push before someone pushes back."
In post #81 above,You replied. "You got that right. Ours is in the midst of pushing ~way~ to far, imho."
Again, we seem to be in agreement that the government at all levels is assuming much more authority over our lives and property that is considered reasonable by ordinary men.
With that in Mind, I want to ask you the same questions again. Be assured that the questions are not intended as an attack on your integrity but rather are to satisfy my curiosity about what a reasonable man such as yourself would consider justification for becoming involved in an insurrection or revolution.
Do we have to have some tribunal meet to declare that the government is acting in a tyrannical manner? Just where is the line that must be crossed before good men are allowed to act?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
--Do we have to have some tribunal meet to declare that the government is acting in a tyrannical manner? Just where is the line that must be crossed before good men are allowed to act?--
Good men act before the government crosses the line by working to correct through petitions and voting. Your point about 'tribunal' is enlightening. I think our founding fathers meant that we should reflect on our actions as a group rather than as an individual acting from emotion.
--That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.--
I think some civil servant making $18,000 a year working on sewer lines would be classified in this case as 'innocent'.
--That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.--
I think some civil servant making $18,000 a year working on sewer lines would be classified in this case as 'innocent'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.