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.
My line would be crossed if the city 'took' an easement without reasonable compensation. ---- I would go after the officials responsible, not the workingmen.
-115-
In post #81 above, You replied.
"You got that right. Our [governments are] 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?
No
Just where is the line that must be crossed before good men are allowed to act?
You ever read "Unintended Consequenses" by John Ross? Good example of 'my line'. -- A clear effort by our governments to deprive us of any of our fundamental individual rights would involve me in an insurrection or revolution.