[RabidBartender]

What jerks. This a fire fighter, not a FBI raiding party. When's the last time a fire fighter has maliciously and intentionally violated the constitutional rights of citizens? It is posts from people like these guys that paint conservatives as Idaho white-supremist separatists.

Unbelieveable - firefighters are dedicated to saving people's lives, yet one moron wants to make a constitutional issue out of it. I'm not a fire chief, but if I was, I imagine the first thing I'd want to do is minimize the risk to human life. Instead, this yahoo wants to get all snippy.

Wanna bet if they left the guy in there to burn, these same people would be decrying the lazy, incompetent fire department for not doing more? Or the family would probably file a multi-million dollar suit against the department?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

They'd be the first ones to blame government ineptitude, affirmative action, feminism, Hillary! and secular humanism for the failure of this department to drag the guy out.

[LibTeeth]

Because this wasn't an "FBI raiding party" actually makes this a very interesting philosophical test case for the natural competition between the rights of the individual and the delegated powers of our social servants. I think the crux of this case would be that if he called them and let them onto his property, then he relinquished control. Having recognized that too late, trying to regain that control through threat of force was wrong. I don't doubt the firemen's motives, but if fear of litigation was one of them, that's a sad comment on our adolescent society.

The thing that bothers me about this story is the hysteria that always accompanies firearms coverage in the news. I doubt the threat of the gunowner is as reported. I doubt the competence (or motives) of any fire official who claims uncontained fixed ammunition is a fire safety hazard because it will explode and send forth projectiles in a fire. The NRA's American Rifleman had an expose' on this myth years ago, and it is common knowledge that loose ammo is not a risk in a fire. The loaded guns were the projectile risk in a fire.

If this same event (many guns, reluctant or defiant property owner) had happened in a gun store do you suppose it would have gotten the same style of press coverage? How about if it happened at a National Guard armory and the grunt on duty attempted to stay at his post? In the general case of local resident controlling authority reacting to the perception of usurpation by an outside agent, do we always side with the benevolent dog catcher/fireman/officer friendly? Is it possible there might be a case where some official arrogance and overstepping of authority justifies some sort of response?

[southern rock]

What jerks. This a fire fighter, not a FBI raiding party. When's the last time a fire fighter has maliciously and intentionally violated the constitutional rights of citizens?

When they order you out of your own home?