Excuse me for noticing, but the government is about to burn a man's house down -presumably with his and his wife's entire collection of earthly possessions- and he has been convicted of no crime. They want to burn it because somebody might get a widdle boo-boo if they disposed of the bombs, grenades, etc. in the house the slow and difficult one-at-a-time way. Plus it would be, like, really hard n' junk. So let's just burn this mother down and hope that takes care of the problem!
Sure, maybe it needs to be burned down for public safety. Can we at least have the guy in prison (vs. indicted) first, or maybe say SOMETHING in the article about the house being condemned? Yahoo! news might be falling on its face here, but for the libertarianish reader, the local .gov really comes off ham-fisted in this story. I did a bit of looking around and NOBODY is saying anything about condemned. Contaminated, yes.
Would-be armorers, take note: be sure not to have a gardener, or at least don't leave your powdered explosives out where he'll step on them and get you arrested.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I will review your comments prior to publishing them. Almost all comments are approved and published within a day or two. When you post a comment, Please bear in mind that you are addressing me personally. To be clear: I generally prefer clarity to agreement. Make your point, but be nice about it and don't annoy me, and you will likely see your comments published here.
Comment Moderation Statement