In article <C5t7wv.61E@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: >In article <VEAL.755.735336029@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: > >|>In article <C5sI9G.Hx@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: > >|>>Any government that allows tinpot dictators to set up shop and declare >|>>a private state has drifted into anarchy. There are laws to control >|>>the ownership of guns and the BATF had good reason to beleive that >|>>they were being violated. They set out to obtain a legal warrant and  >|>>attempted to serve it only to be met with gunfire when they rang >|>>the doorbell. >|> >|>        The BATF, in a letter they've been sending out to people, >|>says both that they were ambushed because they lost the element of >|>surprise, and that they went up and knocked on the door and had it >|>slammed in their faces. >|> >|>        It strikes *me* as kind of strange to rely on surprise to >|>serve a warrant by knocking on the door. > >Presumably the B-D did not mount a continuous state of alert with gunmen >ready to fire on people who casually walked up to ring the doorbell.         Let's try that again:  Why was the BATF concerned about surprise when they intended to serve the warrant by knocking on the door?  The BATF appears to be inconsistant in their own description of events.         And in any case, how does one mount an ambush if one isn't "on alert?"  >|>>Had they >|>>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who >|>>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up >|>>in a tank and broken the door down on day one. >|> >|>        Phill, the BATF were in a firefight with the BD for *forty-five* >|>minutes.  I find it hard to believe that if they were expecting peaceful >|>citizens they *wouldn't* have shown up in live-stock trailers and would >|>have retreated immediately. > >Not a smart move. Unless meant to be part of the surprize cover. Even so >the narrow opening of the trucks simply was not a good idea. A side opening >truck would have been much better, more like a covered waggon.         So, were the BATF fired on before or after they left the trailers to knock on the door to serve the warrant?  Every description I've heard indicates the BATF did not hang around in the trailers once they decided to open them up.         For that matter, if they expect peaceful citizens, why come in live- stock trailers to being with?  >|>        If they *were* expecting peacful citizens, why show up with over >|>a hundred officers, some of which clearly visible on video to be carrying  >|>sub-machineguns, and *3* National Guard Helicopters? > >Sounds just about right to me. Its the minimum amount of force that I >would consider necessary to serve a warrant on the talk.politics.guns >annual dinner.         Ok, just to make sure we've got this straight:  You consider armed troops in disguised vehicles and multiple helicopters to be used to serve search warrants on peaceful citizens.  (And just so we don't have one of those entertaining shifts, *you* described them as the BATF expecting them to be, peaceful.)  >Michael Hesseltine ordered the use of over 5000 crack troops including >members of the parachute regiment to remove approx 250 hippy peace >protestors on a site where they wanted to install cruise missiles. He >even turned up in a flack jacket to monitor the proceedings. Just about the >most dangerous tool the women possesed was a tin opener. That single >action probably cost him the position as Prime Minister. One of the elders >of my church got arrested in that heroic action by the forces of Toryism. >Hesseltine ever after was something of a national joke.         I don't see how past abuses excuse present ones.  Hell, you're not even discussing the same government.