Note how almost cleverly the author puts onus on the shooter for the "feud". The township didn't have a feud with him, but he with them. No doubt the characterization from the other standpoint would have run along the line of the township discharging its duties or even obligations to "the people". The rot is now so hopelessly ingrained in these people's minds I do not believe they have the awareness required to qualify their words as having been crafted with malicious intent. These poor dumb bastards just have no clue. In their minds, government == right and anyone in disagreement == feuding with government.
See what I mean? The setup to convict without ever questioning the actions of "the state" is already well under weigh. They will crucify this guy (he may even deserve it) but not word one will ever be raised about what they did to prompt his actions. The tacit message and assumption there is that the state is never wrong, that the local boards always act correctly and righteously by definition, which may actually be the worst of it.
Were they? Who were these people? Were they on this board or just attendees?
Silly me for thinking a man needs no permit to dispose of his property as he sees fit. Yet most will view him as evil because he failed to get permission from people who hold no inherent authority to give or withhold such. How lost are the vast oceans of humanity, those waters so hopelessly polluted with poisons deadly and eternal.
Civil war may be the only solution. Imagine what that REALLY means - what it says about the pathetic and wretched state into which the people of this land have fallen. I don't think I can quite wrap my head completely around it.
Perhaps we need more gun laws. What do you all say?