Between the people of the United States and the federal government there is a social contract theory, in which the people give up as much power as needed for the federal government to promote the wellbeing of all. Thus, if a government stops protecting its people then they have to right to overthrow it and create a better government. The people are guaranteed the right to expressive conduct from the first amendment, but the line can become blurry in some instances on whether the occurrence is supported civil disobedience or not. Different people interpret the first amendment differently, allowing many times for people to claim having the right to proceed with their actions. Again, there are issues deciding whether people do or do not have the …show more content…
After Randy Weaver sold his two guns illegally, he was a target for marshals. When one ran into Sammy, Randy and Striker no shots were fired until the marshal killed Striker the dog. After this, the battle between the government and the Weavers began. Though the selling of the firearms was illegal, the actions of the Weavers following were non-violent. The only time they fought back was when they were being shot or they felt threatened. The government agency that was involved was the FBI; they became involved after the marshal was shot. In the eyes of the FBI, the Weavers were a threat and could not be trusted. But in the eyes of the Weavers the government was taking everything away, their family, their money, and their privacy. Randy Weaver did break the law and deserved to be persecuted, but his family did not deserve to be slaughtered. Stricter rules need to be implemented on the FBI’s rule of engagement on missions like this. The first steps for the federal government must be non-violent and non-invasive before moving to violent force. At Ruby Ridge, the FBI over stepped their boundaries, using pure force instead of more constructive