Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 184
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 5:56:50 AM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



 I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.



 I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.


You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 5:59:37 AM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Well, if he were a savvy businessman he would have held onto his water rights...........instead we get some fucktard that can't even put a sentence together.................
View Quote

If you don't use them you lose them. Less head he would have lost a lot of his water rights.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:01:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Legally, Bundy is in the wrong.  He should have hired a better or different lawyer, but that's part of the .gov's tactics... to bleed the little folks dry with legal battles.

Ethically and morally, Bundy is in the right and BLM is in the wrong.  What BLM is doing, on the long scale, is unethical and wrong.  

It's sort of like whale wars... The Japanese are legally correct and put folks with the proper training and equipment on the high seas.  Morally, I think there's something wrong with whaling... When animals hit a certain level of intelligence or a certain low population level, I think it's morally wrong to hunt them.  The Sea Shepherd morons are legally wrong, committing acts of piracy and unethically putting New England college kids who have no business or training on the high seas at risk in barely floatable boats.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:05:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.

I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.

You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:11:03 AM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.

I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.

You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.



And half of those 1000 citizens were armed, no win situation for the LEO's. Damned if do or don't situation, it's not who you are, it's what you represent that people will always hate.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:12:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



If a LEO saw him and didn't shoot him rapidly and repeatedly, that LEO should and would be fired.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He was pointing a weapon at the BLM agents. That is imminent use of lethal force and he could have been shot.

Funny how it only works in one direction.


If I walked up on an LE situation and saw guy with his AK pointed at the cops I would have shot him without hesitation.



Is that the general consensus of all LE?

Because if it is, it is a pretty dangerous precedent.




If a LEO saw him and didn't shoot him rapidly and repeatedly, that LEO should and would be fired.



That ought to make a good sig line for someone.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:12:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Intermission for an important announcement - it's Easter and he has risen!
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:14:37 AM EDT
[#8]


Not a very good place to rest that finger.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:17:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

And half of those 1000 citizens were armed, no win situation for the LEO's. Damned if do or don't situation, it's not who you are, it's what you represent that people will always hate.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.

And half of those 1000 citizens were armed, no win situation for the LEO's. Damned if do or don't situation, it's not who you are, it's what you represent that people will always hate.

So what? Is there a law against that now? If there was a law, would it be Constitutional? If SCOTUS ruled such a law "Constitutional," would it be any more "right" than the British in 1775?

Natural, God-given civil rights like those enumerated in our Constitution are not given to us by any government and as such no government can take them away. You might play that game, but I won't, and the number of people on my side of the line is growing by the day.

Pick your side.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:19:15 AM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Do you have any direct quotations saying that he would shoot anyone?


Or just attributions to third parties?


Would it surprise you to know that he didn't want anyone shooting anyone?


Also, would you say that his illegal grazing of cattle would meet the following?

  • open and notorious (i.e. obvious to anyone),
  • actual, continuous (i.e., uninterrupted for the entire required time period),
  • adverse to the rights of the true property owner
  • hostile (i.e. in opposition to the claim of another. This can be accidental, not "hostile" in the common sense)
  • continuous for a statutorily defined period of time

 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Interesting, I learned something. Thanks.

This still doesn't mean he gets to graze his cattle for free and then threaten to shoot the landlord.
Do you have any direct quotations saying that he would shoot anyone?


Or just attributions to third parties?


Would it surprise you to know that he didn't want anyone shooting anyone?


Also, would you say that his illegal grazing of cattle would meet the following?

  • open and notorious (i.e. obvious to anyone),
  • actual, continuous (i.e., uninterrupted for the entire required time period),
  • adverse to the rights of the true property owner
  • hostile (i.e. in opposition to the claim of another. This can be accidental, not "hostile" in the common sense)
  • continuous for a statutorily defined period of time

 


He can't caim adverse possession of the land when he has been in court numerous times about the matter.
You don't know what you are talking about if that is what you are leading too.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:19:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I walked up on an LE situation and saw guy with his AK pointed at the cops I would have shot him without hesitation.


What would have happened if that man was undercover Fed?
Just saying
View Quote



Justified shoot.  

Shitty situation.

But good shoot.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:20:33 AM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Intermission for an important announcement - it's Easter and he has risen!
View Quote



Yes he has!
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:20:55 AM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Do you really think a uniform is going to stop someone from defending what they believe, deep down in their soul, is the right thing?  The 'feds' in this case are playing with a fire that has not been seen on this land for hundreds of years.  you believe that a uniform will somehow calm the people?  seriously?  and if it really comes down to a shooting war, do you think the people on the ground give a shit about what laws are passed?  I mean, by your standards, it would be murder.  So... if they will already do that, what will a uniform and a few new laws do?  They are already armed-up against some laws, may as well add a few more laws to be pissed off about, right?

by the way, i wouldn't put too much faith in a uniform.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zJOlLWyCfnM/Tp0UmByZ5HI/AAAAAAAACRI/MArPKaSjGJE/s1600/Lefferts%2B--%2BBritish%2BLight%2BInfantryman%2Band%2BGrenadier.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All it would have taken is ONE ND last week (from either side) and it would have been on.


Without a doubt. I was thinking about what the future holds.


I think the odds really went up once the BLM realized there were quite a few dudes with rifles in the hills.

I can't imagine what they thought other than "FUUUUUUUUU"


I don't think they realize that a large portion of Bundy supporters out there are trained combat vets of several wars, and they don't run from small arms fire very easily.



So what?

Are you going to shoot uniformed LEOs?


What do you think your world will look like 24 hours after that?  How will that end a year later?  To what lengths do you think every other LEO in America will go to hunt those responsible and with the full technical and legal might of the whole of government focused on those responsible?

What new gun control laws do you think would get passed?

Seriously


Do you really think a uniform is going to stop someone from defending what they believe, deep down in their soul, is the right thing?  The 'feds' in this case are playing with a fire that has not been seen on this land for hundreds of years.  you believe that a uniform will somehow calm the people?  seriously?  and if it really comes down to a shooting war, do you think the people on the ground give a shit about what laws are passed?  I mean, by your standards, it would be murder.  So... if they will already do that, what will a uniform and a few new laws do?  They are already armed-up against some laws, may as well add a few more laws to be pissed off about, right?

by the way, i wouldn't put too much faith in a uniform.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zJOlLWyCfnM/Tp0UmByZ5HI/AAAAAAAACRI/MArPKaSjGJE/s1600/Lefferts%2B--%2BBritish%2BLight%2BInfantryman%2Band%2BGrenadier.jpg


If it comes down to a shooting war, it may be best to leave the uniforms at home, just saying.
People getting shot today without hesitation and the lack of accountability is part of this problem.  These agents were acting on the behalf of a mob boss. If you think it's fine to use government power to run people out of business, you need to ask yourself does Tyranny exist?
If it does, Should you stand up against it?
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:20:59 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/LaJ6IPF6PNg/hqdefault.jpg

Not a very good place to rest that finger.
View Quote


He was just following the park swat team lead.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 6:48:00 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Yes he has!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Intermission for an important announcement - it's Easter and he has risen!



Yes he has!

WAT
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 7:22:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody give me a TLDR summary of this?
I am not sure which side to take here.

Did the feds set up an area and told protesters they could only stay there?
View Quote


You need to read on this one.

Chain of events, the change in '93 to 150 head would have put him out of business, they kept changing the rules to drive him out, organized crime and we're footing the bill.
Start

Quoted:
A cashed doc from BLM Seems that doc went down for awhile for some reason.

Northeast Clark County Cattle Trespass
History of Cattle Trespass

   In 1993, some of the terms of Mr. Bundy’s grazing permit for the Bunkerville allotment were modified to protect the desert tortoise.  Mr. Bundy did not accept the offered grazing permit and subsequently stopped paying grazing fees.  The BLM then cancelled Mr. Bundy’s grazing permit but Mr. Bundy continued to graze his cattle in the Bunkerville Allotment.  A portion of the Bunkerville Allotment is National Park Service (NPS) lands which BLM managed by agreement with NPS.

   In 1997, in accordance with the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan and the Biological Opinion released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, active grazing permits in tortoise habitat were purchased by Clark County under the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program.  Mr. Bundy rejected a tentative proposal to compensate him for any stockwater rights or range improvements he might have in his former allotment.  

   In 1998, the United States filed a civil complaint against Mr. Bundy for his continued trespass grazing in the Bunkerville Allotment.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order permanently enjoining Mr. Bundy from grazing cattle on the Bunkerville allotment, ordered him to remove all trespass cattle and set a penalty of $200 per day per animal remaining on the federal range.  

   In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s permanent injunction.  When Mr. Bundy failed to remove his livestock as directed by the District Court, the United States filed a motion to enforce the permanent injunction and the District Court ordered Mr. Bundy to pay $1,377 as willful repeated trespass damages and adjusted fines to be consistent with regulatory rates of $45.90 per day for each day Mr. Bundy’s cattle remained on the allotment based on a herd size of 51 cows BLM had documented as still remaining on the federal range.

   In 1999, the Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan designated the Bunkerville allotment as “Closed to Grazing” to protect desert tortoise habitat.

   In 2008, BLM issued a decision to cancel Mr. Bundy’s range improvement authorizations (one range improvement permit and ten cooperative agreements).  Mr. Bundy submitted a letter objecting to the action which BLM  forwarded to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as an appeal.  The IBLA issued a decision affirming the BLM’s cancellation decision on December 22, 2008.

   In March 2011, BLM counted 903 cattle from a helicopter spread out over approximately 90 miles in northeast Clark County within the Gold Butte area, including Lake Mead National Recreation Area.  Of the 564 cattle that were in locations that could be accessed by ground teams, 43 percent had no identifying marks, 41 percent had either brands or earmarks registered to Cliven Bundy and 16 percent could not be viewed from all sides to determine ownership information.

   In 2011, BLM [has] issued Mr. Bundy a Trespass Notice and Order to Cease and Desist; a Trespass Decision and Order to Remove; and a Notice of Intent to Impound.  None of these communications resulted in Mr. Bundy’s voluntary removal of the trespass cattle from the public lands.

   In August 2011, cattle were counted by helicopter in the Gold Butte Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Mormon Mesa ACEC and Lake Mead National Recreation Area.  Of the 729 cattle counted, only 278 cattle were in locations that could be accessed by the ground teams.

   In February 2012, approximately 600 cattle were spotted by helicopter including Gold Butte Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Mormon Mesa ACEC and Lake Mead National Recreation Area.  Approximately 50 cattle were counted in Lake Mead National Recreation Area and 550 were counted on BLM managed public lands.  

   In April 2012, 750 cattle were identified by helicopter on the federal lands.  An impoundment operation scheduled to take place in April 2012 was cancelled a day before operations were set to begin.
   In May 2012, the United States filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing within the Gold Butte area outside the Bunkerville Allotment, including within Lake Mead National Recreation Area.  

   In April 2013, the United States filed a Motion to Enforce the 1998 Permanent Injunction against Cliven Bundy for the Bunkerville Allotment.

   In May 2013, 795 cattle were counted by helicopter on the federal lands.

   On July 9, 2013, U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Lloyd George permanently enjoined Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing and ordered Cliven Bundy to remove his trespass cattle from public land outside the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days, stating that the United States is authorized to seize and impound any cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days.

   On October 9, 2013, U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Larry Hicks reiterated that Cliven Bundy is permanently enjoined from grazing the Bunkerville Allotment and has no legal right to graze the federal lands, directed him to remove his trespass cattle from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days, authorized the United States to impound his cattle if he fails to remove them within 45 days or continues to trespass at a future date and directed Mr. Bundy not to physically interfere with an impoundment action.
   In December 2013, BLM counted 568 cattle  by helicopter that remain on the federal lands that are subject to the permanent injunctions.
View Quote


[
THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY! (Nevada Rancher)
America's Freedom Fighters ^ | Apr 9, 2014 | Clark Kent

Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:32:07 PM by xzins

By SHIREE BUNDY COX:
I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.
My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.
These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.
These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.
Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.
My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.
Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.
They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.
When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.
He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.
So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.
In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.
Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card.
You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise.
Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.
Now they’re desperate.
It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.
Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.
Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.
They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.
Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.
Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.
Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.
They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.
All with our tax money.
They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.
See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”
View Quote



Quoted:
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

According to the article(s) Senator Reid his son Rory Reid and Chinese giant energy firm ENN Energy want the Bundy land for a Solar Energy Farm?
View Quote


So what do you think?


View Quote

Link Posted: 4/20/2014 7:26:06 AM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


He is the only rancher left.........that is just a plain fact.

You are moving the goal posts..........if the BLM has a legitimate reason to protect from erosion and keeping the land suitable for grazing in the future, fees are proper IMHO.

The increases are not fair if they are attributed to a tortoise IMHO.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

.................

The fines were calculated differently than grazing fees. For example, the trespassing fee was $200 per head per day. Bundy paid $1900 per quarter for grazing fees. From what I understand, this is about a fifth of the going rate for private property.

President Reagan signed executive order 12548 on February 14, 1986: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36873

There is no "proof" the other ranchers were run out to protect a tortoise. This unsubstantiated rumor has been repeated without any solid evidence.

Remove endangered animals from the equation. If I wanted to chop down trees for free on public land where there are no endangered animals so I could sell the firewood by the road, would you support my business and my right to do so?


He is the only rancher left.........that is just a plain fact.

You are moving the goal posts..........if the BLM has a legitimate reason to protect from erosion and keeping the land suitable for grazing in the future, fees are proper IMHO.

The increases are not fair if they are attributed to a tortoise IMHO.

He had to cut his herd 90% and give up his water rights  under the new law
The damn turtle is just bullshit they used for justification.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 7:33:54 AM EDT
[#18]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Anybody that has worked with feeding cattle knows that grazing on land is nothing like cutting down timber.

Even if the hay is cut and bailed, there will still be two or maybe three more times that hay can be cut dried and bailed in a season (at least in Minnesota that's my experience.)  To go into an area and say that you are going to log that said area once, not even mentioning the amount are to be logged,  to do logging you must cut down trees that needed 15-20 maybe even fourty years to mature.  Not even comparable to minnimal damage done by grazing.  What is eaten by the cattle is being recycled and fertilized on the spot and will be ready again in a few short weeks.  It kind grows like weeds.  So called logging will replace its self over slightly longer period of time.

View Quote


Not very familiar with conditions on desert ranges, are you?



What's the average yearly precipitation in your part of Minnesota?  30-40 inches/year?  Where Bundy's ranch is located, it's about 8-9 inches/year; in a drought year like this one, they'll probably end up with 3-4 inches.  Depending on the winter, you get new growth in the spring, and then maybe some more after the Monsoon season in late summer.  In between the spring rains and the summer Monsoon that newly-grazed grass bakes at about 120 degrees from Memorial Day to 4th of July without a drop of precipitation to renew it.



In Nevada, if you graze the range too much the grass will eventually die off.



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 7:42:59 AM EDT
[#19]
"The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal."

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 7:58:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.



 I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.


You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.


Big difference, people on a hill with a camera, or like what happened during the Boston bombing search. The LEO are not the military, they are police officers. Time they started to act that way again. Same for the FEDS. This SWAT crap for everything from parking tickets on up is what makes us think it's time to defend or become equal.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 7:58:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Not very familiar with conditions on desert ranges, are you?

What's the average yearly precipitation in your part of Minnesota?  30-40 inches/year?  Where Bundy's ranch is located, it's about 8-9 inches/year; in a drought year like this one, they'll probably end up with 3-4 inches.  Depending on the winter, you get new growth in the spring, and then maybe some more after the Monsoon season in late summer.  In between the spring rains and the summer Monsoon that newly-grazed grass bakes at about 120 degrees from Memorial Day to 4th of July without a drop of precipitation to renew it.

In Nevada, if you graze the range too much the grass will eventually die off.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anybody that has worked with feeding cattle knows that grazing on land is nothing like cutting down timber.
Even if the hay is cut and bailed, there will still be two or maybe three more times that hay can be cut dried and bailed in a season (at least in Minnesota that's my experience.)  To go into an area and say that you are going to log that said area once, not even mentioning the amount are to be logged,  to do logging you must cut down trees that needed 15-20 maybe even fourty years to mature.  Not even comparable to minnimal damage done by grazing.  What is eaten by the cattle is being recycled and fertilized on the spot and will be ready again in a few short weeks.  It kind grows like weeds.  So called logging will replace its self over slightly longer period of time.

Not very familiar with conditions on desert ranges, are you?

What's the average yearly precipitation in your part of Minnesota?  30-40 inches/year?  Where Bundy's ranch is located, it's about 8-9 inches/year; in a drought year like this one, they'll probably end up with 3-4 inches.  Depending on the winter, you get new growth in the spring, and then maybe some more after the Monsoon season in late summer.  In between the spring rains and the summer Monsoon that newly-grazed grass bakes at about 120 degrees from Memorial Day to 4th of July without a drop of precipitation to renew it.

In Nevada, if you graze the range too much the grass will eventually die off.
 

Southern Nevada is lucky to even get 4" any year.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:00:18 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Intermission for an important announcement - it's Easter and he has risen!
View Quote


Amen
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:02:11 AM EDT
[#23]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





Southern Nevada is lucky to even get 4" any year.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:

Anybody that has worked with feeding cattle knows that grazing on land is nothing like cutting down timber.

Even if the hay is cut and bailed, there will still be two or maybe three more times that hay can be cut dried and bailed in a season (at least in Minnesota that's my experience.)  To go into an area and say that you are going to log that said area once, not even mentioning the amount are to be logged,  to do logging you must cut down trees that needed 15-20 maybe even fourty years to mature.  Not even comparable to minnimal damage done by grazing.  What is eaten by the cattle is being recycled and fertilized on the spot and will be ready again in a few short weeks.  It kind grows like weeds.  So called logging will replace its self over slightly longer period of time.



Not very familiar with conditions on desert ranges, are you?



What's the average yearly precipitation in your part of Minnesota?  30-40 inches/year?  Where Bundy's ranch is located, it's about 8-9 inches/year; in a drought year like this one, they'll probably end up with 3-4 inches.  Depending on the winter, you get new growth in the spring, and then maybe some more after the Monsoon season in late summer.  In between the spring rains and the summer Monsoon that newly-grazed grass bakes at about 120 degrees from Memorial Day to 4th of July without a drop of precipitation to renew it.



In Nevada, if you graze the range too much the grass will eventually die off.

 


Southern Nevada is lucky to even get 4" any year.


And they sometimes get it all in one storm.  



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:02:20 AM EDT
[#24]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Pick your side.
View Quote






Keep up with us Wobblin.....everybody already has.





Americans versus federales. I made them home team since they use our money to rule us, but I bet long odds they wont win a war of oppression. Americans arent built like that.



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:05:30 AM EDT
[#25]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



The Supreme Court states:



"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.



So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.



http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/
View Quote





You wont be getting that type ruling out of the emminent domain SCrOTUmS.



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:17:01 AM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It's funny, because under prescriptive easement you agree he has a right to graze cattle there.




 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Neither can Obama, and he president now...
 

Sadly, I think Obama can speak better than this guy
Open? Well it sure is now
Notorious ? yes, he was ordered off those lands 20 years ago
Continuous? Been there for 20 years without paying fees
Adverse? According to the land owner......yes
Hostile? he's now ignored 3 court orders

Like the law or not......this guy is violation of it. It doesn't matter that my family controlled most the salmon canneries on the SW Washington coast and the cranberry farms....time's change.........I'm not going back and claiming rights to those fishing or farming rights..........
It's funny, because under prescriptive easement you agree he has a right to graze cattle there.




 

boom, headshot!
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:22:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Big difference, people on a hill with a camera, or like what happened during the Boston bombing search. The LEO are not the military, they are police officers. Time they started to act that way again. Same for the FEDS. This SWAT crap for everything from parking tickets on up is what makes us think it's time to defend or become equal.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.



 I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.


You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.


Big difference, people on a hill with a camera, or like what happened during the Boston bombing search. The LEO are not the military, they are police officers. Time they started to act that way again. Same for the FEDS. This SWAT crap for everything from parking tickets on up is what makes us think it's time to defend or become equal.



It all starts with community policing, get out of the car and start talking with people in the community. Treat people as you would wanted to be treated and everyone is good. Worked for me and I survived 25 years on the street, maybe I am the minority.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:25:54 AM EDT
[#28]
Not sure if i posted this yet:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale/

"Summit County, which refused interviews, said in a statement Wednesday it acquired the property for $115,000 in a voluntary settlement, following court-ordered mediation.  Ceil Barrie told Fox News the monetary figure just covered the couple’s legal bills and some of the land's value.

She said they had every intention of taking the case to court, but the fight got to be too expensive. "The cabin was condemned on the grounds of plumbing and electricity when it doesn't even have plumbing or electricity,” she said.  “All those things added up in my mind... this is ridiculous, we can never win and our money is not unlimited. I have two kids in college this year."
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:33:56 AM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:






You wont be getting that type ruling out of the emminent domain SCrOTUmS.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Supreme Court states:

"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/






You wont be getting that type ruling out of the emminent domain SCrOTUmS.
 



There's also a supreme court decision saying black people can't be citizens.

Gr
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:37:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



It all starts with community policing, get out of the car and start talking with people in the community. Treat people as you would wanted to be treated and everyone is good. Worked for me and I survived 25 years on the street, maybe I am the minority.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.



 I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.


You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.


Big difference, people on a hill with a camera, or like what happened during the Boston bombing search. The LEO are not the military, they are police officers. Time they started to act that way again. Same for the FEDS. This SWAT crap for everything from parking tickets on up is what makes us think it's time to defend or become equal.



It all starts with community policing, get out of the car and start talking with people in the community. Treat people as you would wanted to be treated and everyone is good. Worked for me and I survived 25 years on the street, maybe I am the minority.



And in our town that is how they treat us, they talk, ask permission to step into your yard, etc. They I respect.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:39:07 AM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

.......................

Why do you people continue to spread this bogus crap about a tortoise?   Trying to keep the focus off the straight-up goal of pushing ranchers out?
View Quote


Because protecting the tortoise is the what they used to close out parcels of land to grazing, that's why.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:46:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Because protecting the tortoise is the what they used to close out parcels of land to grazing, that's why.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

.......................

Why do you people continue to spread this bogus crap about a tortoise?   Trying to keep the focus off the straight-up goal of pushing ranchers out?


Because protecting the tortoise is the what they used to close out parcels of land to grazing, that's why.

We still talking about the turtles? I would have thought by now the Reid's BLM puppet Kornze would have yet again attempted to change the theme by saying it's for the Ice Caps.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:47:17 AM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

We still talking about the turtles? I would have thought by now the Reid's BLM puppet Kornze would have yet again attempted to change the theme by saying it's for the Ice Caps.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

.......................

Why do you people continue to spread this bogus crap about a tortoise?   Trying to keep the focus off the straight-up goal of pushing ranchers out?


Because protecting the tortoise is the what they used to close out parcels of land to grazing, that's why.

We still talking about the turtles? I would have thought by now the Reid's BLM puppet Kornze would have yet again attempted to change the theme by saying it's for the Ice Caps.


Good point..........they are probably holding that one in reserve.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:47:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I respect your posts, but that is what I think many are in an uproar over, you can point a weapon at us, and we can't shoot, but if someone has a weapon aimed at LEO then game on? We are on a slow slide down.

I also agree with this statement. If they don't want firearms pointed at them then don't point them at us. Its more of a respect thing. People are tired of the double standard.

You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.


Very well said.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 8:55:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

If I rent my boss's 40 acre farm to run cattle on and he raises the rent or says I have to run fewer head........time to find a new place to run my cattle...........
I understand this has been in his family since 1870, but it's not HIS land, this is OUR land and he's been running roughshod over it for free for 20 years, he's ignored 3 court orders to remove his cattle (which now are 4x what the original grazing permit was for).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...............

Staffing of the BLM?? The day to day operations of the Federal Government that owns "our" land........Way back when the Federal Government owned all these vast tracts of land for one purpose......to generate revenue to support the Federal Government...............Timber, Oil and Mineral rights, grazing fees. over time it became corrupt and began to subsidize these industries.......

So you expect his grazing fees to support enhancing our land that he's using but some schmuck in Montana or Wyoming is expected to pay for all of that out of pocket on his own land??


All of that is fine if it is accounted for and the fees are used for that purpose on that specific land.

However, in this case the fees did not pertain to grazing issues.........the fees were raised and the number of cattle allowed to graze was dramatically lowered solely to protect a tortoise.

You don't have a problem with that?

If I rent my boss's 40 acre farm to run cattle on and he raises the rent or says I have to run fewer head........time to find a new place to run my cattle...........
I understand this has been in his family since 1870, but it's not HIS land, this is OUR land and he's been running roughshod over it for free for 20 years, he's ignored 3 court orders to remove his cattle (which now are 4x what the original grazing permit was for).


No rancor intended here but, do you personally support the BLM in all of its activities? Or merely in this specific case?
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 9:03:14 AM EDT
[#36]
The world through militia eyes
Domestic terrorists? Heroes? Who are the armed men who invaded Nevada?


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/20/world-through-militia-eyes/
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 9:32:49 AM EDT
[#37]

Link Posted: 4/20/2014 9:56:27 AM EDT
[#38]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I do have an argument. He paid grazing fees until one day he decided he didn't believe in the federal government anymore and stopped paying. When he stopped paying, he should have removed his cattle. Instead, he allowed the herd to quadruple in size and spread out over land he had never leased.



If you don't think this is a valid argument, you really should take a 10th grade critical thinking class. It's really not hard to understand.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:



Plus, you don't HAVE an argument. You have an opinion.  It's also based on pretty much hot air and pop media.



 




I do have an argument. He paid grazing fees until one day he decided he didn't believe in the federal government anymore and stopped paying. When he stopped paying, he should have removed his cattle. Instead, he allowed the herd to quadruple in size and spread out over land he had never leased.



If you don't think this is a valid argument, you really should take a 10th grade critical thinking class. It's really not hard to understand.
That's not an argument, and it also is not taking into account many known factors. It's nothing more than a uniformed opinion that makes you sound willfully ignorant.
 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:17:44 AM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

So what? Is there a law against that now? If there was a law, would it be Constitutional? If SCOTUS ruled such a law "Constitutional," would it be any more "right" than the British in 1775?

Natural, God-given civil rights like those enumerated in our Constitution are not given to us by any government and as such no government can take them away. You might play that game, but I won't, and the number of people on my side of the line is growing by the day.

Pick your side.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.

And half of those 1000 citizens were armed, no win situation for the LEO's. Damned if do or don't situation, it's not who you are, it's what you represent that people will always hate.

So what? Is there a law against that now? If there was a law, would it be Constitutional? If SCOTUS ruled such a law "Constitutional," would it be any more "right" than the British in 1775?

Natural, God-given civil rights like those enumerated in our Constitution are not given to us by any government and as such no government can take them away. You might play that game, but I won't, and the number of people on my side of the line is growing by the day.

Pick your side.


We all know about Bundy not paying his grazing fees and the end stand off with BLM but lets try and keep the historical facts straight
BLM came to the Bundy ranch with a ridiculous show of force:  200 + men armed as if they were special op.s  in Afganistan which outraged the general public.  They even set up sniper positions , etc, ..< pointing guns at the Bundy family, etc... BEFORE THERE WERE  ANY PROTESTERS: THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT THE FUCKING PROTESTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE,    When the protesters came they were mostly neighbors, initially unarmed, and were further abused by BLM with tasers and dogs etc... not to mention the "1st amendment protest  area set up by the arrogant BLM  which enraged many.

After that, the militia started showing up and more people came armed  ......

I'm thinking if BLM handled things differently Bundy's cattle confiscation wouldn't of even made the news
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:19:03 AM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

That doesn't give him the right to quadruple his cattle on OUR land and not recognize the BLM for 20 years and ignore 3 court orders.............
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know that if he had signed the BLM contract he would have lost water rights, right?  Water in the desert is worth a little more that cattle...
 

That doesn't give him the right to quadruple his cattle on OUR land and not recognize the BLM for 20 years and ignore 3 court orders.............


Except what you dont hear on the one news agency that you watch, that makes you think you have the whole story, is that HE WON A COURT BATTLE THE FIRST TIME.

He went before the Interior Board of Land Appeals and WON THE CASE.

After he won the case, the BLM just changed the rules, because they can, within the power granted to them, change or make whatever laws they want to.

Plain and simple, a judge decided Bundy was in the right, the BLM didnt like it, so they changed the law.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:22:38 AM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


We all know about Bundy not paying his grazing fees and the end stand off with BLM but lets try and keep the historical facts straight
BLM came to the Bundy ranch with a ridiculous show of force:  200 + men armed as if they were special op.s  in Afganistan which outraged the general public.  They even set up sniper positions , etc, ..< pointing guns at the Bundy family, etc... BEFORE THERE WERE  ANY PROTESTERS: THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT THE FUCKING PROTESTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE,    When the protesters came they were mostly neighbors, initially unarmed, and were further abused by BLM with tasers and dogs etc... not to mention the "1st amendment protest  area set up by the arrogant BLM  which enraged many.

After that, the militia started showing up and more people came armed  ......
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You all act like this is something new for LEO's to break leather in the course of their duties. COPS has been on since 89 with lots of examples of weapons being pointed at people due to the varying degree of situations. I guess that I should not point a weapon at an armed robbery suspect or that felony vehicle stop.

Fine. Point your gun at an armed robbery suspect. Don't expect the citizenry to give you the same benefit of the doubt when you point your gun at 1,000 people exercising their natural, God-given rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution.

And half of those 1000 citizens were armed, no win situation for the LEO's. Damned if do or don't situation, it's not who you are, it's what you represent that people will always hate.

So what? Is there a law against that now? If there was a law, would it be Constitutional? If SCOTUS ruled such a law "Constitutional," would it be any more "right" than the British in 1775?

Natural, God-given civil rights like those enumerated in our Constitution are not given to us by any government and as such no government can take them away. You might play that game, but I won't, and the number of people on my side of the line is growing by the day.

Pick your side.


We all know about Bundy not paying his grazing fees and the end stand off with BLM but lets try and keep the historical facts straight
BLM came to the Bundy ranch with a ridiculous show of force:  200 + men armed as if they were special op.s  in Afganistan which outraged the general public.  They even set up sniper positions , etc, ..< pointing guns at the Bundy family, etc... BEFORE THERE WERE  ANY PROTESTERS: THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT THE FUCKING PROTESTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE,    When the protesters came they were mostly neighbors, initially unarmed, and were further abused by BLM with tasers and dogs etc... not to mention the "1st amendment protest  area set up by the arrogant BLM  which enraged many.

After that, the militia started showing up and more people came armed  ......




Many mistakes on both sides, now how to end this and make everyone feel as a winner. Too many other big ticket issues need attention and corrections.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:24:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

There's a certain element that will love people fighting against the feds no matter what............it's like the ultimate pot stirring or the "mostest uber trolling on the net"...........Sadly what it does is it takes things like this, where the rancher is clearly in the wrong (like the laws or not, he's in the wrong) and it gives them something to cling to, something to fight for......makes most conservatives look like douchebags.........but the press will love them for it................

If this were only about the tortoise and how it's shut down 49 ranches, where's the empirical evidence that the BLM is wrong? I'd imagine 49 ranches would be able to gather some sort of fund to come up with scientific evidence to fight this?? Although, I still think Cliven Bundy is some wack job that doesn't recognize the US Government............
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Clearly it's a black and white issue and because you take grievance with it... it should be the way you see it...



Oh, wait, that's not how this works at all...
 


Then just say it. You think this one dude should be able to do what he wants, but everyone else can get fucked. And you agree with this because you come from the area and have a biased perspective.

There's a certain element that will love people fighting against the feds no matter what............it's like the ultimate pot stirring or the "mostest uber trolling on the net"...........Sadly what it does is it takes things like this, where the rancher is clearly in the wrong (like the laws or not, he's in the wrong) and it gives them something to cling to, something to fight for......makes most conservatives look like douchebags.........but the press will love them for it................

If this were only about the tortoise and how it's shut down 49 ranches, where's the empirical evidence that the BLM is wrong? I'd imagine 49 ranches would be able to gather some sort of fund to come up with scientific evidence to fight this?? Although, I still think Cliven Bundy is some wack job that doesn't recognize the US Government............


Uh, I dunno, how bout the fact the BLM just killed 1500 of the poor little turtles?  Sounds pretty endangered.

How in the hell did the turtle survive with all the bison roaming around?

And to answer your question, the BLM was supposed to be releasing studies on the status of said tortoise.  They where not.  This angered some animal rights group that threatened to sue the BLM.  Then they started a lawsuit and all of a sudden all this started happening.

Course none of this issue could possibly have anything to do with Harry Reid trying to line his pockets.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:26:20 AM EDT
[#43]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There's also a supreme court decision saying black people can't be citizens.



Gr
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:



The Supreme Court states:



"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.



So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.



http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/





You wont be getting that type ruling out of the emminent domain SCrOTUmS.

 






There's also a supreme court decision saying black people can't be citizens.



Gr


I dont need to be a citizen, Im armed ergo Im free.



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:28:59 AM EDT
[#44]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



That's not an argument, and it also is not taking into account many known factors. It's nothing more than a uniformed opinion that makes you sound willfully ignorant.

 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:



Plus, you don't HAVE an argument. You have an opinion.  It's also based on pretty much hot air and pop media.



 




I do have an argument. He paid grazing fees until one day he decided he didn't believe in the federal government anymore and stopped paying. When he stopped paying, he should have removed his cattle. Instead, he allowed the herd to quadruple in size and spread out over land he had never leased.



If you don't think this is a valid argument, you really should take a 10th grade critical thinking class. It's really not hard to understand.
That's not an argument, and it also is not taking into account many known factors. It's nothing more than a uniformed opinion that makes you sound willfully ignorant.

 


Even his allegations are not as I understand the facts.



I may be wrong, but as I understood it- they refused his payment unless he signed a new agreement, which was reduction in herd size to the point of end game. He paid the locals & state.
 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:41:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/LaJ6IPF6PNg/hqdefault.jpg

Not a very good place to rest that finger.
View Quote


to be fair, if he was in the service, he looks like he's of an age where that was standard practice.
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:47:08 AM EDT
[#46]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
to be fair, if he was in the service, he looks like he's of an age where that was standard practice.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/LaJ6IPF6PNg/hqdefault.jpg



Not a very good place to rest that finger.




to be fair, if he was in the service, he looks like he's of an age where that was standard practice.
Looks like the safety is on as well.

Is that a Russian Tiger slung across his shoulder?



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:47:49 AM EDT
[#47]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





Even his allegations are not as I understand the facts.



I may be wrong, but as I understood it- they refused his payment unless he signed a new agreement, which was reduction in herd size to the point of end game. He paid the locals & state.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:



Plus, you don't HAVE an argument. You have an opinion.  It's also based on pretty much hot air and pop media.



 




I do have an argument. He paid grazing fees until one day he decided he didn't believe in the federal government anymore and stopped paying. When he stopped paying, he should have removed his cattle. Instead, he allowed the herd to quadruple in size and spread out over land he had never leased.



If you don't think this is a valid argument, you really should take a 10th grade critical thinking class. It's really not hard to understand.
That's not an argument, and it also is not taking into account many known factors. It's nothing more than a uniformed opinion that makes you sound willfully ignorant.

 


Even his allegations are not as I understand the facts.



I may be wrong, but as I understood it- they refused his payment unless he signed a new agreement, which was reduction in herd size to the point of end game. He paid the locals & state.
 
Yup.





Plus, part of the new BLM contract was relinquishing water rights Bundy and family had in the area.



 
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:51:11 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/LaJ6IPF6PNg/hqdefault.jpg

Not a very good place to rest that finger.
View Quote



ak 47   ....the safety is clearly engaged although i do agree
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:55:29 AM EDT
[#49]
Will Harry Reid run again; and will Nevada reelect him?
Link Posted: 4/20/2014 10:59:25 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Will Harry Reid run again; and will Nevada reelect him?
View Quote


Yes on both.
Page / 184
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top