User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 11:09:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That complaint and the Agent did an excellent job of making a concise chain of events on paper. That said I think the Gov over dramatized some aspects of it somewhat .They clearly monitored phones, email and internet traffic of parties involved. They are all going to prison for 20 years or more each I bet. Unless they get some deals , if they are very lucky......... Yes, I think this went on so long simply to draw out idiots for intel purposes. I'll bet that pile of data is HUGE. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 11:29:29 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> I've been advised by a BLM agent that was present (there are less than 300 nationwide) for that fiasco that he hasn't been forgotten by any means. Nor have the "sniper teams" that drew a bead on the feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 11:52:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea that whole "Statute of Limitations" thing is beyond some folks....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Funny how some people think if you are t arrested the second a crime occurs you get a free pass Yea that whole "Statute of Limitations" thing is beyond some folks....... Nevermind the concept that "Investigation" isnt limited to 60 minutes with regular Piss Breaks |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:00:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Co-conspirators that are numbered are already in custody. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Co-conspirators that are numbered are already in custody. I know but I don't think this thing is over. Many of the "snipers" have been ID'd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:03:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been advised by a BLM agent that was present (there are less than 300 nationwide) for that fiasco that he hasn't been forgotten by any means. Nor have the "sniper teams" that drew a bead on the feds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> I've been advised by a BLM agent that was present (there are less than 300 nationwide) for that fiasco that he hasn't been forgotten by any means. Nor have the "sniper teams" that drew a bead on the feds. Yeah I wouldn't be sleeping easy if I was those guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:05:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Old Man supported them... but this is all in relation to Bundy Ranch 1: Desert Land Adventure Time with Hand Holding and not Ammon Budy 2: Bundy Fundies Ewok Village Adventureland Camp Experience with Karate Grip. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
DID NOT KNOW THE OLD MAN WAS INVOLVED WITH THE BIRD HEIST, ON THE SURFACE SEEMS LIKE RETALIATION BY FBI/FEDS. The Old Man supported them... but this is all in relation to Bundy Ranch 1: Desert Land Adventure Time with Hand Holding and not Ammon Budy 2: Bundy Fundies Ewok Village Adventureland Camp Experience with Karate Grip. That's gold right there. Can we mock up some VHS-style movie boxes with those titles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:07:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know but I don't think this thing is over. Many of the "snipers" have been ID'd. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Co-conspirators that are numbered are already in custody. I know but I don't think this thing is over. Many of the "snipers" have been ID'd. Those fuckers need some jail time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:15:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The complaint went to some lengths to spell this out as brandishing and assault ... which, well, it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> The complaint went to some lengths to spell this out as brandishing and assault ... which, well, it is. Wondering when the alphabet agencies that were there, enforcing regulations to save turtles, birds, etc, will be charged with the same (of course, charges will not be coming for them). Its too bad the gov has eventually ruined these people for standing up to them, and all funded by our own tax dollars. All the routine gov/shill posters have become obvious to the point their posts have no meaning, except the message of "conform, acquiesce, or capitulate", etc. eta These posters/SJWs/Social Media shills will always have a job, til the very end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:16:38 PM EDT
[#9]
The Oregon issue showed that leaving sleeping dogs to lie wasn't in the public interest, as the result was resurgence and loss of life. Then there's the McVeigh angle to consider. Now that things have settled enough there will be a pursuing of charges, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:18:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wondering when the alphabet agencies that were there, enforcing regulations to save turtles, birds, etc, will be charged with the same (of course, charges will not be coming for them). Its too bad the gov has eventually ruined these people for standing up to who them, and all funded by our own tax dollars. All the routine gov/shill posters have become obvious to the point their posts have no meaning, except the message of "conform, acquiesce, or capitulate", etc. These posters/SJWs/Social Media shills will always have a job, til the very end. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> The complaint went to some lengths to spell this out as brandishing and assault ... which, well, it is. Wondering when the alphabet agencies that were there, enforcing regulations to save turtles, birds, etc, will be charged with the same (of course, charges will not be coming for them). Its too bad the gov has eventually ruined these people for standing up to who them, and all funded by our own tax dollars. All the routine gov/shill posters have become obvious to the point their posts have no meaning, except the message of "conform, acquiesce, or capitulate", etc. These posters/SJWs/Social Media shills will always have a job, til the very end. The same can be said for those either blind to or supportive of the con man crew building their empire on the lives and bodies of the gullible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:23:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd prefer that all of this manpower be used to investigate/detain MS13 gang members coming across the border, or used to protect our state secrets from being spilled out over unsecured servers. Just sayin'. 
Ahhh, the idealism of youth. How refreshing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:36:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I wouldn't be sleeping easy if I was those guys. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> I've been advised by a BLM agent that was present (there are less than 300 nationwide) for that fiasco that he hasn't been forgotten by any means. Nor have the "sniper teams" that drew a bead on the feds. Yeah I wouldn't be sleeping easy if I was those guys. Need to eradicate the lot of them. They are an obvious danger to the community at large. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 12:58:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Need to eradicate the lot of them. They are an obvious danger to the community at large. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> I've been advised by a BLM agent that was present (there are less than 300 nationwide) for that fiasco that he hasn't been forgotten by any means. Nor have the "sniper teams" that drew a bead on the feds. Yeah I wouldn't be sleeping easy if I was those guys. Need to eradicate the lot of them. They are an obvious danger to the community at large. Absolutely. Any idiot that would point guns at federal agents trying to serve a court order should be locked up, at a minimum. But I guess that all the members of the FSA on this website might start identifying with a family only to happy to take millions of dollars from the very government they say they despise. Maybe if they'd only stopped relying upon the federal government and the money it distributes through various programs, and subsidized grazing that they didn't even pay for anyway, maybe they'd have had a little more credibility when they said they'd been mistreated by the feds. And maybe, just maybe, idiots with guns that can't get past their blind hatred of anything coming from the government will actually stop to consider the retarded causes that they'll support with firearms, and by committing felony criminal acts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 2:09:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's gold right there. Can we mock up some VHS-style movie boxes with those titles? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: DID NOT KNOW THE OLD MAN WAS INVOLVED WITH THE BIRD HEIST, ON THE SURFACE SEEMS LIKE RETALIATION BY FBI/FEDS. The Old Man supported them... but this is all in relation to Bundy Ranch 1: Desert Land Adventure Time with Hand Holding and not Ammon Budy 2: Bundy Fundies Ewok Village Adventureland Camp Experience with Karate Grip. That's gold right there. Can we mock up some VHS-style movie boxes with those titles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 2:55:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I wouldn't be sleeping easy if I was those guys. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> I've been advised by a BLM agent that was present (there are less than 300 nationwide) for that fiasco that he hasn't been forgotten by any means. Nor have the "sniper teams" that drew a bead on the feds. Yeah I wouldn't be sleeping easy if I was those guys. Nope. They chose Bundy's hill to die on, which might fly in some ranching circles, but your average jury probably won't buy into it. The BLM ranger I spoke with-and he is very right of center politically-said there were people down there that arrived, looked around, and GTFO. They went down there to support the Bundy family, and once they came to the conclusion he was a fraud, they left. Unless the information I'm reading is incomplete or wrong, Dwight and Steven Hammond from Burns OR seemed like they were real victims of the federal government abusing their power. I really feel badly for them. At my job, we deal with the bureaucrats at BLM, and their "rules" about burning fuel preemptively aren't rational IMHO. One of my old company commanders (and retired Lt Col.) is with the OSP as a trooper, and was knee deep in the Hammond Ranch protests. I'm waiting to hear from him to get his AAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:15:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. 10 miles square, Federal buildings, and military bases. Wow... Hard math that.  How does that equate to taking over more and more land under "environmental protection" fall under the aforementioned clause? Hint: It doesn't.Hence the dust-up with folks who have been improving the land and using it for things like cattle grazing... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wrong. Here's the thing- It's like a complex math problem. When you start with one wrong calculation, you are NEVER GOING TO GET IT RIGHT IN THE END. Bundy is the wrong calculation. 10 miles square, Federal buildings, and military bases. Wow... Hard math that. How does that equate to taking over more and more land under "environmental protection" fall under the aforementioned clause? Hint: It doesn't.Hence the dust-up with folks who have been improving the land and using it for things like cattle grazing... So, you just pick and choose the parts you like? You stop at the Enclave Clause (Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17) and ignore the Property Clause (Art.4, Section 3, Clause 2)? And what was the basis of Camfield vs. United States? In 1897. The Act of February 25, 1885, c. 149, 23 Stat. 321, is within the constitutional power of Congress to enact, and is valid. The government of the United States has, with respect to its own lands within the limits of a state, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession, and to prosecute trespassers, and may legislate for their protection, though such legislation may involve the exercise of the police power, and may complain of and take steps to prevent acts of individuals in fencing in its lands, even though done for the purpose of irrigation and pasturing. United States vs Gratiot (1840!) The power over the public lands is vested in Congress by the Constitution without limitation, and has been considered the foundation on which the territorial governments rest. Light vs. United States? Kansas v. Colorado? All based on... the Property Clause. Except that you and the Bundys are smarter than everytone and know to stop reading at the Enclave Clause. There's actual books available on this. And case law. And Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 - in that awful Constitution thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:19:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They owned land that was taken by force and were forced to flea or die of starvation. It was all done "legally". Hence the parallel your piss poor attempt to denigrate completely misses... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your grandparent's family deliberately homestead off water sources so that remaining public pasture was useless to anyone but them? And then when everybody in the village got pissed, your grandparents asked the Tsar to put them in charge of deciding who got to use the public pasture? And then after the Revolution, when they weren't in charge of the public pasture, they did what they wanted, regardless? And then stopped paying grazing fees because they claimed the Government in Kiev owned the public pasture and not the government in Moscow? And that they were the only ones capable of reading the Soviet Constitution properly? Even though neither the Ukrainian SSR or Soviet Constitution - or Tsarist or Soviet case law - supported their version? And then the CHeKa showed up and said "you can keep your privately owned land (even though it means no one else can graze there), but until you pay your grazing fees you have to keep your cattle off the public pasture"? And your grandparents defied them and did what they wanted anyway - and your grandfather was only arrested a couple of years later when he flew to Moscow? Wow, the parallels are uncanny! They owned land that was taken by force and were forced to flea or die of starvation. It was all done "legally". Hence the parallel your piss poor attempt to denigrate completely misses... Sorry. You are flat wrong. Bundy doesn't own the Golden Butte grazing lands. His family didn't homestead them - except for the water sources (to deny those to others). No one has tried to take a single square inch of land that Cliven Bundy has a deed to. Cliven Bundy uses land owned by the people of the United States to graze his cattle on - and since 1993, he hasn't paid us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:27:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's entertaining is if anyone in this instance had a dog in the fight about the federal government stealing that land, it would be the Ute or Navajo. But that's a whole other ball of wax. The Republic of Mexico, too. Nevada was part of the Gadsen Purchase - negotiated at bayonet point after we kicked Mexico's ass. If the US can't own land, then it's still part of Mexico. Actually, we're going to be down to the 13 original states (plus Tennessee and Kentucky - which were made up out of Virginia and NC lands). And since the other states were created by territorial governments created by the Federal government, on land it couldn't have title to (according to Bundy), all those governments - down to the dogcatcher - are illegitimate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:28:15 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:31:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's funny. I don't post much anymore in GD but I gotta say this website has certainly attracted a shit-ton of big brother loving types. The attitude has definitely changed over the years. I'm curious how long til people here will actually be pushing and demanding gun control. Big difference between "loving Big Brother" and making up everything as you go along to support a sovereign citizen nut job worldview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:36:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And still better than the government parasitic leaches involved. Fuck be upon them and their families.  They pay their taxes, and work legally. If you can't do anything productive, you enforce un-Constitutional laws for tyrannical cocksuckers like good little attack dogs. Armed Forces have violated a lot of folks civil rights. Both in and outside of the USA. Oh bullshit.  Like Sturmgeist said.... If you can't do anything productive, you enforce un-Constitutional laws for tyrannical cocksuckers like good little attack dogs |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:45:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now I'm really having trouble following who I'm supposed to think should own that land. So if after a few hundred years of Indian turf wars, ownership by foreign countries, purchase by the U.S.government, creation of the state of Utah by the government, continued ownership of the actual land by the government, and permission by the government to graze and use the land without ownership, where am I supposed to fit in that Bundy has a right to the land. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's entertaining is if anyone in this instance had a dog in the fight about the federal government stealing that land, it would be the Ute or Navajo. But that's a whole other ball of wax. Might want to talk to some of the Pueblo about that.  They fuckin' hate Navajos, basically for stealing their land. Yea, where I am typing this right now? Was at one time Apache land, per the archaeologists...... But then, the Commanches came in and ran them out and into the mountains of New Mexico. Why?/How? The Commanches took to the horse sooner/better and used this new "technology" to expand their territory.....just as another, more technologically advanced people ran the Commanches out....So it is.... Now I'm really having trouble following who I'm supposed to think should own that land. So if after a few hundred years of Indian turf wars, ownership by foreign countries, purchase by the U.S.government, creation of the state of Utah by the government, continued ownership of the actual land by the government, and permission by the government to graze and use the land without ownership, where am I supposed to fit in that Bundy has a right to the land. Bundy is in Nevada - but I can clear it up. 1. Bundy rejects the existence of the US Constitution and the government it forms as illegitimate. 2. Bundy believes the 'state' (as in Nevada) is legitimate, but that the county exists to protect people from the state government. 3. Bundy believes that the Federal government, which he rejects as illegitimate - can't own land because he stopped reading the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la-la-la" when someone reads farther (to say, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). He also disagrees with the XIII Amendment and thinks slaves had it good. 4. Bundy claims Nevada owns the land he trespass grazes his cattle on - but doesn't pay them grazing fees either. Nevada, the Nevada courts, and the US courts disagree. They're stupid - Cliven's right. 5. Bundy claims he has a God-given right to graze his cattle anywhere he wants on the Golden Butte lands because his family homesteaded the water sources (to deny them to others) back when his family recognized the Federal government his family (apparently) chose not to homestead (and own - and pay taxes on) the land surrounding the water sources. You, however, do not have a right to use the Golden Butte grazing lands or to any of Cliven's water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:53:50 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 3:56:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bundy is in Nevada - but I can clear it up. 1. Bundy rejects the existence of the US Constitution and the government it forms as illegitimate. 2. Bundy believes the 'state' (as in Nevada) is legitimate, but that the county exists to protect people from the state government. 3. Bundy believes that the Federal government, which he rejects as illegitimate - can't own land because he stopped reading the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la-la-la" when someone reads farther (to say, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). He also disagrees with the XIII Amendment and thinks slaves had it good. 4. Bundy claims Nevada owns the land he trespass grazes his cattle on - but doesn't pay them grazing fees either. Nevada, the Nevada courts, and the US courts disagree. They're stupid - Cliven's right. 5. Bundy claims he has a God-given right to graze his cattle anywhere he wants on the Golden Butte lands because his family homesteaded the water sources (to deny them to others) back when his family recognized the Federal government his family (apparently) chose not to homestead (and own - and pay taxes on) the land surrounding the water sources. You, however, do not have a right to use the Golden Butte grazing lands or to any of Cliven's water. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's entertaining is if anyone in this instance had a dog in the fight about the federal government stealing that land, it would be the Ute or Navajo. But that's a whole other ball of wax. Might want to talk to some of the Pueblo about that.
They fuckin' hate Navajos, basically for stealing their land. Yea, where I am typing this right now? Was at one time Apache land, per the archaeologists...... But then, the Commanches came in and ran them out and into the mountains of New Mexico. Why?/How? The Commanches took to the horse sooner/better and used this new "technology" to expand their territory.....just as another, more technologically advanced people ran the Commanches out....So it is.... Now I'm really having trouble following who I'm supposed to think should own that land. So if after a few hundred years of Indian turf wars, ownership by foreign countries, purchase by the U.S.government, creation of the state of Utah by the government, continued ownership of the actual land by the government, and permission by the government to graze and use the land without ownership, where am I supposed to fit in that Bundy has a right to the land. Bundy is in Nevada - but I can clear it up. 1. Bundy rejects the existence of the US Constitution and the government it forms as illegitimate. 2. Bundy believes the 'state' (as in Nevada) is legitimate, but that the county exists to protect people from the state government. 3. Bundy believes that the Federal government, which he rejects as illegitimate - can't own land because he stopped reading the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la-la-la" when someone reads farther (to say, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). He also disagrees with the XIII Amendment and thinks slaves had it good. 4. Bundy claims Nevada owns the land he trespass grazes his cattle on - but doesn't pay them grazing fees either. Nevada, the Nevada courts, and the US courts disagree. They're stupid - Cliven's right. 5. Bundy claims he has a God-given right to graze his cattle anywhere he wants on the Golden Butte lands because his family homesteaded the water sources (to deny them to others) back when his family recognized the Federal government his family (apparently) chose not to homestead (and own - and pay taxes on) the land surrounding the water sources. You, however, do not have a right to use the Golden Butte grazing lands or to any of Cliven's water. Appropriation - Appropriative water rights are the most common use-based water rights in the United States and are most commonly found in the western states where water is scarcest. “The appropriation doctrine confers upon one who actually diverts and uses water the right to do so provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial uses,” regardless of whether that person owns land contiguous to the watercourse.[7] "[A]s between appropriators, the rule of priority is 'first in time, first in right.'" (8.) The modern system of prior appropriation water rights is characterized by five principles: Exclusive right is given to the original appropriator, and all following privileges are conditional upon precedent rights. All privileges are conditional upon beneficial use. Water may be used on riparian lands or non-riparian lands (i.e. water may be used on the land next to the water source, or on land removed from the water source) Diversion is permitted, regardless of the shrinkage of the river or stream. The privilege may be lost through non-use.[9] |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:01:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bundy is in Nevada - but I can clear it up. 1. Bundy rejects the existence of the US Constitution and the government it forms as illegitimate. 2. Bundy believes the 'state' (as in Nevada) is legitimate, but that the county exists to protect people from the state government. 3. Bundy believes that the Federal government, which he rejects as illegitimate - can't own land because he stopped reading the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la-la-la" when someone reads farther (to say, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). He also disagrees with the XIII Amendment and thinks slaves had it good. 4. Bundy claims Nevada owns the land he trespass grazes his cattle on - but doesn't pay them grazing fees either. Nevada, the Nevada courts, and the US courts disagree. They're stupid - Cliven's right. 5. Bundy claims he has a God-given right to graze his cattle anywhere he wants on the Golden Butte lands because his family homesteaded the water sources (to deny them to others) back when his family recognized the Federal government his family (apparently) chose not to homestead (and own - and pay taxes on) the land surrounding the water sources. You, however, do not have a right to use the Golden Butte grazing lands or to any of Cliven's water. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's entertaining is if anyone in this instance had a dog in the fight about the federal government stealing that land, it would be the Ute or Navajo. But that's a whole other ball of wax. Might want to talk to some of the Pueblo about that.
They fuckin' hate Navajos, basically for stealing their land. Yea, where I am typing this right now? Was at one time Apache land, per the archaeologists...... But then, the Commanches came in and ran them out and into the mountains of New Mexico. Why?/How? The Commanches took to the horse sooner/better and used this new "technology" to expand their territory.....just as another, more technologically advanced people ran the Commanches out....So it is.... Now I'm really having trouble following who I'm supposed to think should own that land. So if after a few hundred years of Indian turf wars, ownership by foreign countries, purchase by the U.S.government, creation of the state of Utah by the government, continued ownership of the actual land by the government, and permission by the government to graze and use the land without ownership, where am I supposed to fit in that Bundy has a right to the land. Bundy is in Nevada - but I can clear it up. 1. Bundy rejects the existence of the US Constitution and the government it forms as illegitimate. 2. Bundy believes the 'state' (as in Nevada) is legitimate, but that the county exists to protect people from the state government. 3. Bundy believes that the Federal government, which he rejects as illegitimate - can't own land because he stopped reading the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la-la-la" when someone reads farther (to say, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). He also disagrees with the XIII Amendment and thinks slaves had it good. 4. Bundy claims Nevada owns the land he trespass grazes his cattle on - but doesn't pay them grazing fees either. Nevada, the Nevada courts, and the US courts disagree. They're stupid - Cliven's right. 5. Bundy claims he has a God-given right to graze his cattle anywhere he wants on the Golden Butte lands because his family homesteaded the water sources (to deny them to others) back when his family recognized the Federal government his family (apparently) chose not to homestead (and own - and pay taxes on) the land surrounding the water sources. You, however, do not have a right to use the Golden Butte grazing lands or to any of Cliven's water. Here's a fucking kicker......Wanna bet what the title to his Golden Butte Homesteaded Land says as far as the Original Grantor? Homestead Act property came DIRECTLY FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.....So...if they couldn't own land....and his deed says he got it from them.....He owns NOTHING and NEVER HAS.....according to him...... (Why does this sound a lot like the Village Idiots arguing over whether the woman is a Witch in Monte Pythons' the Holy Grail?) End of Fucking Story. Done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:04:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Appropriation - Appropriative water rights are the most common use-based water rights in the United States and are most commonly found in the western states where water is scarcest. “The appropriation doctrine confers upon one who actually diverts and uses water the right to do so provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial uses,” regardless of whether that person owns land contiguous to the watercourse.[7] "[A]s between appropriators, the rule of priority is 'first in time, first in right.'" (8.) The modern system of prior appropriation water rights is characterized by five principles: Exclusive right is given to the original appropriator, and all following privileges are conditional upon precedent rights. All privileges are conditional upon beneficial use. Water may be used on riparian lands or non-riparian lands (i.e. water may be used on the land next to the water source, or on land removed from the water source) Diversion is permitted, regardless of the shrinkage of the river or stream. The privilege may be lost through non-use.[9] If he or another title holder in his line made first beneficial use, certainly he has water rights. That has nothing to do with Grazing rights on adjoining land. They are completely separate rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:04:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under what Authority? Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 17 is pretty damn specific. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Feds owned the land since day one. Under what Authority? Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 17 is pretty damn specific. Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. And there's case law back to 1840. Nevada (where Bundy lives) was part of the Mexican Cession. Nevada Territory was formed by the US government. The Nevada Constitution recognizes the existence of Federal land within Nevada. Oregon (where the refuge is) was claimed by the US and the last European claims (British) ceded and the boundary settled by the 1846 Oregon Treaty. If Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 trumps Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 - then the US has no claim to either Nevada or Oregon and the legitimate landowners are either (1) the last colonial power or (2) the indigenous peoples with the best claim. Actually, then the US is disassembled back to the pre-Louisiana purchase US. Just the tan part. The rest was (according to the "Enclave Clause Position") never legally part of the US. And, actually, hw could the Federal government have formed the old Northwest Territory if it could own land? I guess we lose that part too.  This Enclave Clause argument is specious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:06:54 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryFUCK THE GOVERNMENT!  I want their tax payer funded services because I'm a Sovereign Citizen Con Artist Welfare Rat.  Cliven when he was arrested....   Cliven with a worried look of "Oh Fuck" during his first appearance in court.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:16:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think a big part of the problem is lack of understanding. What the fuck do city folk know about the BLM? Not much. Nor do they care, as long as the steak in in the grocery store. I know the history of why the stockmen in the West wanted public land to stay public land. I know why the stockmen in the West came to see licensed grazing as a better political tool to control the land for the use of their cattle operations than range wars (up to and including using the Army). I know that the stockmen in the West, particularly the politically powerful stockmens' associations, wanted the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the local Grazing District Boards they controlled. I know why the politically powerful stockmen wanted an end to homesteading. And I understand that since 1993 when the Grazing District Boards went away that the BLM hasn't been the lap dog of the stockmen like it used to be. And that the stockmen don't like that. And that BLM and USFS and FWS, etc. can be leftist enviro-dicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:17:36 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know what I know about BLM land having researched the Constitution and relevant treaties and cessions and purchases? What I know is that it there are a shit ton of Western Lands owned by the US Government. You don't have to like it....but that's how it is. Their management- including sale or continued holding by the Feds, is a POLITICAL ISSUE. Not a Constitutional one, not a Legal issue. You want it changed? Lobby Congress to have it all sold, they can do it Tomorrow. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What the fuck do city folk know about the BLM? Not much. Nor do they care, as long as the steak in in the grocery store. You know what I know about BLM land having researched the Constitution and relevant treaties and cessions and purchases? What I know is that it there are a shit ton of Western Lands owned by the US Government. You don't have to like it....but that's how it is. Their management- including sale or continued holding by the Feds, is a POLITICAL ISSUE. Not a Constitutional one, not a Legal issue. You want it changed? Lobby Congress to have it all sold, they can do it Tomorrow. Hoover tried to give it to the states in 1928. It went nowhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:19:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've banged a couple of Spanish girls...do I get a piece??? I think you did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:21:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: States don't want the land, would cost them waaaay too much to take on. And if the states had the land, the ranchers would have to pay market rates on grazing, which is literally 10x what the feds charge them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:  The ranching community and the various State Legislatures keep fumbling around and cannot seem to get anything done. Why is that? Could it be that the various State Legislatures are not in lockstep with how they want things handled? How many States want the Fed land, and how many don't want the hassle of that land being dumped on them? How much of an increase in the States' budgets would be necessary to deal with management or disposal of all that new shiny state land... and all of the hazmat issues, threatened and endangered species issues, and legalities of dealing with all of the existing leased rights-of-ways and other permitted activities that will come with it? Could it be that those in the ranching community who use public lands may not be in lockstep when it comes to how they want things handled? How many of those ranchers want to pay higher grazing fees that will come with the land being transferred to State or private ownership? How many of those ranchers want to spend the money to buy land at market rates, and then deal with all of the upkeep and tax issues? And how many wouldn't even be able to afford purchasing the land? IMHO until the ranching community and the various State Legislatures present a solid front on the issue of Federal management of public lands, nothing will happen. And events like the standoffs at Bundy's place and the Refuge will do nothing to actually fix things, and will more likely cause bad PR and a lack of support from John Q and Suzie Soccer Mom. Congress is required to fix this can of worms. And the easy button won't work for this - it's going to require some real effort to get Congress to act in a manner the States feel is beneficial. IMHO and YMMV States don't want the land, would cost them waaaay too much to take on. And if the states had the land, the ranchers would have to pay market rates on grazing, which is literally 10x what the feds charge them. I think some states would want some choice bits - but not the rest. Some states might want it all, then cash it out - but there might not be buyers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:33:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow. How soon we all forget that the original Cliven Bundy issue was really all about Senator Harry Reid and his Chinese solar farm. Except it wasn't. The Chinese solar farm was going to be in Clark County and it was dead before the Budy faceoff in 2014. The only place that story finds credence is infowars.com. Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. The ENN solar farm deal was started around 2011. ENN had shut down the entire effort by 2013. I think Dingy Harry is a crooked fuck, but his son's Clark County solar farm caper with the Chinese was dead and gone by the time Bundy forced his confrontation with the Feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:37:03 PM EDT
[#34]
[ETA] Never mind. Fuck it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:38:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah Bundy and crew seem more and more like freeloaders and blowhards as time goes by. Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah Bundy and crew seem more and more like freeloaders and blowhards as time goes by. Yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 4:49:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Appropriation - Appropriative water rights are the most common use-based water rights in the United States and are most commonly found in the western states where water is scarcest. "The appropriation doctrine confers upon one who actually diverts and uses water the right to do so provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial uses,” regardless of whether that person owns land contiguous to the watercourse.[7] "[A]s between appropriators, the rule of priority is 'first in time, first in right.'" (8.) The modern system of prior appropriation water rights is characterized by five principles: Exclusive right is given to the original appropriator, and all following privileges are conditional upon precedent rights. All privileges are conditional upon beneficial use. Water may be used on riparian lands or non-riparian lands (i.e. water may be used on the land next to the water source, or on land removed from the water source) Diversion is permitted, regardless of the shrinkage of the river or stream. The privilege may be lost through non-use.[9] Quote HistoryQuoted: Appropriative water rights are the most common use-based water rights in the United States and are most commonly found in the western states where water is scarcest. "The appropriation doctrine confers upon one who actually diverts and uses water the right to do so provided that the water is used for reasonable and beneficial uses,” regardless of whether that person owns land contiguous to the watercourse.[7] "[A]s between appropriators, the rule of priority is 'first in time, first in right.'" (8.) The modern system of prior appropriation water rights is characterized by five principles: Exclusive right is given to the original appropriator, and all following privileges are conditional upon precedent rights. All privileges are conditional upon beneficial use. Water may be used on riparian lands or non-riparian lands (i.e. water may be used on the land next to the water source, or on land removed from the water source) Diversion is permitted, regardless of the shrinkage of the river or stream. The privilege may be lost through non-use.[9] Exactly. The Bundy family homestead the water sources in and around the Golden Butte area so that no one else had access to them. That made the rest of that public land useless to anyone but them, since they could deny anyone else access to the water (in classic Western sense - with a bullet or a judge). So the early Budys didn't bother to homestead the grazing land around their water sources and it remained public. Until Cliven came up with his cockamamie bullshit and now its magically his land. Free land for him. Or at least land to use for free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 6:19:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wondering when the alphabet agencies that were there, enforcing regulations to save turtles, birds, etc, will be charged with the same (of course, charges will not be coming for them). Its too bad the gov has eventually ruined these people for standing up to them, and all funded by our own tax dollars. All the routine gov/shill posters have become obvious to the point their posts have no meaning, except the message of "conform, acquiesce, or capitulate", etc. eta These posters/SJWs/Social Media shills will always have a job, til the very end. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are definitely looking at that moron on the bridge aiming his AK at the feds. They repeatedly talk about him and others in the complaint but not by name. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cwm1150/media/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/cwm1150/article-2603026-1D103FEC00000578-811_634x439_zpsz3wi91p7.jpg</a> The complaint went to some lengths to spell this out as brandishing and assault ... which, well, it is. Wondering when the alphabet agencies that were there, enforcing regulations to save turtles, birds, etc, will be charged with the same (of course, charges will not be coming for them). Its too bad the gov has eventually ruined these people for standing up to them, and all funded by our own tax dollars. All the routine gov/shill posters have become obvious to the point their posts have no meaning, except the message of "conform, acquiesce, or capitulate", etc. eta These posters/SJWs/Social Media shills will always have a job, til the very end. BLM, etc, was there to enforce a court order to corral or kill trespass cattle. Armed BLM agents were only there because the year before, when a government contractor went in to do this, Bundy threatened her and others. Also the "alphabet agencies" are explicitly exempted from brandishing laws per Nevada statutes. If you want to whine about "but, but, they can do it, why can't I" .... know the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 9:03:14 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then the US Armed Forces didn't participate in the Banana Wars and invade sovereign nations for American Fruit Companies? Or the NG hasn't been deployed on US Soil by State Governments and actually fired upon US Citizens? What about the use of military assets and personnel during Waco? What about the the use of US Marines during the LA Riots? Or maybe active duty personnel during hurricane Andrew? http://cdn.bearingarms.com/uploads/2014/04/NG-hurricane-andrew-looting-e1397482447589.jpg Like Sturmgeist said.... If you can't do anything productive, you enforce un-Constitutional laws for tyrannical cocksuckers like good little attack dogs
You might want to start by looking up what "civil rights" actually means. Then you might check your history, because you've got your facts all kinds of jacked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2016 9:10:53 PM EDT
[#39]
I hope everyone involved gets what they deserve in the end.
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
