Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
A citizen of where? Iran? Seems to me he was being quite the citizen by standing his ground and that's about as patriotic as it gets. When the shit hits the fan, watch that you're not the first one hit in the face with it..
Patriot or domestic terrorist is a matter of viewpoint. I've been on a lot of BLM land used for grazing and have no sympathy for the ranchers who abuse it.
Thanks for the advice, don't forget to heed it yourself ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BruteForce
Yet you sympathize with an agency that brings hundreds of vehicles, armed militarized "rangers" who have no problem throwing a women to the ground?Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Spends millions of tax dollars on a personal agenda of dingy harry?(money that is now gone with nothing to show)
An agency who would put citizens who wish to voice an opinion in a compound, you support this?
Without the second, the first amendment is dead!!!
Have you ever heard of a thing called taxation without representation?
A part of this story also has to do with the overreach of the endangered species act and it's misuse in a government effort to control land.
What was proven here is without an armed citizenry, the gov. is free to go unchecked.
And--while a gov. agency provided hostility, the armed citizenry remained in check, no shots fired and won a battle, while the war will undoubtedly rage on.
Ho hum, the only thing that was proven here is that the BLM decided to back off rather than have to shoot a bunch of confrontational idiots defending what appears to be just another welfare cheat. If this is your idea of people acting patriotic, so be it. It certainly isn't mine.
I also have no problem with the agents dealing with 'citizens' who are just trying to provoke a confrontation, they should count themselves lucky they were a group of white Mormons and not blacks or Hispanics - things wouldn't have gone as smoothly for them. As far as I'm concerned the feds are taking care of my 'right' for people to pay to use public land.
posted on another forum(not by me)
The power of armed citizens in numbers.
I think it will bolster those who love freedom and scare the shit out of those who desire security.
Trust me, I'm an armed citizen. I would go a lot farther out of my way to protect your freedoms than any of the 'protesters' there would, I'm sure. I've never been tased, but I know what teargas smells like and have been spit on by folks who looked and sounded exactly like those defending the FLDS rancher, and have been herded around by the 'authorities' as well back in the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
The lightweights in this confrontation just want something for nothing and it's sad that people have seized upon this as an example of why we need the 2nd amendment. It is certainly their right to protest peacefully, but at the first hint that they mean violence the feds should put all their asses on the ground and if they (the protesters) choose to use weapons they have chosen their fate as well.
YMMV, of course.
Just went down to ye local gun shoppe to stock up on bullets. They said there has been another uptick in sales due to the latest Bundy vs. BLM confrontation.
Interesting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
I think the armed citizenry who showed up did so without intention of firing the first shot. But definitely were prepared to fire the second.
That I doubt, but it's a nice thing to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
cchoc--
Heres a link to the sites that the obama administration has proposed for some type of solar power.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ene..._projects.html
Would you be aware that these facilities require huge amounts of water?
Could you possibly see where the Bundy ranch has deeds to this much needed water?
Are you asking me to choose between solar power and this rancher? Easy peasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I hope the guy doesn't come to harm but honestly other than that I don't give a rat's ass about him and his. If this continues to be a contentious rallying point for the militias the blood is on his hands not the feds.
I'm not asking you to "choose" anything.
I'm pointing out "facts" of record.
By doing so, I would at least hope you can see that there is much more involved here than cows.
Maybe by doing so, you might also see the ease in which large companies have gotten EIS's passed.
Most of these in "turtle habitat"
I'm merely suggesting, sometimes the title on a book cover, doesn't accurately describe whats inside the book.
I like that you used "facts" in quotes. :naughty:
I know it's a complicated issue, but don't forget all that have been displaced by eminent domain, not to mention manifest destiny and other claptrap used to justify taking land from someone.
No matter how hard I study the "facts" I can't make him out as the victim, just another government welfare cheat. Him claiming his rights predate the department of interior are laughable - ask the folks his family displaced or killed to get the land in the first place. His cattle are grazing on my land, I guess that gives me the 'right' to go out and harvest a few. Been a few years since I worked in a meat packing plant but I still remember the basics; a few sharp knives and a chain saw should do the trick.
I'm sure he has a nice little chubby from folks taking up his cause, but I'm not a part of it.
You're hung up on one guy--I'm hung up on gov. overreach.
As a side test, I'm sure you know the answers---
Who writes the land use laws that the blm enforces?
Who is the blm accountable to?
I don't see this situation as government overreach and you do, so the only thing this discussion *can* be about is this one guy. If you have a hard on for Obama that's your personal problem and of no concern to me.
Nothing could be worse long term for gun owners then turning this clusterf**k into a second amendment issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
You're right, it was only a First Amendment issue, the rest of the Bill of Rights should be abolished.
Good point.....:ne_nau:
It is what it is and will be interpreted by both sides to mean something completely different, no one can stop that process.
I once heard a guy say something along the lines of--the Bill of Rights isn't an al la carte menu.
Carry on..........
This clusterf**k should never have been any amendment issue.... posting those signs in that area was dumbass at its finest.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
BUT--from a law enforcement prospective, at this rally, why was this zone rule not enforced?
Best I can tell law enforcement has been totally worthless at enforcing any rules or law that have to do with this issue. :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
The only smart thing law enforcement has done is withdraw, where they will now regroup and attack this through another less visable avenue.
Completely agree......Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
But it would be less than honest to think the group of citizens being armed didn't play a part in the blm not enforcing "their"
1st amendment cage....
These zones are bullshit, of course, but have been around for years; although they didn't get used much until Shrub's administration. There is a line between free speech and inciting to riot, though, and that line is set by the folks with tear gas - as I learned some years back in the Nixon and Johnson years.:facepalm1:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Attachment 72692
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Now there's an idea, gather all the militia together for one last detonation. :lol8:
I've been working with real estate title issues for many years now and have learned something about controversies like this. Of course, there are 2 sides to every story, but title is easily traceable and if he lost in court twice, that pretty much should put the nail in the coffin of his claim. The judiciary is not shy in ruling against the government, so I would have to put stock in their ruling. Also, a big lesson to learn RE the pissed off ranchers: being angry doesn't necessarily mean you are "in the right". None of this applies to the confrontation between the protesters and BLM, but if they group was high on emotion (righteous indignation and anger) I am guessing it escalated to this point in steps based on the stubbornness of the ranchers to comply with both court orders. The problem could be that the ranchers truly believe they were right, but they may, in fact, be wrong (if we trust the court's rulings). People used to be sure the Earth was flat.
Why Cliven Bundy Is Not Wrong- From A Fellow Rancher
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
....
So a Mormon rancher with government issues thinks another Mormon rancher with government issues is a hero? Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Another point of view from the commie pinko side: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...ist-lawbreaker :bandit:
Not sure were Mormon plays into this?
But the key point here IS---obama lost his $20:haha:(so far)
The fact that they belong to the same church makes them more likely to sympathize with each other; could be Catholic, Jewish, Baptist - but they are Mormons so that's the word I used.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I didn't see a timetable on the imagined bet, either, so I doubt any money has changed hands at this point. :lol8:
Harry Reid is also a Mormon, so by default, he would sympathize with Bundy?Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
What about Obama. Gotta be Obama's fault somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
T
Wrong, TomQuote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
We're still on Bush's term of fault.
Generally speaking, you just follow the money trail.
Cattle rancher has water rights, water is like gold.
How do you get the water rights, make it so the rancher can't use his rights which allows them to be revoked.
This is all so stupid. the IRS should be handling this with letters, seizing accounts for non payment, liens, etc. The way they normally handle a person that has failed to pay the government for something they owe the government.
Handling this out in the open Rambo style is stupid and only exacerbates the problem.
:2guns:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Interesting, I didn't know being a Mormon had anything to do with it either, but then since Harry Reid is a Mormon too, maybe that debunks the theory. oopsQuote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
Citizen--all you need to know is harry reid is Mormon and does not approve of AC/DC.
You can figure the rest out from there:haha:
Oh yea, I forgot to add--If you are evil enough to own a Gibson guitar--well, Guantanamo is your future residence.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
(some might need to google the relevance)