Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

[brycejones]

Please by all means keep these people talking.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/bundy-ranch-constitutional-sheriffs-oath-keepers

Man that's a completely different level of crazy there.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It is an unjust judgement made about an unjust law.

A couple hundred years ago a court laid down some taxes that was also over an unjust law which help prompt a revolution.


Our citizens have a right to choose to fight over unjust laws and unjust judgements.

This Patriot gathered his troops ready and stood prepared to fight against such an unjust law.


Good for him, thankfully the number of people willing to stand strong is quickly growing.

You just keep on bowing to your Dear Leader like good puppets.

Why are you not in Nevada standing proud with your patriot brothers?

Oh, forgot, Why are you not in Nevada standing proud with your patriot brothers while cowering behind the women and children?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

LOL at you all grasping straws from one lunatic making outrageous claims and spreading them across the group. Such a typical modern progressive playbook move.

Come on, be original, you can hold up your end of the debate without resorting to the middle school tactics.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL at you all grasping straws from one lunatic making outrageous claims and spreading them across the group. Such a typical modern progressive playbook move.

Come on, be original, you can hold up your end of the debate without resorting to the middle school tactics.

Why don't you hold your own and start answering the very reasonable questions asked of you? Based on your description of what is permissible, do you support the Rodney King riots?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I really think it's hilarious when you all try to bring up stuff that happened in the 40's to attempt to justify your viewpoints.


You realize that someone who was 30 in 1939 (when this happened, not the 60's as you claim) would be 105 years old?

paragraph 17 I believe:

"But no new federal gun control laws came until 1968. The assassinations of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were the tipping point, coming after several summers of race-related riots in American cities. The nation’s white political elite feared that violence was too prevalent and there were too many people—especially urban Black nationalists—with access to guns. In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

 

[brycejones]

one lunatic making outrageous claims and spreading them

Man, that's an awesome summation of Alex Jones.

Thanks

 

[Victorian Gray]

Was the founding of our country the opposite of Democracy?

Rebellion (of roughly 1/3 the population) = Democracy?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Man, that's an awesome summation of Alex Jones.

Thanks

I agree.

 

[Elias824]

No, you're missing it. The pedophiles, by analogy, would be the "patriots." ANYONE who stands up for breaking an "unjust" law is a "patriot," according to you.

Furthermore, we now see a new face of your truly anarchist beliefs: In your "system," armed groups take the law into their own hands and stop others from doing things they don't agree with. In your system, your "patriots" would attack those in a "gay pride" parade, because "preverts" shouldn't be allowed to even breathe the same air as "normal" people.

Wow you took a pretty big leap there, I guess I missed all of those people that the ranchers were killing and oppressing by lettings some cows eat grass in the middle of the desert.

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL at you all grasping straws from one lunatic making outrageous claims and spreading them across the group. Such a typical modern progressive playbook move.

Come on, be original, you can hold up your end of the debate without resorting to the middle school tactics.

This group grabbed their guns and went to Nevada to threaten federal workers enforcing the law against a rancher illegally exploiting our nation's resources. And they won. By threatening violence. They're all lumatic extremists.

 

[thraashman]

This group grabbed their guns and went to Nevada to threaten federal workers enforcing the law against a rancher illegally exploiting our nation's resources. And they won. By threatening violence. They're all lumatic extremists.

No, they're domestic terrorists. It's the only correct term for them.

 

[Jaskalas]

This group grabbed their guns and went to Nevada to threaten federal workers enforcing the law against a rancher illegally exploiting our nation's resources. And they won. By threatening violence. They're all lumatic extremists.

People willing to use force shape the future. Ask Crimea.

Some of them are crazy, some of them are patriots. All of them are American.

 

[Jaskalas]

No, they're domestic terrorists. It's the only correct term for them.

Yes, you would say that of men who are actually capable of defending themselves. Must be terrorists if they don't go quietly into the night.

 

[Fern]

Several news articles say that Bundy's cows were grazing on BLM property but mostly well beyond that to other far reaching areas for years and years. He doesn't own any of the property where his cows are grazing. He is getting free feed and roam for his cows and not paying a cent for it. In my opinion he is a free loader and used the conservative media to boost his "rebel call" to others who think they are the new American Militia. Honestly he puts people's lives at harm for doing this as well. He is lucky that the law enforcement types didn't have a serious shoot out, because these days that is all they seem to want to do is shoot people for the slightest provocation.

In the Western states most people don't.

Read about this and get back to us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

Fern

 

[Abraxas]

In the Western states most people don't.

Read about this and get back to us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

Fern

You did read that, right?

Modern times[edit]


An open range sign along the Interstate 10 Frontage Road in southern Arizona.
In modern times, free roaming cattle can be a nuisance and danger in developed areas. Most western states now limit open range to certain areas.[9] Under open range law today, if livestock break through a "legal fence" (defined by law in terms of height, materials, post spacing, etc.), then the livestock owner is liable for damages of the fenced property. Conversely, the livestock owner is not liable in the absence of the "legal fence." An exception exists for "unruly" animals, usually meaning breeding bulls and stallions, which are supposed to be restricted by the owner.[1]

On roadways within an open range area, in a cow-car collision on a roadway, the rancher was at one time not generally liable,[9] but recent law changes beginning in the 1980s gradually increased rancher liability, first requiring cattle be kept off federal highways, then other developed roads, and in some cases, limited open range grazing only to certain times of the year. In some states, such as Montana, case law on the open range has, for all practical purposes, eliminated it altogether, though statutes may remain on the books. Today, a vehicle has a much higher chance of hitting a wild animal than livestock.[9]

Laws are still in flux. In Arizona, livestock must be fenced in within incorporated areas, but are still listed only as a potential nuisance for unincorporated suburbs.[9] Therefore in that state, bills are being pushed "to get rid of this antiquated law from 19th century." Those opposing the legislation say that "eliminating the law would put undue hardship on ranchers.[9] However, the law has sometimes been settled via legal action. In Montana, the Montana Supreme Court in the decision Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, eliminated the open range doctrine altogether, though statutes remain on the books and have been updated since the decision to ameliorate some provisions of the decision.

Not so common now.

 

[werepossum]

Wow you took a pretty big leap there, I guess I missed all of those people that the ranchers were killing and oppressing by lettings some cows eat grass in the middle of the desert.

It's a leftist thing. Defying government = pedophilia = murderer = racist = pervert . . .

In the Western states most people don't.

Read about this and get back to us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

Fern

There are two points here which must be satisfied to legitimize the ranchers' point.

1. Is the BLM acting appropriately?

2. Can the federal government change the rules for open range?

I'm willing to accept the first and agree that the BLM is not acting appropriately, but I don't see how you can accept the second. He has had grazing rights since 1870. Those rights have changed in the past, and surely must be allowed to change in the future. Not only the desert tortoise but the very range would be endangered otherwise.

 

[Abraxas]

Yes, you would say that of men who are actually capable of defending themselves. Must be terrorists if they don't go quietly into the night.

I'm not sure I agree with the terrorist label but there is a certain aspect of it that rings true. These are individuals who used the threat of violence in absence of due process to influence government policy and action. I stop short of agreeing completely in that very little violence was actually used and that the threat of violence was their one bargaining chip they did seem to try to avoid actually carrying it out. Also I'm not quite sure interrupting a single court order qualifies as policy. Even so, the label isn't wholly off base.

 

[Fern]

I see this "patriots don't follow unjust laws" thing bandied about but I have yet to see anyone explain why exactly the law is unjust. Is it that the land is Federal? The land has been federal so long it is written into the original constitution of the State of Nevada.

Is it that his ancestors were able to use the land and so should he? That's a dumb principle, do we just let anyone do anything their ancestors could so that laws can never be changed? Do we give him a competitive advantage on the market by letting him graze on land that he doesn't own and doesn't pay taxes on for free when no other rancher gets that consideration?
-snip-

A quick recap:

In 1993 the BLM ordered him to limit his cattle to 150. I'm not sure how many he had on that exact date but he seems to usually ranch about 900-1,000.

This would mean a business reduction of +80%. Businesses can't take +80% haircut in revenue and continue to survive. Accepting that is tantamount to going out business and quite possibly bankruptcy. He wouldn't even be able to sell his ranch. You can't sell a cattle ranch if the ranch can't have cattle (or at least enough to be viable).

Then the next year, 1994, the BLM reduced him down to zero cattle.

This seems very heavy handed to me. Very very heavy handed. They're forcing him out of business.

The speed of the BLM's move from 1993 to 1994 wouldn't appear to offer him much chance in court. Court cases usual take longer than that. On top of it, with no cattle how was he to afford a lawyer to defend himself? Well, it seems that through extreme incompetence or down malevolence the BLM was working to drive him out of business and render him defenseless in the same process.

BTW: I've heard from another (real estate) lawyer that Bundy had to try to defend himself because didn't have the money for a lawyer. So, we also have an extremely unfair fight, but that's usually the case when is fighting the federal govt, no?

This whole thing was very unfair. I bet it was quite a hardship, and an unnecessary one, on a lot of people and families. All the ranchers were forced out of business. I imagine they were a good source of employment for the small community. I imagine the feed and supply stores went out-of-business. The negative effects probably rippled through restaurants, cafes, clothing store, veterinarians, auto dealerships, you name it.

Over turtles? The ones the govt had to kill because of an overpopulation?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Or, rather than turning the land into another missile site or nuclear waste disposal site (do you even know if the land is suitable for that?), perhaps the two parties could be reasonable and through a mediator reach a fair financial settlement.

Afterall, the crime is the unpaid grazing fees right?

No, the crime was cattle ranching.

For those following the facts it's quite clear that the BLM decided they wanted cattle ranching. Damn the consequences.

It's not really about about grazing fees. It about NO grazing, period. As usual the media gets it wrong.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Funny how righties are all for armed protest unless its black people protesting.

Remember all the Fox News panic buttons pushed during the Zimmerman trial?

Remember this back in the 60s??

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

You're trying to equate crowds beating up unrelated and innocent people in the Zimmerman case to the people who came out to face govt LEO's?

You people get more desperate and absurd by the post.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Adverse possession, that's it, thank you. I knew it would not apply against the Feds of course, rarely does it work that way of course.

Now, do you or anyone else besides Alex "page hit$" Jones know for certain if a Chinese energy company is or is not planning on using that property once it is freed up? Is that why the BLM got all hot and bothered suddenly?

It's no longer a Chinese company energy.

It's an energy company that is a crony of Obama and Reid.

The poor ranchers never had a chance. They got outbid. Of course, since the Obama admin awarded that energy company tons of money they had plenty to bid with.

Fern

 

[IGBT]

lots of typical liberal selective indignation here. They want to throw a land owner off his property over "grazing" and turtles which are no longer endangered..but put on their blinkers and blinders when it comes to the thousands of law breakers running across the southern border causing millions of dollars in damage to private / public properties in the course of their illegal alien activity. Typical liberal selective indignation.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
While this supports your points, it also supports the other side. If the land can honestly only carry 150 cattle and still support a healthy population of endangered desert tortoises, that should be the new lease requirement. I don't know which side is correct about carrying capacity and the reduction effectively raised grazing right costs six fold, but there should be no right to use a public resource to the point of driving extinct or making more vulnerable a unique creature.

That land has supported cattle ranching and turtles for well over a hundred years.

No, it ain't really about turtles.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This is the opposite of democracy. This guy is using force to attempt to defy lawfully enacted regulations put in place by a democratically elected legislature and affirmed by the courts.
-snip-

Are these regulations enacted by bureaucrats or specific laws passed by Congress?

Because if it's the former it isn't "lawfully enacted regulations put in place by a democratically elected legislature".

Fern

 

[CanOWorms]

No, they're domestic terrorists. It's the only correct term for them.

Nope. They're domestic terrorists and secessionist rebel scum.

Bundy is the most dangerous man in America and probably more dangerous to American national security than Osama bin Laden ever was. He's becoming the poster boy for heterosexual conservative white males fighting to maintain their privileges over equality.