Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

[Thebobo]

Poor modern progressives, so upset. It's just like every single situation doesn't seem to go your way.

I expect this will get worse for you, society is really leaning away from this "Big Government is good for us" mentality.

I bet you have a Timothy Mcveigh poster in your room.

 

[fskimospy]

Ameircan law inforcement are such pussies today. Back in the day we didn't put up with these types of folks. We would send in tanks or sniper shoot one of them. Or like in PA where they would just bomb the house killing all but one of the squaters.

Having grown up there, I don't think many people in Philly look at the bombing of MOVE as a good thing.

 

[brycejones]

Well, they managed to kill about a hundred thirty cattle attempting to round them up, so if they move quickly everybody directly involved ought to able to carve out a few steaks on him.

BLM messed up, they could have had a BBQ for everyone who showed up.

 

[Thebobo]

Having grown up there, I don't think many people in Philly look at the bombing of MOVE as a good thing.

yea I agree wtf were they thinking hey lets drop a bomb on the house.

 

[fskimospy]

yea I agree wtf were they thinking hey lets drop a bomb on the house.

Only Philly would be so ridiculous as to bomb itself.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm only about 1/16 Lenape, but in that case I want my land in Manhattan back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape

Let's see... New York State has lost LESS than ONE PERCENT of its land to the Federal Government. That's nothing. Besides, my call to seize Federal Land is for State, not private, ownership. Your argument amounts to nothing more than trolling.

If your elected representatives own it and choose to give or sell it to you, then that'd be New York's business and not mine. I do not claim dominion or ownership over others, though given your position can you truly say the same?

 

[fskimospy]

Let's see... New York State has lost LESS than ONE PERCENT of its land to the Federal Government. That's nothing. Besides, my call to seize Federal Land is for State, not private, ownership. Your argument amounts to nothing more than trolling.

If your elected representatives own it and choose to give or sell it to you, then that'd be New York's business and not mine. I do not claim dominion or ownership over others, though given your position can you truly say the same?

You keep trying to override Nevada's constitution while claiming you don't want dominion over others. Altering the fundamental basis for their laws to suit your liking is doing exactly that.

You don't want dominion over people so long as they do what you want.

 

[cabri]

Let's see... New York State has lost LESS than ONE PERCENT of its land to the Federal Government. That's nothing. Besides, my call to seize Federal Land is for State, not private, ownership. Your argument amounts to nothing more than trolling.

If your elected representatives own it and choose to give or sell it to you, then that'd be New York's business and not mine. I do not claim dominion or ownership over others, though given your position can you truly say the same?

I believe that NY State existed as a colony prior to the Federal government coming into existence.

Nevada did not.

Also, should western Federal Land under BLM supervision revert to the states; will the states have the resources to monitor/maintain the land?

As an example, look at the state of the CA State Park system. Held hostage for political agenda's rather than the public trust.

 

[CitizenKain]

Let's see... New York State has lost LESS than ONE PERCENT of its land to the Federal Government. That's nothing. Besides, my call to seize Federal Land is for State, not private, ownership. Your argument amounts to nothing more than trolling.

If your elected representatives own it and choose to give or sell it to you, then that'd be New York's business and not mine. I do not claim dominion or ownership over others, though given your position can you truly say the same?

Please explain why the Fed owning the land is a bad thing instead of the State. Show your work.

 

[TerryMathews]

Please explain why the Fed owning the land is a bad thing instead of the State. Show your work.

Are you insinuating that its better for Nevada that it doesn't own 76% of the land within its borders?

 

[dank69]

Are you insinuating that its better for Nevada that it doesn't own 76% of the land within its borders?

Check the post immediately above his to see why the idea is not so far-fetched.

 

[brycejones]

Are you insinuating that its better for Nevada that it doesn't own 76% of the land within its borders?

Take a position and state your proposed solution and why.

 

[werepossum]

BLM messed up, they could have had a BBQ for everyone who showed up.

lol True - had they simply held a free BBQ everyone there would have been on their side. Although straight from free open desert range steer to steaks might not make any friends . . .

 

[Stewox]

Ameircan law inforcement are such pussies today. Back in the day we didn't put up with these types of folks. We would send in tanks or sniper shoot one of them. Or like in PA where they would just bomb the house killing all but one of the squaters.

That's what a mentality of a raging communist is.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what a mentality of a raging communist is.

Actually as Vic mentioned earlier, the idea that people should be able to use others' lands for free without payment is real communism.

 

[Murloc]

the fed owning land it doesn't use (e.g. military grounds, federal railways or motorways are legitimate reasons to own it) goes against the principle of subsidiarity.
When countries unite in a federation, usually land is not passed up unless necessary.

But if for historical reasons, like if nevada was created by the federal government and wasn't an original colony (I have no idea but someone previously posted this), then it isn't weird that there is this situation. Also I don't see why it matters in this case, the guy would have had to pay nevada if the territory was state owned.

As for states not having the resources to handle huge territories (which is certainly a concern in a colonial country with almost empty states), you can set up compensation systems to cover the costs that do not depend on the state administration.
E.g. in Switzerland states are compensated by the fed basing on their population that resides above 800 meters of altitude, this way mountain states aren't penalized in the fiscal and economic competition. There also are agriculture subsidies, help for mountain farmers and stuff.

Btw my state was a co-dominion of other states until it was given independence, but it became independent with full ownership of its territory.

 

[TerryMathews]

Take a position and state your proposed solution and why.

My position is that the land within a states borders should belong to that state absent specific allocations for federal purposes IE military bases. That's the way that land works on the East coast and so far has worked quite well.

Why? Simple. Following the 10th amendment to its logical conclusion. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Clearly the Federal government is supposed to be given just enough to carry out its duties.

I know that's a far cry from how things work today, but its how it's supposed to work.

 

[Incorruptible]

I think the free speech zone was dumb, but probably not illegal. The government has the right to impose reasonable regulations on time and place of free speech on public property. I can only presume it was done in this instance specifically because Bundy had declared his "range war," and armed protesters had started to amass. I still don't endorse it - I think it was a bad idea.

A case could be made that it's un-Constitutional though. I agree with you the government can intervene such as not allow them on the roads for their own safety. As long as they are on the side and not endangering themselves then let them go anywhere.

It is wrong that they set up the area and then limit the amount of people that can be in the "free speech zone". Also the armed protestors came after the BLM started attacking the peaceful protestors. I am glad to see you say it was a bad idea for the free speech zone.

Actually it isn't violating free speech, the signs do literally nothing. As there was no enforcement of said free speech zones, no rights were violated. Had there been an attempt to enforce restricting free speech to only those zones, then you'd be correct.

There were cops who told the protestors that they have to stay in those zones though.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/n...tle-roundup-put-controversial-areas-spotlight

Some First Amendent supporters say the “free speech zones” like the ones the BLM set up — and later dismantled after public outrage — are intended to stifle rather than encourage debate. The federal land agency said that all other areas in the 1,200-square-mile Gold Butte closure area were off-limits to people for stating their opinions.

http://www.examiner.com/article/rep...undy-ranch-as-first-amendment-area-taken-down

A so-called "First Amendment" area set up by feds was taken down Thursday. The area has been completely ignored by protesters and was condemned by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval.

 

[fskimospy]

My position is that the land within a states borders should belong to that state absent specific allocations for federal purposes IE military bases. That's the way that land works on the East coast and so far has worked quite well.

Why? Simple. Following the 10th amendment to its logical conclusion. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Clearly the Federal government is supposed to be given just enough to carry out its duties.

I know that's a far cry from how things work today, but its how it's supposed to work.

The power of property ownership is either a power the federal government has, or does not have. It's not that the feds have the power to own only so much land. That's not how constitutional powers work. That would be like saying that Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but only a certain percentage of it. This is not the case: if they can regulate interstate commerce that means they can regulate all of it.

Now if you want to argue that the feds should own less as a public policy thing or whatever that's fine, but none of that derives from the Constitution. Powers are either there or they aren't. The 10th amendment is not a statement about powers, not about what to do with those powers.

 

[thraashman]

There were cops who told the protestors that they have to stay in those zones though.

There's this quote in that article you posted

While anybody can express their free speech any time on open public lands in accordance with the codes and ordinances that exist, there are temporary closures of some of the public lands related to this impound operation and those are in place for public safety,” she said. “So we identified two areas where the public could safely and conveniently express their opinions without having to go through the codes and ordinance process and apply for permits.

I made the mention earlier of how demonstrations often require a permit. It sounds like the intent here was to give the protesters an area that let them preempt the need for a permit and wasn't a currently off-limits area. Without those areas created ahead of time protesters technically would have been required to apply for a permit. It's also possible had protesters gone into the closed sections they could have been considered trespassing. I'd say this is a little gray of an area. Even the most ardently held rights need to have regulations and restrictions on them else you could do things hold a protest in the middle of a busy road and claim First Amendment. And we know that Bundy's family basically already tried to do that.

 

[TerryMathews]

The power of property ownership is either a power the federal government has, or does not have. It's not that the feds have the power to own only so much land. That's not how constitutional powers work. That would be like saying that Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but only a certain percentage of it. This is not the case: if they can regulate interstate commerce that means they can regulate all of it.

Now if you want to argue that the feds should own less as a public policy thing or whatever that's fine, but none of that derives from the Constitution. Powers are either there or they aren't. The 10th amendment is not a statement about powers, not about what to do with those powers.

I've stated my position. It's fine that you respectfully disagree but you have to admit that is how our country worked in the beginning. All you have to do is look at federal land ownership in the early states vs the later additions.

The system you're describing is closer to colonialism, it certainly isn't a union of states.

 

[TerryMathews]

There's this quote in that article you posted

I made the mention earlier of how demonstrations often require a permit. It sounds like the intent here was to give the protesters an area that let them preempt the need for a permit and wasn't a currently off-limits area. Without those areas created ahead of time protesters technically would have been required to apply for a permit. It's also possible had protesters gone into the closed sections they could have been considered trespassing. I'd say this is a little gray of an area. Even the most ardently held rights need to have regulations and restrictions on them else you could do things hold a protest in the middle of a busy road and claim First Amendment. And we know that Bundy's family basically already tried to do that.

Legal precedent disagrees, especially on lands "held in the public trust" which we all know is 76% of Nevada.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_v._Committee_for_Industrial_Organization

 

[fskimospy]

I've stated my position. It's fine that you respectfully disagree but you have to admit that is how our country worked in the beginning. All you have to do is look at federal land ownership in the early states vs the later additions.

You are welcome to that opinion, but it has no basis in any legal theory that I am aware of. There is nothing in the 10th amendment anywhere that would limit the percentage of lands in a state that the federal government can own.

The system you're describing is closer to colonialism, it certainly isn't a union of states.

Oh please. Not only do the citizens of Nevada enjoy the same rights as any other US citizens, they actually have significantly greater than average representation per citizen federally than the average state. Ridiculousness.

 

[fskimospy]

Legal precedent disagrees, especially on lands "held in the public trust" which we all know is 76% of Nevada.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_v._Committee_for_Industrial_Organization

That case refers to a total ban on meetings, not restricting them to certain areas. Precedent not found.

 

[CitizenKain]

Are you insinuating that its better for Nevada that it doesn't own 76% of the land within its borders?

I'm asking why you think it matters.

Really, I know on the east coast with its higher population densities this isn't really an issue, but Nevada is empty. Literally no one wants the land.

Look at this. See the dark green, that is less then 1 person per square mile.