Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

[HomerJS]

LOL at your overly emotional modern progressives grasping at every thread you possibly can.

I LOL more at the non-emotional decision to use your wife as a human shield.

He must really hate his wife.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys seem to enjoy referencing trespass and failure to pay fees without recognizing that the BLM effectively put him out of business. He did not just wake up one day and decide to stop paying fees but continue using the land, he's reacting to the BLM changing the rules and making the open range for tortoises only.

So if my landlord decides to raise the rent next year I should just stop paying him and squat there? In what other transaction is this behavior considered to be okay? If this were anyone other than the federal government every conservative here would be fully supportive of the land owner's rights to do with their land as they please.

 

[thraashman]

And that won't prove him and make the situation worse? There is a peaceful way to do this and it seems you want a violent confrontation.

There would have been no violent confrontation if not for a whole bunch of sociopathic militia terrorists showing up to threaten federal officers. Luckily, the cooler heads of the federal government prevailed over the psychopaths who admitted they were going to use their women as human shields.

They're upset because when push comes to shove, it took less than 24 hours for private citizen Patriots to assemble a large enough armed group to put an immediate stop to the intimidation from federal agents.


To a modern progressive that is a VERY scary thing. These people's lives revolve around the federal government always having the upper hand, always able to control citizens.

When it becomes apparent that their dream world is not reality it sort of understandably makes them extremely upset.


If the person signing your checks was the federal government you'd be upset too.

There were only two groups involved here. Federal agents legally executing a legal warrant. And a bunch of domestic terrorists. Trying to call a bunch of terrorists "patriots" does not make them such. It makes you a psychopath. But we already knew that.

 

[brycejones]

So if my landlord decides to raise the rent next year I should just stop paying him and squat there? In what other transaction is this behavior considered to be okay? If this were anyone other than the federal government every conservative here would be fully supportive of the land owner's rights to do with their land as they please.

Did the government try to treat Bundy differently from any other ranchers in the area? If no (and I believe that is the case) then again outrage not found.

 

[ivwshane]

You guys seem to enjoy referencing trespass and failure to pay fees without recognizing that the BLM effectively put him out of business. He did not just wake up one day and decide to stop paying fees but continue using the land, he's reacting to the BLM changing the rules and making the open range for tortoises only.

Hmm...I don't hear the same argument against lead paint manufactures, I certainly don't see you complaining about companies putting people out of work due to increased automation. What I do see is you trying to straddle the line between completely putting him out of business and negatively affecting his business.
Do you feel government has no right to protect rivers from waste from power companies because it might put them out of business?

How about a government who passes laws that essentially put women's clinics out of business, I didn't hear a fucking peep from you then.

What else do you have?

 

[Incorruptible]

There would have been no violent confrontation if not for a whole bunch of sociopathic militia terrorists showing up to threaten federal officers. Luckily, the cooler heads of the federal government prevailed over the psychopaths who admitted they were going to use their women as human shields.



There were only two groups involved here. Federal agents legally executing a legal warrant. And a bunch of domestic terrorists. Trying to call a bunch of terrorists "patriots" does not make them such. It makes you a psychopath. But we already knew that.

The militia aren't terrorists though. The miltia showed up after the BLM escalated the situation by using a taser on his son and sister along with sending 200 armed agents and snipers to the ranch.

The BLM also set up a "free speech zone" which clearly violates the 1st Amendment and shows the government was wrong here. How can the BLM claim they were in the right when they so blatantly violate freedom of speech?

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

 

[brycejones]

And that won't prove him and make the situation worse? There is a peaceful way to do this and it seems you want a violent confrontation.

I'm going to assume that you intended to say "provoke" instead of prove. I'm sure he is going to be really pissed when someone comes to take his cows away that is a natural human emotion. But is that really how we should decide rather or not to enforce legal judgments? Based on if we determine the person who is on the losing side is going to be angry? The man had more than 6 months to comply with the last order he chose not to and there should be consequences for that.

I don't want a violent confrontation, although it does seem that Mr. Bundy was hoping for one based on his statements and calls for others to show up and "defend" him.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The militia aren't terrorists though. The miltia showed up after the BLM escalated the situation by using a taser on his son and sister along with sending 200 armed agents and snipers to the ranch.

The BLM also set up a "free speech zone" which clearly violates the 1st Amendment and shows the government was wrong here. How can the BLM claim they were in the right when they so blatantly violate freedom of speech?

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

That's the thing... In the mind of people who worship what the federal government does for them anyone who threatens those handouts are terrorists.

 

[thraashman]

The militia aren't terrorists though. The miltia showed up after the BLM escalated the situation by using a taser on his son and sister along with sending 200 armed agents and snipers to the ranch.

The BLM also set up a "free speech zone" which clearly violates the 1st Amendment and shows the government was wrong here. How can the BLM claim they were in the right when they so blatantly violate freedom of speech?

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

Someone posted this link earlier which has a good rundown of events and is written by someone who has a history of taking the side of gun rights (ie you can't call them a leftist and dismis this). The author states "First, on April 8th, the BLM leadership distastefully erected signs adjacent to the road reading “free speech zones” that were fenced in to “allow” protesters a safe place to assemble during the round-up without interfering with the BLM operation."

In this case it would seem the intent of the labeled free speech zone was to keep Bundy supporters from impeding traffic by forcing them off the road itself. And it seems it was necessary because as is indicated in the article I linked (describing a video incident)"you can see Bundy’s daughter (a thicker woman in a purple top) attempts to step out in front of moving BLM trucks to stop them, thinking perhaps her body would somehow defy physics and resist a 2-ton cargo truck. A Sherriff’s officer standing guard grabbed her by the waist and threw her back into the crowd to prevent her from being injured." This is a safety issue because she could easily have gotten herself killed and others hurt. Now you may disagree with it, but limiting the allowable area for her protest would have made it more difficult for this situation to occur and her put herself and the officer in harms way.

As far as his son getting tased, again from the link "Bundy’s son (in a ball cap and white/blue plad shirt) then crashed his ATV into the path of a BLM truck forcing it to stop. This caused police to converge (including a nearby K9 unit) on the stopped vehicle and Bundy’s son failed to comply with their instruction to move the ATV. Bundy’s son then attempts to kick a K9 unit so the officers tased him (he is later seen with a bloody shirt from one of the prongs that was in his upper torso). When the officers then attempted to move the ATV themselves Bundy’s son reached for the ATV controls resulting in the Sherriff to tase him two more times." He was blatantly the aggressor in that situation. And from what I've seen of the timeline, the BLM increase of security which included snipers did not occur until after the arrival of militias.

 

[werepossum]

So if my landlord decides to raise the rent next year I should just stop paying him and squat there? In what other transaction is this behavior considered to be okay? If this were anyone other than the federal government every conservative here would be fully supportive of the land owner's rights to do with their land as they please.

The federal government (or any government) is a bit different than a private landlord. We form a government to do certain things, not make a profit or work on its own behalf. To the extent the BLM is not upholding its mandate (and I don't believe he has made his case) he has an argument that would not be present with a private landlord except perhaps in discrimination/public accommodation cases. But note specifically that I am not defending his argument, I'm just pointing out that it is continually being misstated.

Hmm...I don't hear the same argument against lead paint manufactures, I certainly don't see you complaining about companies putting people out of work due to increased automation. What I do see is you trying to straddle the line between completely putting him out of business and negatively affecting his business.
Do you feel government has no right to protect rivers from waste from power companies because it might put them out of business?

How about a government who passes laws that essentially put women's clinics out of business, I didn't hear a fucking peep from you then.

What else do you have?

Well, you could try not to be a total idiot. As repeatedly stated, I am not defending his argument, I'm just pointing out that it is continually being misstated.

For the record, again, if the land honestly can only carry 150 cattle and maintain a healthy population of desert tortoises, then I am completely in favor of the BLM cutting the grazing quota to 150, although ideally the fee should also be pro-rated. (I could actually argue either side of the pro-rating issue.) If the land honestly cannot carry any cattle and still maintain a healthy population of desert tortoises, then I am completely in favor of the BLM removing the grazing rights. If the BLM is cutting the grazing quota to 150 or zero just because it dislikes ranchers or to free up tortoise sanctuary acreage to provide developable land (i.e. revised restrictions on tortoise habitat from unbuildable to "allocate a narrow corridor to the nearest land we've made into a tortoise sanctuary", then I am totally against that. As stated before, desert tortoises can easily coexist with free range cattle; they cannot coexist with subdivisions or casinos or solar farms. They could coexist with wind farms I think, as long as the owners would agree to use only the minimum necessary roads and not fence and clear the land.

I have not yet come down on either side as I can see merit in both sides. And I don't particularly see it as a Democrat-Republican issue; this has been going on long before Obama and it's not just Democrats who benefit from helping the developers over the ranchers. This is an issue because the federal government owns the vast majority of Nevada and restricts use of much more, leaving little developable land. Consequently cost is high for large tracts and if a developer can pay a million to politicians and turn a $6 million non-developable tract into a $60 million developable tract, it's hard not to make that investment.

The short answer is to return this land to Nevada; the long answer is that returning this land to Nevada is not workable because the land is so unproductive and drainages are so large that endangered species typically need a LOT of land to maintain viable populations, and many of these species are either highly specialized or are poor competitors and thus cannot simply be grafted to more productive lands.

Honestly, for all that you guys break your own arms patting yourselves on the back for your nuanced thought there is nothing more nuance-free knee-jerk absolutist than the American proggie.

 

[Stewox]

It's obvious that you don't live in the Southwest US. Mexicans are hardly living like kings here.

I didn't said it's the same everywhere. In more controlled areas.
Ofcourse some areas are just PR zones to make it look like they're protecting the borders and so discovery channel can go and film their "border security" scripted "reality" show.

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but do you have a source on the bolded?

Sorry don't see that one indexed, would take me weeks of work to find it burried in all the stuff.

Just keep in mind ~80% of immigrants are mexicans.

But I did found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYzsoPSXFEY and http://youtu.be/g8Dg0L20maw?t=42s

... considering their repeated inaccuracies?

Proven with what?

Probably because Sharpton didn't threaten a "range war" if feds come to collect, assuming your little fact about Sharpton is correct in the first place.

Exactly, he rolled over to them,. ofcourse they won't come after him.

No ... actually, he's one of them, either low or high on the scale, maybe they're using him more than he realizes, but he's a major race baiter for the neocons.

http://youtu.be/Pq7gcdfhSwA?t=1m30s
http://youtu.be/LRxXli31rD4?t=10s
http://youtu.be/KvzY7T1uRBk?t=12s

Honestly, the BLM has the legal authority to move the cows. They should send him notification to that if he fails to remove his property within X days said property will be destroyed. Once he doesn't comply the BLM should take to the skies and start sniping the cows until they are all destroyed.

Yes We Can, Forward!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B2lEaY0Eqc

 

[Vic]

Your quoted article is only concerned with upholding the law:
Changing this ownership is a cause worthy of protest.

I want free land too!

 

[Vic]

That's the thing... In the mind of people who worship what the federal government does for them anyone who threatens those handouts are terrorists.

Which is why you're taking the side of the rancher who wants a handout from the federal government in the form of free land?

 

[Vic]

What are you all arguing?

Give the West back to the people.
THIS is what needs to be changed:

Give the west back to WHICH people?

I agree that the federal government should sell off much of the public lands.. at fair market value. Handing over this land for free to a select few ranching, farming, and logging interests is NOT giving the west back to the people.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Good thing our founding fathers didn't have the same mindset as you do, as we would assuredly be bowing to the queen right now.

Of course politically that's exactly what you'd prefer anyway.. 😵

Didn't see you lining up behind the women and children with your fellow patriots. Not enough of a patriot yourself? Happy with the status quo?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Seize his bank accounts, freeze all his credit. Get a court lien on every bit of his property and seize it the second he appears in public. Put out public announcements that any sale of assets will be seized, so he can't sell anything to raise money. Then wait. As for that idiot on the overpass "sniping" - arrest his ass for brandishing a firearm at federal agents and arrest anybody blocking an interstate highway.

according to this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

This guy doesn't even recognize the federal government existing, lol

I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."

Might as well get the IRS involved to see if this guy ever paid any taxes. This is a man who espouses that point of view, that he isn't beholden to any government he decides he doesn't want to be beholden to, while still enjoying all the benefits of living under said government. I don't have much empathy for criminals who continue to thumb their noses at the rest of society. Most ranchers operate legitimate businesses within the framework of society. Bundy doesn't.

 

[brycejones]

snip (bunch of alex jones youtube links and refusal to support assertions

Keep dancing, keep dancing

 

[CitizenKain]

What are you all arguing?

Give the West back to the people.
THIS is what needs to be changed:

Then buy some. The owners would be more then happy to sell it to you.

Oh wait, you want things for free just because.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That's the thing... In the mind of people who worship what the federal government does for them anyone who threatens those handouts are terrorists.

Bundy was the one taking - stealing, actually - handouts from the federal government. You have made a number of false and easily disproven allegations about the facts of this case then, when called on them, retreated to slinging insult after insult, and admitting that you don't care what the facts are - you side with Bundy regardless because he dared to face off against the "bullies."

Here's a hint: the facts do matter. You can't make a rational decision about who is right and who is wrong without understanding them. Your knee-jerk enthusiasm for armed disobedience against the government means that you should, as a matter of logical consistency, support the Oklahoma City bombings, since those too were a show of force against a government ridden with "bullies." 9/11 was a show of force against our "bullying" government, as were the bombing at Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. For that matter, the assassinations of, among others, Lincoln and Kennedy were politically-motivated efforts to stand up to perceived government oppression. So I take it you were a fan of those as well?

 

[werepossum]

Bundy was the one taking - stealing, actually - handouts from the federal government. You have made a number of false and easily disproven allegations about the facts of this case then, when called on them, retreated to slinging insult after insult, and admitting that you don't care what the facts are - you side with Bundy regardless because he dared to face off against the "bullies."

Here's a hint: the facts do matter. You can't make a rational decision about who is right and who is wrong without understanding them. Your knee-jerk enthusiasm for armed disobedience against the government means that you should, as a matter of logical consistency, support the Oklahoma City bombings, since those too were a show of force against a government ridden with "bullies." 9/11 was a show of force against our "bullying" government, as were the bombing at Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. For that matter, the assassinations of, among others, Lincoln and Kennedy were politically-motivated efforts to stand up to perceived government oppression. So I take it you were a fan of those as well?

Dude, you cannot possibly equate a peaceful display of willingness to meet force with force on one hand with terrorism on the other. That's like saying if you support arresting drunk drivers then you must support Stalin's mass purges, or if you support Rosa Parks then you must support pedophiles refusing to honor laws regarding consent. There's a reason women aren't arrested for prostitution simply because they go out in public with all the required body parts to commit it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Pictured: Peaceful display.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Dude, you cannot possibly equate a peaceful display of willingness to meet force with force on one hand with terrorism on the other. That's like saying if you support arresting drunk drivers then you must support Stalin's mass purges, or if you support Rosa Parks then you must support pedophiles refusing to honor laws regarding consent. There's a reason women aren't arrested for prostitution simply because they go out in public with all the required body parts to commit it.

Pointing guns at federal officers is not a "peaceful display." My point is that SA has made it clear he supports the protesters here merely for their willingness to make a show of armed force against the government, regardless of the righteousness (or lack thereof) of their cause. I find that, at best, ridiculous, and at worst, despicable and un-American. As I have said previously in this thread, I would like to see everyone who pointed a gun at a federal officer in connection with this incident prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[werepossum]

Pictured: Peaceful display.

Agreed.

Pointing guns at federal officers is not a "peaceful display." My point is that SA has made it clear he supports the protesters here merely for their willingness to make a show of armed force against the government, regardless of the righteousness (or lack thereof) of their cause. I find that, at best, ridiculous, and at worst, despicable and un-American. As I have said previously in this thread, I would like to see everyone who pointed a gun at a federal officer in connection with this incident prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There was no violence; ergo it's a peaceful display. This was people arming to stop the federal government from perceived tyranny. Without that right, we are property.

Of course, it remains to be seen if their cause is ultimately determined by society to be just or unjust. The mere fact of arming to stop perceived tyranny does not in and of itself make one right or wrong. But either way it's a far, far cry from blowing up a building full of innocents.

 

[ivwshane]

The federal government (or any government) is a bit different than a private landlord. We form a government to do certain things, not make a profit or work on its own behalf. To the extent the BLM is not upholding its mandate (and I don't believe he has made his case) he has an argument that would not be present with a private landlord except perhaps in discrimination/public accommodation cases. But note specifically that I am not defending his argument, I'm just pointing out that it is continually being misstated.


Well, you could try not to be a total idiot. As repeatedly stated, I am not defending his argument, I'm just pointing out that it is continually being misstated.

For the record, again, if the land honestly can only carry 150 cattle and maintain a healthy population of desert tortoises, then I am completely in favor of the BLM cutting the grazing quota to 150, although ideally the fee should also be pro-rated. (I could actually argue either side of the pro-rating issue.) If the land honestly cannot carry any cattle and still maintain a healthy population of desert tortoises, then I am completely in favor of the BLM removing the grazing rights. If the BLM is cutting the grazing quota to 150 or zero just because it dislikes ranchers or to free up tortoise sanctuary acreage to provide developable land (i.e. revised restrictions on tortoise habitat from unbuildable to "allocate a narrow corridor to the nearest land we've made into a tortoise sanctuary", then I am totally against that. As stated before, desert tortoises can easily coexist with free range cattle; they cannot coexist with subdivisions or casinos or solar farms. They could coexist with wind farms I think, as long as the owners would agree to use only the minimum necessary roads and not fence and clear the land.

I have not yet come down on either side as I can see merit in both sides. And I don't particularly see it as a Democrat-Republican issue; this has been going on long before Obama and it's not just Democrats who benefit from helping the developers over the ranchers. This is an issue because the federal government owns the vast majority of Nevada and restricts use of much more, leaving little developable land. Consequently cost is high for large tracts and if a developer can pay a million to politicians and turn a $6 million non-developable tract into a $60 million developable tract, it's hard not to make that investment.

The short answer is to return this land to Nevada; the long answer is that returning this land to Nevada is not workable because the land is so unproductive and drainages are so large that endangered species typically need a LOT of land to maintain viable populations, and many of these species are either highly specialized or are poor competitors and thus cannot simply be grafted to more productive lands.

Honestly, for all that you guys break your own arms patting yourselves on the back for your nuanced thought there is nothing more nuance-free knee-jerk absolutist than the American proggie.

You spewing the same shit over and over and over again doesn't change the facts! You cannot return something to someone for which it was never theirs. How hard is it for to fucking understand that!

Your head is buried in the sand just like the other idiot spatiallyaware.


Look out the proggies are coming!!

 

[Stewox]

Pictured: Peaceful display.

Great find ...

Mainstream media busy at work only showing what they can twist.