Nevada Ranch Armed Standoff - Everyone vs The Feds

[shira]

Secondly, really, all that matters is that bundy feels like it's unjust. If he's able to get that massive number of people to back him then good for him, he has a moral and social right to do so.

Again, our last revolution was started over what people perceived to be an unjust law. Just like the last one, there were people who were against these unjust laws.

So any person who strongly feels that a law is unjust, and who can get a large group of people to back him has a "right" to flout the law? And if the U.S. government (or the government of a state) decides to crack down on the group and arrest everyone, you think that's wrong?

Are you so warped that you can't see how ludicrous your position is? For example, suppose a pedophile "strongly believes" that laws preventing him from having "consensual" sex with little boys and girls are "unjust." So he gets together 1,000 of his pedophile buddies from across the nation, who host a pedophile extravaganza on his ranch in Utah, offering candy, toys, and all sorts of other inducements to get little children to come to the ranch to have sex with the "protesters."

According to you, this act of lawbreaking would be the pedophile's "right," a "protest" against an unjust law that the pedophile disagrees with. And if the government were to swoop down in full SWAT-team regalia and arrest all of the congregated pedophiles, that's would just be horribly abusive.

If you believe the actual Bundy situation and the hypothetical situation I've described are completely different in principle, why don't you describe for us exactly what that "principle" is that you seem to be spouting, that makes lawbreaking a "right?"

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Absolutely.

That's the beauty of a democracy.


You modern progressives want the government to stomp out any any dissidents using force. This works in most other countries because the citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Not in the great USA though. The best part is this new generation seems to respect this, which is part of why we see so much overwhelming support for gun rights over the last 5-10 years.


Edit: And in your ridiculous pedophile situation, it would never happen. Because these Patriots would be right there helping to put a stop to it. Again, it's the beauty of a democracy.

 

[werepossum]

I had the misfortune of having to drive I-15 south Saturday. It was clear that the BLM could not get the cattle out of there. I seen cowboys from near and far. I'm sure they were there not because Bundy asked but because they fear being next. They won.

That and just being tired of having the BLM work against them.

The BLM changed its mind and forbade cattle ranching on that land. That's why all the others quit.

Bundy stopped paying when the BLM moved to close off the land for turtles.

I.e., the ranchers were forced out.

The grazing fees haven't risen. It should seem obvious that EVERY cattle rancher (except one) didn't stop because of payment of grazing fees.

Fern

This has been going on a looong time. Probably for the same reason - the BLM forces ranchers off the land, designates that land only for desert tortoises, and allows the right developers to develop land which is previously undevelopable by simply devoting a small portion of the land to the new tortoise sanctuary.

It would not be possible for the government to foreclose on such a lien in Nevada. They would have to wait until the property sold, something which has never happened (Bundy's ancestors acquired their 160 acre homestead from the federal government in 1870).

Lien his property AND freeze his bank account, then get a court order to remove the delinquent fees and the cost of litigation.

 

[dank69]

It's a ridiculous question and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm not feeding the overly emotional thread derailing trolls.

No, you just don't want to answer the question because you have to choose between supporting the Rodney King riots or admitting you are a racist. Sucks to be you.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely.

That's the beauty of a democracy.

You modern progressives want the government to stomp out any any dissidents using force. This works in most other countries because the citizens have no way to defend themselves.

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.

Not in the great USA though. The best part is this new generation seems to respect this, which is part of why we see so much overwhelming support for gun rights over the last 5-10 years.

Edit: And in your ridiculous pedophile situation, it would never happen. Because these Patriots would be right there helping to put a stop to it. Again, it's the beauty of a democracy.

What's interesting is that gun ownership is declining pretty quickly in America. It seems the new generation isn't that interested in owning guns.

 

[TerryMathews]

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.

Was the founding of our country the opposite of Democracy?

 

[ElFenix]

Why taser his innocent wife and son?

i dunno about his wife but his son had kicked a police dog. which is assaulting a police officer. not exactly innocent.

In private real estate, is there not a concept of squatters rights? Not positive, but if one took 20 years to evict someone squatting in say a second home, have they not forfeit that property to the squatter?

there's no adverse possession against the federal government, iirc. adverse possession is going to vary based on state as to private property. adverse possession is a statute of limitations on when a landowner can file suit to recover an interest in land. here there had already been a court order entered against him for the leased land. so that's already taken care of, and you would probably be into the time for enforcement of judgment provisions of state law.

 

[ivwshane]

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?

Is it that he is being charged a fee to use public land? Should we not have restrictions on who should get to use public lands, for what, and under what circumstances? Should I be able to graze cattle on the lawn of the White House if is suits me, another patch of federal land?

We have nobody's word but his that the BLM is supposed to use the fees to help ranchers and he isn't exactly coming from an unbiased place. I have seen no articulation as to what principle is being fought for here in the name of justice. It seems to me we just have the usual gun fanatics, desperately wishing for an example of where armed rebellion against the government is both good and necessary, have latched onto the dumbest possible example of taking because in this case guns were used to scare off government workers. To use this example you have to reject the rule of law, the court orders, the constitution of the state of Nevada, etc. but unless you discard all that you have to be faced with the fact you really aren't supporting freedom, you are really just celebrating firearms.

Exactly! Incorruptibles older brother, spatiallyaware, won't be answering your question anytime soon, it's the M.O. of a brainwashed sheep. He will answer when his handlers give him a good talking point to parrot (I suspect it will be catchy like "drill baby drill").

He believes in the right of Americans to protest and so do I, I just prefer my protests to have a coherent point behind them.

I wonder what his thoughts were on the OWS protests?

 

[fskimospy]

Was the founding of our country the opposite of Democracy?

This is a very confusing question as presumably you are referring to the Revolutionary War.

Democracy is (broadly) a system of government where all citizens participate in governance in some way. The Revolutionary War was 1.) a war, not a system of government and 2.) was most certainly not a democratic action. It eventually led to a democratic government, but that's not even close to the same thing.

If you are trying to draw some parallels between people overthrowing what they view to be unjust governance that's fine, although frankly I find comparisons between this moocher and the Revolutionary War to be a joke. Neither are democracy though.

 

[werepossum]

He has complaints, but I am unconvinced that they are legitimate. Bundy has been illegally using federal land to graze his cattle, without paying, for decades. As far as I'm concerned it is entirely appropriate for the government to seize or kill his cattle to the extent he refuses to comply with the law, and anyone who took up arms against BLM employees on Bundy's behalf should be criminally prosecuted. Whether or not he agrees with the legitimacy of the federal government and its actions, the courts have long since decided this matter against him.

He has been illegally using federal land to graze his cattle, without paying, for decades because the BLM changed the rules. I would not have a major problem with that on its face - rules have to be changeable to protect the environment - except that the BLM has a history of running off ranchers and inviting in big developers who grease the right palms.

For someone like yourself who talks a bunch in this thread you sure don't bother with any research or facts:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...spute-as-blm-exploiting-fracking-rights.3439/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/06/rancher-land-dispute-bully-not-hero/

Fern

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.

As the titled owner of the land, the federal government is rightfully entitled to pursue the highest and best use.

Actually the highest and best use is defined as mining first, then agriculture/ranching/logging. I've long had a big problem with that concept since the fees collected often do not even equal the costs of maintaining the land (fire towers, logging roads, etc.) which in effect means we are picking up part of the tab AND it seems that the more destruction is a practice, the more the government should make it happen.

In theory I agree completely with the BLM. In practice, the BLM isn't so much protecting public lands and endangered species as it is stopping the "wrong" people from lightly using the resource in order to allow the "right" people to devastate the resource. Desert tortoises (or pupfish, or spinedace, or naucorids, or whatever) can coexist a hell of a lot better with cattle than with subdivisions or solar farms.

 

[shira]

Absolutely.

That's the beauty of a democracy.


You modern progressives want the government to stomp out any any dissidents using force. This works in most other countries because the citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Not in the great USA though. The best part is this new generation seems to respect this, which is part of why we see so much overwhelming support for gun rights over the last 5-10 years.


Edit: And in your ridiculous pedophile situation, it would never happen. Because these Patriots would be right there helping to put a stop to it. Again, it's the beauty of a democracy.

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.

 

[piasabird]

What does the Federal Government do to upkeep grazing land?

Nothing???

Grazing Land is the property of all the people involved. However, Bundy actually paid for and owns the water and foraging rights. He also maintains roads, fences etc. Is the Federal Govt paying Bundy for every improvement he makes to the land?

No it does not.

Better yet what did the Federal Government try to grab his property for? Did they find a higher paying client? Like the Green industry that gives the Democratic Party donations?

 

[Incorruptible]

Exactly! Incorruptibles older brother, spatiallyaware, won't be answering your question anytime soon, it's the M.O. of a brainwashed sheep. He will answer when his handlers give him a good talking point to parrot (I suspect it will be catchy like "drill baby drill").

He believes in the right of Americans to protest and so do I, I just prefer my protests to have a coherent point behind them.

I wonder what his thoughts were on the OWS protests?

Don't lump me with him. The government has tried to steal land before and you're upset since you're a leech on welfare. Now run away you coward, it's what you do best.

 

[thraashman]

What does the Federal Government do to upkeep grazing land?

Nothing???

Grazing Land is the property of all the people involved. However, Bundy actually paid for and owns the water and foraging rights. He also maintains roads, fences etc. Is the Federal Govt paying Bundy for every improvement he makes to the land?

No it does not.

Better yet what did the Federal Government try to grab his property for? Did they find a higher paying client? Like the Green industry that gives the Democratic Party donations?

Ok, so give me your address. I'm going to come build some stuff on your land without your permission (in fact against your demands I don't). Then I'm going to insist you pay me for those improvements and that in addition your land is now my land. And when you try to resist me taking your land I'm going to get a bunch of my friends with guns to point them at you. From the sounds of it you'll completely agree with me doing this



Now I'm just waiting on your to send me your address because your own words here tell me you agree this is the right thing for me to do.

Don't lump me with him. The government has tried to steal land before and you're upset since you're a leech on welfare. Now run away you coward, it's what you do best.

I'm going to try to assist you in learning how to effectively argue and make a point here. This is where you now give a link to an instance that shows where the government has tried to steal land that most if not all would agree was wrong. That will enhance your point and make this an actual argument as opposed to a talking point.
You're welcome, the advice is free

 

[werepossum]

So good patriots don't pay their legally incurred debts and use guns to get their way. Got it.

That sounds very mom and apple pie.

His point is that the BLM changed the rules. Whether or not you find this point persuasive you should at least understand it.

For one, I don't feel like the federal government has any right to land within state boundaries that is not a protected forest or other natural area.

Secondly, really, all that matters is that bundy feels like it's unjust. If he's able to get that massive number of people to back him then good for him, he has a moral and social right to do so.

Again, our last revolution was started over what people perceived to be an unjust law. Just like the last one, there were people who were against these unjust laws.

Actually this IS a protected natural area. The area is very arid and therefore fragile, and if too many cattle (or worse, sheep) are grazed on it, great environmental damage occurs. I'm not a fan of the BLM, but the principle is exactly the same.

This is the converse of my point to Bryce. You may elect to not accept the BLM's judgement or integrity, but you should be willing to concede that the principle is not only just but necessary.

So any person who strongly feels that a law is unjust, and who can get a large group of people to back him has a "right" to flout the law? And if the U.S. government (or the government of a state) decides to crack down on the group and arrest everyone, you think that's wrong?

Are you so warped that you can't see how ludicrous your position is? For example, suppose a pedophile "strongly believes" that laws preventing him from having "consensual" sex with little boys and girls are "unjust." So he gets together 1,000 of his pedophile buddies from across the nation, who host a pedophile extravaganza on his ranch in Utah, offering candy, toys, and all sorts of other inducements to get little children to come to the ranch to have sex with the "protesters."

According to you, this act of lawbreaking would be the pedophile's "right," a "protest" against an unjust law that the pedophile disagrees with. And if the government were to swoop down in full SWAT-team regalia and arrest all of the congregated pedophiles, that's would just be horribly abusive.

If you believe the actual Bundy situation and the hypothetical situation I've described are completely different in principle, why don't you describe for us exactly what that "principle" is that you seem to be spouting, that makes lawbreaking a "right?"

Isn't that a requirement for liberty? If one is being oppressed and the majority are okay with that oppression, the only way to stop the oppression is to refuse to obey the law, with armed defense if necessary. If it's a bunch of ranchers, they attract enough attention and approval to make the government back down. If it's a bunch of pedophiles, they attract enough attention and disapproval to make the government crack down even harder.

 

[Incorruptible]

Ok, so give me your address. I'm going to come build some stuff on your land without your permission (in fact against your demands I don't). Then I'm going to insist you pay me for those improvements and that in addition your land is now my land. And when you try to resist me taking your land I'm going to get a bunch of my friends with guns to point them at you. From the sounds of it you'll completely agree with me doing this



Now I'm just waiting on your to send me your address because your own words here tell me you agree this is the right thing for me to do.


I'm going to try to assist you in learning how to effectively argue and make a point here. This is where you now give a link to an instance that shows where the government has tried to steal land that most if not all would agree was wrong. That will enhance your point and make this an actual argument as opposed to a talking point.
You're welcome, the advice is free

Right here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWoLqHznX8

Government tried to take away his property.

Bill De Blasio wants to ban horse carriages so his cronies can use them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/08/de-blasio-whipped-by-horse-lobby.html

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Ok, so give me your address. I'm going to come build some stuff on your land without your permission (in fact against your demands I don't). Then I'm going to insist you pay me for those improvements and that in addition your land is now my land. And when you try to resist me taking your land I'm going to get a bunch of my friends with guns to point them at you. From the sounds of it you'll completely agree with me doing this


<snip>

How about a realistic example?

He agrees to let you pay him to use a corner of his yard for a shed.

This requires you to build a driveway and spend significant amounts of money to build the shed along with wiring electricity to the shed.

You have agreed on a 10 year term and paid upfront.

2 years in, he gets an offer from an oil company to drill for oil.

So, he pays a fundie environmentalist to claim that your shed is endangering some turtles. He increases your rates, enacts policies not under your agreement, all in an attempt to force you and your shed off the property.

 

[thraashman]

Right here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWoLqHznX8

Government tried to take away his property.

Bill De Blasio wants to ban horse carriages so his cronies can use them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/08/de-blasio-whipped-by-horse-lobby.html

There you go, you have now taken your first step into being a more productive member of P&N. I appreciate your contribution, I'll even check out the links when I'm less busy at work.

 

[fskimospy]

How about a realistic example?

He agrees to let you pay him to use a corner of his yard for a shed.

This requires you to build a driveway and spend significant amounts of money to build the shed along with wiring electricity to the shed.

You have agreed on a 10 year term and paid upfront.

2 years in, he gets an offer from an oil company to drill for oil.

So, he pays a fundie environmentalist to claim that your shed is endangering some turtles. He increases your rates, enacts policies not under your agreement, all in an attempt to force you and your shed off the property.

This is not analogous to the situation here at all as the terms of the contract signed between the rancher and the feds was very different.

Had the feds been in breach of their contractual obligations to him they would not have repeatedly won in court on the issue.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't lump me with him. The government has tried to steal land before and you're upset since you're a leech on welfare. Now run away you coward, it's what you do best.

Lol! Says the guy whose family moved to canada so their son can get the free medical treatment he needs.

In the meantime while waiting for your next treatment maybe you could do some actual work for the company who has so graciously allowed you to work for them.

I grouped him together with you because you both are complete fucking idiots, he is just able to write longer sentences than you.

Now go and restate what another poster who you agree with has already said instead of adding an original opinion to a thread.

 

[Incorruptible]

Lol! Says the guy whose family moved to canada so their son can get the free medical treatment he needs.

In the meantime while waiting for your next treatment maybe you could do some actual work for the company who has so graciously allowed you to work for them.

I grouped him together with you because you both are complete fucking idiots, he is just able to write longer sentences than you.

Now go and restate what another poster who you agree with has already said instead of adding an original opinion to a thread.

Keep spreading lies.

 

[Stewox]

Debriefing broadcast:

A matter of "No Taxation Without Representation":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbaKmhHnu8

Constitution is the supreme law of the land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKsOA_dGHvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2ksNOF1sk


Third Cliven Bundy Interview coming soon!

i dunno about his wife but his son had kicked a police dog. which is assaulting a police officer. not exactly innocent.

Which is fortunately not true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKIddR_x8U

All it takes is to actually look at the most viral video from the story.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Please by all means keep these people talking.

It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann.

&#8220;It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,&#8221; Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. &#8220;If they&#8217;re going to start killing people, I&#8217;m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.&#8221;

&#8220;I&#8217;m sorry, that sounds horrible,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I&#8217;m not afraid to die here. I&#8217;m willing to die here.&#8221;

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

 

[Incorruptible]

Lol! Says the guy whose family moved to canada so their son can get the free medical treatment he needs.

In the meantime while waiting for your next treatment maybe you could do some actual work for the company who has so graciously allowed you to work for them.

I grouped him together with you because you both are complete fucking idiots, he is just able to write longer sentences than you.

Now go and restate what another poster who you agree with has already said instead of adding an original opinion to a thread.

Run away you moron, It's quite clear you don't want debate.

Please by all means keep these people talking.

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

You going to say anything about the BLM attacking his 60 year old sister? Of course not because you're a coward.

 

[CitizenKain]

Please by all means keep these people talking.

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

Anyone who is a member of the oathkeepers and related organizations are cowards. They likely would have shot their family members first just to play martyr.