Then he should have said that.
lol Whomever wrote that deserves a bonus.LOL - in response to Bundy and Co filing criminal reports with the police: "The BLM's response was one sentence long: "We welcome Mr. Bundy's new interest in the American legal system."
Pretty much. Semantics aside, law enforcement is almost never unarmed whereas lots of people who are arrested are unarmed at the time. Therefore there's really only one way to read that.He did dude... He in fact phrased it absolutely properly within the English language.
Both
"I can't remember the last time law enforcement showed up to arrest someone unarmed."
and
"I can't remember the last time law enforcement showed up unarmed to arrest someone."
mean the same thing.
In order for it to mean how you read it he would have had to say
"I can't remember the last time law enforcement showed up to arrest someone who was unarmed."
Well apparently everyone here except you had it all figured out...
Try to keep up Sparky.
I would think a few substantial differences prevent intelligent people from drawing Bin Laden in as an example:
1. Bin Laden wasn't battling an over zealous BLM trying to protect the family business, and
2. Bundy hasn't killed of thousands of innocent people.
Otherwise you're spot on.
Fern
Bundy isn't battling an over zealous BLM either.
Sure he is. The federal government is not allowed to own large tracts of land like this - and in fact land they do own is required to be run as free land for use by the people - NOT as land they can bill people for the use of. The original Constitution allows the government to own land for the purpose of maintaining a standing military, post offices and post roads. That's about it.
They own large portions of Nevada due to how Nevada entered statehood right around the civil war, and it has never been changed unfortunately. The BLM is absolutely being over zealous here. As much as the National Forest service is being over zealous when they try telling me I cannot be on national forest land...it's free use, they have no ability to tell me to leave.
I don't see what they're so upset about. 90% of these redneck's family picnics end with tazers and K9s. 
Got that right, I lived there 4 years and had Hawaiian in-laws at one time from my Haoule wife mother remarrying a local.Heh, that reminds me of how my relatives with Hawaiian lineage explained what a genuine Hawaiian LUAU is to some tourists asking directions to a commercial luau with polynesian dancers and not-too-genuine Hawaiian food: "A real Hawaiian luau will have poi, lomi salmon, squid luau, laulau, kalua pig, okoleha'u for refreshments and at least two drunken fist fights complete with ambulance EMT's and police officers being invited toward the end of the evening's festivities."
Sure he is. The federal government is not allowed to own large tracts of land like this - and in fact land they do own is required to be run as free land for use by the people - NOT as land they can bill people for the use of. The original Constitution allows the government to own land for the purpose of maintaining a standing military, post offices and post roads. That's about it.
They own large portions of Nevada due to how Nevada entered statehood right around the civil war, and it has never been changed unfortunately. The BLM is absolutely being over zealous here. As much as the National Forest service is being over zealous when they try telling me I cannot be on national forest land...it's free use, they have no ability to tell me to leave.
Sure he is. The federal government is not allowed to own large tracts of land like this - and in fact land they do own is required to be run as free land for use by the people - NOT as land they can bill people for the use of. The original Constitution allows the government to own land for the purpose of maintaining a standing military, post offices and post roads. That's about it.
They own large portions of Nevada due to how Nevada entered statehood right around the civil war, and it has never been changed unfortunately. The BLM is absolutely being over zealous here. As much as the National Forest service is being over zealous when they try telling me I cannot be on national forest land...it's free use, they have no ability to tell me to leave.
Negative. This is an inaccurate statement that has been making the rounds on Fox News, but it's not supported by the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
In 1911, the court affirmed the use of large tracts of land as national forests, held in the public interest.
To my forest point:
held in the public interest
Sure he is. The federal government is not allowed to own large tracts of land like this - and in fact land they do own is required to be run as free land for use by the people - NOT as land they can bill people for the use of. The original Constitution allows the government to own land for the purpose of maintaining a standing military, post offices and post roads. That's about it.
Not true you have national parks, forest, monuments and recreations areas all over the west. Are you saying bundy should be able to have cattle in Yellowstone?
You can go on BLM land you can walk all over it. Are you suggesting some one could build a house there, dig a mine? The problem with grazing is its taking something from the land and its not "his" land to take stuff from.
I'm suggesting that the land shouldn't belong to the federal government. I'm perfectly fine with Yosemite, Mt Baker/Snoqualmie NF, Yellowstone and so forth existing. I agree with much of Muir's work. It however thing that the existence of the national parks and the possession of Nevada's land are two different beasts.
Hell, I think that most land in Nevada shouldn't be settled - the last thing we need is to grow into and ruin MORE land. But I think that the federal government should dispose of the land, or designate that there can be no grazing at all. They should not be running land and profiting from it. Just as I disagree with needing a pass to use the National forest land in my state.
They should not be running land and profiting from it.
I'm suggesting that the land shouldn't belong to the federal government. I'm perfectly fine with Yosemite, Mt Baker/Snoqualmie NF, Yellowstone and so forth existing. I agree with much of Muir's work. It however thing that the existence of the national parks and the possession of Nevada's land are two different beasts.
Hell, I think that most land in Nevada shouldn't be settled - the last thing we need is to grow into and ruin MORE land. But I think that the federal government should dispose of the land, or designate that there can be no grazing at all. They should not be running land and profiting from it. Just as I disagree with needing a pass to use the National forest land in my state.
The federal government holds the land for grazing, but also in trust. Fees are ideally set simply to cover management costs, for if everyone who wished to run cattle on free range were allowed to do so, the range would be ruined for everyone. Having these fees allows the ranchers to pay for the cost of managing the land; otherwise the ranchers would get value for free and the rest of us would have to pay for nothing.Sure he is. The federal government is not allowed to own large tracts of land like this - and in fact land they do own is required to be run as free land for use by the people - NOT as land they can bill people for the use of. The original Constitution allows the government to own land for the purpose of maintaining a standing military, post offices and post roads. That's about it.
They own large portions of Nevada due to how Nevada entered statehood right around the civil war, and it has never been changed unfortunately. The BLM is absolutely being over zealous here. As much as the National Forest service is being over zealous when they try telling me I cannot be on national forest land...it's free use, they have no ability to tell me to leave.
If a fake luau has Polynesian dancers and the authentic luau has better food and drunken brawls, I'll take the fake luau, please.Heh, that reminds me of how my relatives with Hawaiian lineage explained what a genuine Hawaiian LUAU is to some tourists asking directions to a commercial luau with polynesian dancers and not-too-genuine Hawaiian food: "A real Hawaiian luau will have poi, lomi salmon, squid luau, laulau, kalua pig, okoleha'u for refreshments and at least two drunken fist fights complete with ambulance EMT's and police officers being invited toward the end of the evening's festivities."
Then you'll be quite pleased to learn that BLM loses money on grazing. It's a welfare program for ranchers.
In all honesty, I was thinking the exact same thing, but I think that is the National Park System.Not true you have national parks, forest, monuments and recreations areas all over the west. Are you saying bundy should be able to have cattle in Yellowstone?
You can go on BLM land you can walk all over it. Are you suggesting some one could build a house there, dig a mine? The problem with grazing is its taking something from the land and its not "his" land to take stuff from.
How often does this happen though? There is no reason for them to be more armed but keep supporting giving them more power and the erosion of civil liberties. Militarizing the police is a bad idea.
FBI agents also spoke to an entire squad of Metro officers, who were on the scene to act as a buffer between the crowd and the BLM. Bundy supporters have insisted in emails and calls to 8 News NOW that no one in the crowd pointed weapons at BLM or Metro, but officers told the I-Team that is exactly what they saw, that many with guns set up behind women and children.
"It is not a rumor. When we first got out there and made a left to divide I-15, that is all you saw. You saw kids and women and horses in the backdrop and then men with guns, laying on the ground, in the back of pickup trucks. We're going, 'wow, this would never happen in Las Vegas,' But it was there. That is not a rumor. It is reality and I saw it with my own eyes," Metro Police Sgt. Tom Jenkins said.