Another Ruby Ridge on the Horizon?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

"I asked why you didn't put a lien against the cattle?" Devlin asked the BLM. "They hadn't thought about that but they are considering it now"

This is what I stated earlier in another post. All the state actually had to do is attach the property. The issue about the lien against the cattle is how they are sold. Local sale barns won't touch this issue with a ten foot pole because they don't want to be perceived as being pro-BLM. It would kill their business.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Beans those Bundy infringement lines are awfully straight, I,m sure he hasn't fenced leased land and mostly out there it's still "open range".

Mapped in units squared, I'd guess, though I'm not sure about the resolution.

Also, Beans?

Ahhhhh an extra 'a'. I can't explain it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I like it Mike. Has a nice ring to it

[TheBlueVue 177]

Why cant Cliven Bundy declare his prescriptive rights? Wouldn't that allow him to graze his cattle on the public lands? He's been doing it uninterrupted for over 20 years now.

http://www.laytons.c...ghts-of-way.asp

[autigeremt 6,652]

http://benswann.com/did-blm-bury-bundy-cattle-in-mass-grave-warning-graphic-images/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So much for keeping the desert free from contamination. Where is the outcry from the envirionmental extremists?

[Tigermike 3,039]

Yeah we got to save the tortoise. "Pointing out that this conflict brought by the BLM was supposedly an environmental issue, Bundy said he found areas where the federal agents “ravaged the land” with their off-road vehicles and trucks and ran over tortoise burrows."

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. Closed on a house today and we're packing like mad to get into it and out of this one by Friday.

The government holding land doesn't really make it public. I mean, take it to the extreme. What if the government owned all of the land? Would that situation represent a perfect concentration or absolute dilution? Is that a dilution of power or, a concentration of power that undermines the concept of communism (or any system for that matter).

Then what would being publicly held be considered, if not maintained in public trust by the government? Do you consider the federal government's management of 80+% of Nevada's land extreme?

I believe it depends on whether or not the public's interests are truly being served or even considered. Depends upon why and again, who's interests are being served.

Are you familiar are you with the conceptual "tragedy of the commons?"

Yes but, I am not sure the concept applies in this case. Actually, you can probably always apply but, can it be applied with reason and a sense of fairness in this case. I don't believe everyone's cards are on the table yet.

Power is a funny thing. When an individual or entity holds enough power, they tend to wield that power rather than acting honorably and fairly. The rules begin to reflect the authority of power rather than a moral and ethical legitimacy.

Do you think the limits set by the BLM in this case could be considered unethical?

Right now, I would say their limits are contrived. It appears to me, that their real intentions and motives are questionable.

[japantiger 4,051]

What I don't understand, is why the BLM has armed agents. And why they were threatening a citizen with the use of lethal force over "grazing". I'm pretty sure that if I shot someone and claimed the "grazing" defense, then I'd be wearing an orange jumpsuit.

I also can't figure out why there are so many armed Federal Agencies now...complete with tactical gear, snipers, etc...there are currently 70 Federal Agencies carrying weapons....most not associated with crime fighting or national security...Here is a list of my favorites?

The BLM, of course

The EP ******* A...the snail darter must be protected at all costs!

NOAA...I guess weather forecasting can be dangerous

The Library of Congress

The Federal Reserve

The Social Security Administration

The US Postal Service

WHY do any of these groups need guns? Why do we have 70 agencies with the ability to use deadly force on US citizens?

[Tigermike 3,039]

Speaking of armed agencies, did any of you know that just last week the U.S. Postal Service bought a boat load of ammunition. Armed postal employees!!!!!! What could possibly go wrong?

[AUDub 11,158]

Speaking of armed agencies, did any of you know that just last week the U.S. Postal Service bought a boat load of ammunition. Armed postal employees!!!!!! What could possibly go wrong?

Study this a little more. It's not as unusual as it seems.

On another note, packing sucks. Where did we get all of this junk?

[homersapien 11,393]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated. So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

Well stated.

[homersapien 11,393]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Oh, the irony in this question considering it is coming from one of Obamas sheeple. Obama is destroying the rule of law along with Holder and Lerner who are both in contempt of Congress. Not to mention Obama and Holder have both said they have discretion on which laws they enforce.

LOL!!!

Well I guess you don't get it either. That was a totally mindless post. It brings to mind the question asked in another thread about who is dumb or lazy enough to have the right to vote?

But it's hilarious to see a self-professed "conservative" arguing against the rule of law of all things.

Speaking of mindless post. You have somehow created an over-inflated sense of self worth much like many Liberal/Democrats. You repeatedly question others on the rule of law as it relates to the Bundy situation while at the same time you continually defend and support Obama et al who are the most lawless this country has ever had in power.

1. This has nothing to do with me or my sense of "self-worth"

2. My questions regarding the rule of law related to principle, not as it relates to the Bundy situation. Funny I didn't get a direct answer which actually made my point.

3. I am not defending Obama as much as criticizing the irrational criticisms directed to him. Regardless, that is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[AUDub 11,158]

I believe it depends on whether or not the public's interests are truly being served or even considered. Depends upon why and again, who's interests are being served.

In this case, speaking for myself as an environmentalist, I would say protecting a delicate ecosystem of a threatened species serves my interests. I read a report somewhere that stated the reason the BLM got off their collective asses and moved to enforce was because of impending lawsuits by NGO environmentalist groups. That they waited so long and had to have their hand forced is a black eye on the BLM, and their methods can certainly be called in to question. I'll add the link when I find it.

Yes but, I am not sure the concept applies in this case. Actually, you can probably always apply but, can it be applied with reason and a sense of fairness in this case. I don't believe everyone's cards are on the table yet.

I think the concept can be applied here. It's a matter of wanting him off of land that can not support his massive herd and the local wildlife. It takes a lot of range to support a single cow in that environment.

Now, is it fair to Mr. Bundy? Probably not. But such is life.

Right now, I would say their limits are contrived. It appears to me, that their real intentions and motives are questionable.

The timeline of events does not lead me to believe the limits are contrived.

Were I defending myself in court on the matter the defense I would be using is that the limits on the size of his herd are arbitrary. I may still lose, but it's a better defense than his. He simply does not like who's getting the fees. Thumbing his nose at federal authority and valid court orders and expanding the range of his trespass, including land managed by the National Park Service, doesn't look good, either.

Finally got a hellish moving day out of the way. Nice to be home! Now, for the unpacking.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Beans........when they get Bundy off the the land and some of Reid's "interests" put a solar energy farm on it will you be pissed?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Were I defending myself in court on the matter the defense I would be using is that the limits on the size of his herd are arbitrary. I may still lose, but it's a better defense than his. He simply does not like who's getting the fees. Thumbing his nose at federal authority and valid court orders and expanding the range of his trespass, including land managed by the National Park Service, doesn't look good, either.

Were I defending myself in court on this matter i would be declaring that my prescriptive rights allow use of the land. His herd has been grazing those lands uninterrupted for more than 20 years. As far as not liking paying the money to the BLM, who can blame him. He is the last rancher in the county that hasn't gone out of business due to pressures exerted by the BLM.

[AUDub 11,158]

Beans........when they get Bundy off the the land and some of Reid's "interests" put a solar energy farm on it will you be pissed?

Guess that "Beans" thing is going to stick. Oh well.

There are no plans to build a solar farm there.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

"Were I defending myself in court on the matter the defense I would be using is that the limits on the size of his herd are arbitrary. I may still lose, but it's a better defense than his. He simply does not like who's getting the fees. Thumbing his nose at federal authority and valid court orders and expanding the range of his trespass, including land managed by the National Park Service, doesn't look good, either.

Were I defending myself in court on this matter i would be declaring that my prescriptive rights allow use of the land. His herd has been grazing those lands uninterrupted for more than 20 years. As far as not liking paying the money to the BLM, who can blame him. He is the last rancher in the county that hasn't gone out of business due to pressures exerted by the BLM.

You don't gain prescriptive rights by refusing to obey the law . You're claiming since the BLM didn't try armed force from the beginning, they forfeited the right to enforce the law. Can you not see the absurdity in this?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Let's face it....not matter the right or wrong in the Bundy/law argument, BLM was way off base bringing in the force they did, including dogs. I remember when Bull Connor was crucified for using dogs on blacks in Birmingham in the early 60s. That wasn't necessary and neither was the actions of the BLM, run by a young inexperienced former aide of............Harry Reid (surprise)

[alexava 6,973]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Oh, the irony in this question considering it is coming from one of Obamas sheeple. Obama is destroying the rule of law along with Holder and Lerner who are both in contempt of Congress. Not to mention Obama and Holder have both said they have discretion on which laws they enforce.

LOL!!!

Well I guess you don't get it either. That was a totally mindless post. It brings to mind the question asked in another thread about who is dumb or lazy enough to have the right to vote?

But it's hilarious to see a self-professed "conservative" arguing against the rule of law of all things.

Speaking of mindless post. You have somehow created an over-inflated sense of self worth much like many Liberal/Democrats. You repeatedly question others on the rule of law as it relates to the Bundy situation while at the same time you continually defend and support Obama et al who are the most lawless this country has ever had in power.

1. This has nothing to do with me or my sense of "self-worth"

2. My questions regarding the rule of law related to principle, not as it relates to the Bundy situation. Funny I didn't get a direct answer which actually made my point.

3. I am not defending Obama as much as criticizing the irrational criticisms directed to him. Regardless, that is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

this is how i feel most of the time.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

So were the colonists considered rational? Probably not by those in Britain. They probably thought the same way about these crazy colonists as you feel about the Bundys.

What's your point?

And, do you believe in the rule of law or not?

You really can't understand my point? I've explained it several times.

(P.S.: Do you believe in the rule of law or not?)

Oh, the irony in this question considering it is coming from one of Obamas sheeple. Obama is destroying the rule of law along with Holder and Lerner who are both in contempt of Congress. Not to mention Obama and Holder have both said they have discretion on which laws they enforce.

LOL!!!

Well I guess you don't get it either. That was a totally mindless post. It brings to mind the question asked in another thread about who is dumb or lazy enough to have the right to vote?

But it's hilarious to see a self-professed "conservative" arguing against the rule of law of all things. :laugh:/> :no:/>

Speaking of mindless post. You have somehow created an over-inflated sense of self worth much like many Liberal/Democrats. You repeatedly question others on the rule of law as it relates to the Bundy situation while at the same time you continually defend and support Obama et al who are the most lawless this country has ever had in power.

1. This has nothing to do with me or my sense of "self-worth"

2. My questions regarding the rule of law related to principle, not as it relates to the Bundy situation. Funny I didn't get a direct answer which actually made my point.

3. I am not defending Obama as much as criticizing the irrational criticisms directed to him. Regardless, that is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

this is how i feel most of the time.

Yep.

[Tigermike 3,039]

A little consistency by the BLM would be nice. You know how to use the link. http://www.nrtoday.com/news/11089883-113/blm-cows-government-bundy

[AUDub 11,158]

The man certainly likes attention.

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I saw that also. Still, it doesn't mean that there are not some misguided or corrupt nuts in the BLM as well.

[homersapien 11,393]

Let's face it....not matter the right or wrong in the Bundy/law argument, BLM was way off base bringing in the force they did, including dogs. I remember when Bull Connor was crucified for using dogs on blacks in Birmingham in the early 60s. That wasn't necessary and neither was the actions of the BLM, run by a young inexperienced former aide of............Harry Reid (surprise)

[/font][/color]