• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

beefheart said:
To start with???? This guy has owed money for years! He lost court cases....BLM should have busted his ass 10 years ago!
Click to expand...

Yep. To start with. There was no need to attempt to collect a minor number of cattle at gun point just to secure land. There are other less confrontational means at the government's disposal to remedy this debt and secure that land. The government acted foolishly.
 
AJiveMan said:
He paid lease fees until 1993, which is when he stopped. His faux outrage should have begun then. But, there weren't any tea militias around back then, were there?

When the feds show up to seize property, they are usually armed.
Click to expand...
Why did Bundy stop paying the fees in 1993? That was the year Bill Clinton took office. This has been a partisan issue from the get go.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Rancher's son says force was necessary to stop cattle seizure | Reuters

"We were dedicated to opening those gates and peacefully walking through to retrieve those cattle," Ammon Bundy said in an interview. "The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them." Ammon Bundy

[About 100 Bundy supporters, many wearing camouflage and carrying firearms, gathered on Sunday with the family for an informal church service at a makeshift protest command center.
Click to expand...
That's all good information and I'm sure they were very well armed, however, no where in either the Reuters piece nor in the Youtube vid did anyone claim that Bundy called in the militia, which was my question.
 
Cryptic said:
Ok, maybe the Occupiers will just "not object" to the presence of armed supporters in ther vicinity next time the "evil" feds try to collect their "unconstitutional" debts.

"We were dedicated to opening those gates and peacefully walking through to retrieve those cattle," Ammon Bundy said in an interview. "The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them." Ammon Bundy


At the end of the day, Bundy had years to pay for his purchase, had no intention of paying, and threatened to do "what ever it takes to protect his cattle". Bundy sought out, and not surprisingly, found a confrontation.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. Bundy did not seek out confrontation, the Feds came on his land not the other way around.'

I agree that Bundy has to work out, without armed brown shirts surrounding his home, the legal issues between him and the BLM. Unlike others on this forum who wanted to see these people all shot without judicial process because they were "stealing" grass for their cattle (not the turtles which was a lie from the start).
 
justabubba said:
what exactly is found unConstitutional about it?
Click to expand...

It does not matter. Bundy says his debt are "unconstitutional" (Heck yeah, so are mine) and that he has a mystical right to use that property based on ancestory (I suppose I can just go harvest timber from state forests in Wisconsin. After all, I have three generations of hunting, fishing and trapping ancestors in that area).

That is all that matters for some of his blind followers here. Just sub out "Bundy, right wing and rancher" for "Occupier, leftist and student" and see how fast right wing anarchists drop their support. Only right wing anarchy is sexy and only right wing debts are "unconstitutional".
 
Ockham said:
That's incorrect. Bundy did not seek out confrontation, the Feds came on his land not the other way around.'
Click to expand...

It is not his land. Likewise, the state forest where my ancestors have fished, trapped and hunted for three generation is not my land.

Why am I the only conservative here who understands this concept? Please, quit being such a blind follower of Bundy.
 
Last edited:
CRUE CAB said:
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Are foreclosures unconstitutiona?

Not paying your bills is unlawful...correct?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

that taking of property was to satisfy the just and legal obligations to the government
nothing unConstitutional about that
 
notquiteright said:
A Libertarian... now that is a difficult cat to pin down... you seem to have A version you wish to use but there are a many Libertarian types out there as there are Libs or CONs.

You warp the facts on the ground. First you forget the range wars where early ranchers thought they owned all the land they could use, and not pay anything for that use. As territories the Federal Government ran the lands, hence had first claim before statehood.

Then you forget as the West was settled, to be fair to everyone, you either bought the land to use or rented it from the unassigned lands. many cattle barons were outraged they couldn't run cattle wherever they felt like it... but at least they now knew how the early Spanish settlers felt when their 'royal deeds' were ignored by the supplanting Anglos... :shock:

You obviously don't know the BLM, it isn't a huge bureaucracy, but quite under-strength and relies on the honor system for land management. Bundy has not paid for YEARS, a very small rent compared to if he wanted to use private land.

The Nevada cattleman's association, not a Lib group by any means hasn't sided with Bundy because they know it isn't fair for one rancher to break the law and the others obey it.

I would opine a Libertarian would say, min gubmint yes, but no gubmint is worse. Bundy wants NO Gubmint. if we all can't run cattle on public lands rent free and anyplace we want why should a very select few get that 'right'??? this was the argument as the Homestead act settled the west after statehood. free range was over.

I'd say a Libertarian would say the public lands belong to everyone and not anyone in particular, their safeguarding belongs to the Federal Gubmint that uses a series of LOCAL offices to manage the lands for us all.
Click to expand...

Id say this is a good example for showing people what the real difference is between the differing ideologies.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Nothing? Yet the G has been waiting for 20 years to do something. Seems you are wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not wrong. You have absolutely no grounds to state that the law in this case is "unconstitutional".
Bundy doesn't like the law because Bill Clinton beat George Bush senior in 1993. Before that Bundy paid the land use fees to the BLM without incident. When Reagan and Bush daddy were the chief executives the land use fees were apparently OK with Bundy.
Bundy has no grounds to call the law unconstitutional that's been clearly shown in court...your agreeing with him gives you exactly nothing.
The BLM is largely a management bureau not a law enforcement organization. They gave Bundy ample time to plead his case in the courts over the years and he lost big at every turn.
It is now time to collect what is owed and stop Bundy from breaking the law anymore.
As I stated before you got nothin'.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Apparently since there are a bunch of ignorant uneducated people in this thread I need to say this again.

The Homestead act of 1862 proves that the Federal Government legally owned the State of Nevada long before the Bundy's came to Nevada. The Homestead Act, enacted during the Civil War in 1862, provided that any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S. government could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land.

es[/url]
Click to expand...

Except the homestead act is unconstutional. Govt cant pass a law giving themselves power. 10th amendment, look it up. Youre using laws that congress passed to justify laws that congress passed.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I am not wrong. You have absolutely no grounds to state that the law in this case is "unconstitutional".
Bundy doesn't like the law because Bill Clinton beat George Bush senior in 1993. Before that Bundy paid the land use fees to the BLM without incident. When Reagan and Bush daddy were the chief executives the land use fees were apparently OK with Bundy.
Bundy has no grounds to call the law unconstitutional that's bee shown in court...your agreeing with him gives you exactly nothing.
The BLM is largely a management bureau not a law enforcement organization. They gave Bundy ample time to plead his case in the courts over the years and he lost big at every turn.
It is now time to collect what is owed and stop Bundy from breaking the law anymore.
As I stated before you got nothin'.
Click to expand...
Not LEO? So where did they get the guns and stunners?
 
jonny5 said:
Id say this is a good example for showing people what the real difference is between the differing ideologies.
Click to expand...

you are correct on this point
some examine the factual circumstances and then form an opinion
others establish an opinion and then seek to find something - often anything, no matter how NON-factual - to bolster it
 
CRUE CAB said:
Clearly they knew they were wrong, they gave them back.
Click to expand...

then you have not been reading the cites provided within this thread

the reason for the release of the cattle was due to concerns about potential physical harm resulting if the government went further with its efforts to offset the judgment with proceeds from the sale of the debtor's cattle
 
Cryptic said:
It is not his land. Why am I the only conservative here who understands that concept?
Click to expand...

When a person owns land, that land has boundaries which separates land he owns and pays taxes on from other people's land or government owned land. This land is outlined by surveyors who outline the exact measurements and recorded in the local tax office by lot and block (some area's use different terminology). His land is, using a metaphor, an island.

I'm not sure what you think you understand, but at a practical level, it sounds like what you understand is incorrect.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not LEO? So where did they get the guns and stunners?
Click to expand...

interesting how you read things into peoples post.

BLM does have law enforcement people. BUT the primary purpose of BLM is to manage the public lands.

Where do you think the LEO's got the guns and stunners?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Stop payments on your car loan and get a constitutional lawyer to keep the repo guys from towing your car.
Good luck with that.
:lamo
 
CRUE CAB said:
Your home is not "yours" as long as there is a mortgage. But you keep playing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

certainly it is yours. should be the owner's name on the deed

only something caused there to be a lien of record
sometimes a mortgage or deed of trust to voluntarily pledge that property as security to assure payment of a financial obligation
other times a judgment involuntarily placed against an asset after it was found there was an unpaid obligation which could be wholly or partially satisfied from the attachment of that judgement to property to be sold at public auction
 
Cryptic said:
It is not his land. Likewise, the state forest where my ancestors have fished, trapped and hunted for three generation is not my land.

Why am I the only conservative here who understands this concept? Please, quit being such a blind follower of Bundy.
Click to expand...

Where the cattle were grazing was not his land. That is correct.

I'm not a follower of anyone yet you seem jump on with the government gravy train. I've consistently identified Bundy is in financial trouble and needs to figure that out. My issue with this has been the brown shirt heavy handed armed escalation that was and is all on the Goverment. The Feds tried to intimidate him and it didn't work now the Feds look stupid. Bundy didn't invade Washington. What part of that are you still not understanding?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not LEO? So where did they get the guns and stunners?
Click to expand...

The BLM has a tiny force of about 270 to enforce their regulations nationwide. They are not primarily a law enforcement organization. Their primary mission is to manage the land owned by the federal government.
The BLM fields a force of approximately 200 Law Enforcement Rangers (uniformed officers) and 70 Special Agents (criminal investigators) who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources.
Click to expand...
Law Enforcement
 
Ockham said:
His land is, using a metaphor, an island.

I'm not sure what you think you understand, but at a practical level, it sounds like what you understand is incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, at the practical level, I am 100% correct. The public property in question does not belong to him. This is the core concept. Yes, his property is an island, but he chooses to live there and this does not change the core concept.

CRUE CAB said:
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Not all the time. If I dont pay my car payments, my car is going to get removed. If I "squat" on somebody elses property, I am going to get removed.

The Constitution forbids unlawful siezures -not all siezures. Please, stop the blind followership of Bundy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom