- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,330
- Reaction score
- 47,308
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Good for him. Its a unconstitutional law.
what exactly is found unConstitutional about it?
Good for him. Its a unconstitutional law.
To start with???? This guy has owed money for years! He lost court cases....BLM should have busted his ass 10 years ago!
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.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.
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.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.
That's incorrect. Bundy did not seek out confrontation, the Feds came on his land not the other way around.'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.
what exactly is found unConstitutional about it?
what exactly is found unConstitutional about it?
That's incorrect. Bundy did not seek out confrontation, the Feds came on his land not the other way around.'
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
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.
I am not wrong. You have absolutely no grounds to state that the law in this case is "unconstitutional".Nothing? Yet the G has been waiting for 20 years to do something. Seems you are wrong.
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]
Not LEO? So where did they get the guns and stunners?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'.
Clearly they knew they were wrong, they gave them back.that taking of property was to satisfy the just and legal obligations to the government
nothing unConstitutional about that
Id say this is a good example for showing people what the real difference is between the differing ideologies.
Your home is not "yours" as long as there is a mortgage. But you keep playing apples and oranges.Are foreclosures unconstitutiona?
Not paying your bills is unlawful...correct?
Clearly they knew they were wrong, they gave them back.
It is not his land. Why am I the only conservative here who understands that concept?
Not LEO? So where did they get the guns and stunners?
Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.
Your home is not "yours" as long as there is a mortgage. But you keep playing apples and oranges.
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.
Not LEO? So where did they get the guns and stunners?
Law EnforcementThe 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.
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.
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.Taking or removing a persons property is unconstitutional.