I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Risottia]

A victory for property rights everywhere.

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

[Lemanrussland]

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

This is actually what they want to avoid. They don't want another Waco.

[Gauthier]

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

This is actually what they want to avoid. They don't want another Waco.

And then of course we'll get copycatting from kooks like The Republic of Texas, who will probably be celebrated as Anti-State heroes on this thread just the same.

[Big Jim P]

Government of, by and for the people. The people have spoken, and the Feds backed down. Hopefully this is just a start, and more people will have the courage to stand up to the Feds unjust actions in the future.

No more Wacos.
No more Ruby Ridges.

[Gauthier]

Government of, by and for the people. The people have spoken, and the Feds backed down. Hopefully this is just a start, and more people will have the courage to stand up to the Feds unjust actions in the future.

No more Wacos.
No more Ruby Ridges.

Galt's Gulch 2016

[Risottia]

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

This is actually what they want to avoid. They don't want another Waco.

Bah, humbug.

Anyway, letting people run around with the idea that their firearms give them the right to ignore the law is a rather stupid idea. Armed rebellion cannot be tolerated by a government.

[Big Jim P]

This is actually what they want to avoid. They don't want another Waco.

Bah, humbug.

Anyway, letting people run around with the idea that their firearms give them the right to ignore the law is a rather stupid idea. Armed rebellion cannot be tolerated by a government.

Unless the rebels win. Kinda like how America was founded.

[Greed and Death]

How the hell is this a victory for property rights?

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

Can't, it has been against the law for the federal government to use the military to enforce law since reconstruction.

[Greed and Death]

This is actually what they want to avoid. They don't want another Waco.

Bah, humbug.

Anyway, letting people run around with the idea that their firearms give them the right to ignore the law is a rather stupid idea. Armed rebellion cannot be tolerated by a government.

It only lets them ignore the law in an election year.

[Big Jim P]

Looks like a "might makes right" to me.

I'd say the US gov't should respond by showing the armed rebels who's got the actual might. Roll in the tanks.

Can't, it has been against the law for the federal government to use the military to enforce law since reconstruction.

the way things are going, it is just a matter of time until the civilian LEOs are equipped with tanks.

[Greed and Death]

Can't, it has been against the law for the federal government to use the military to enforce law since reconstruction.

the way things are going, it is just a matter of time until the civilian LEOs are equipped with tanks.

Well the nuts had about 1,000 people that would have taken the national guard to resolve.

Far easier to give the land to the state of Nevada, it would also reduce the deficit.

[Conscentia]

w00t!

A victory for property rights everywhere.

Quite the opposite. The property rights of the owners of the land have been infringed upon by this cattle rancher.

[Gig em Aggies]

Government of, by and for the people. The people have spoken, and the Feds backed down. Hopefully this is just a start, and more people will have the courage to stand up to the Feds unjust actions in the future.

No more Wacos.
No more Ruby Ridges.

Just because of the people by the people for the people. Is out there doesn't actually mean we run the country I can't waltz up to the president or congress and demand they do as I say. We elect representatives to make decisions our behalf.

[Greed and Death]

Can't, it has been against the law for the federal government to use the military to enforce law since reconstruction.

the way things are going, it is just a matter of time until the civilian LEOs are equipped with tanks.

but they dont have the training to move in like the military they think in terms of breach a home.

Also the local law enforcement agencies want no part in this.

[Ifreann]

Would this really be an issue if he'd use someone else's private land for grazing his cattle?

It's not just HIS land; it's OUR land, EVERYONE'S land.

It's the federal government's land.

---

Can't, it has been against the law for the federal government to use the military to enforce law since reconstruction.

the way things are going, it is just a matter of time until the civilian LEOs are equipped with tanks.

How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed thugs?

[Greed and Death]

Would this really be an issue if he'd use someone else's private land for grazing his cattle?

It's not just HIS land; it's OUR land, EVERYONE'S land.

It's the federal government's land.

As the government has retreated by right of conquest it belongs to the rancher.

[Gauthier]

the way things are going, it is just a matter of time until the civilian LEOs are equipped with tanks.

How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed thugs?

Everyone knows that any attempt by government to resolve so much as a parking ticket is a parade of jackbooted thugs stepping on people's necks. *nod nod*

[Occupied Deutschland]

A victory for property rights everywhere.

Quite the opposite. The property rights of the owners of the land have been infringed upon by this cattle rancher.

I'll actually agree here as a 'supporter' of Cliven Bundy. His rhetoric is completely fuckered, and he doesn't own the land (nor does the state of Nevada).

BUT, he is right on other things (albeit for the wrong reasons). The BLMs management of this land (and other land, for that matter) has been fuckered if their goal is promoting the health of the desert tortoise (which was/is the claim), and their restrictions on cattle seem either ill-advised at best or downright arbitrary and capricious at worst in pursuit of that objective, which also falls under a broader extreme enlargement of federal power in Western states because of the environmental lobby on a national level and the powers the government has assumed via the Endangered Species Act and how those powers are used to placate the environmental lobby. Western farmers, ranchers, loggers, and land-users of other sorts must deal with these policies, which oftentimes are not the best from a purely conservation standpoint, nor are they the most practical or effective at that objective, or balancing conservation efforts with usage and exploitation.

[Tekania]

I'll actually agree here as a 'supporter' of Cliven Bundy. His rhetoric is completely fuckered, and he doesn't own the land (nor does the state of Nevad

Yes, if you actually look through his '98/'99/'12/'13 cases he more or less just keeps re-iterating arguments that were defeated in US v. Gardner. And that is pretty much where his position lays upon, legal arguments defeated in the highest court almost 47 years ago.

[Gauthier]

I'll actually agree here as a 'supporter' of Cliven Bundy. His rhetoric is completely fuckered, and he doesn't own the land (nor does the state of Nevad

Yes, if you actually look through his '98/'99/'12/'13 cases he more or less just keeps re-iterating arguments that were defeated in US v. Gardner. And that is pretty much where his position lays upon, legal arguments defeated in the highest court almost 47 years ago.

Of course supporting Bundy's illegal grazing is the hip new thing for all the cool "Fuck the Nanny State" kids.

[Greed and Death]

Yes, if you actually look through his '98/'99/'12/'13 cases he more or less just keeps re-iterating arguments that were defeated in US v. Gardner. And that is pretty much where his position lays upon, legal arguments defeated in the highest court almost 47 years ago.

Of course supporting Bundy's illegal grazing is the hip new thing for all the cool "Fuck the Nanny State" kids.

No it is pretty freaking old. dating to the 1970's.

[Trotskylvania]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/

Quick synopsis on this situation is as followed Cliven Bundy a Nevada rancher was using land in Clark County to graze his families cattle for around 20 years. What's the deal you say? He doesn't own the land his cattle is grazing on. Other ranchers around the area pay a grazing fee to the government to use the land but for some reason Bundy felt he was above the government and refused to pay the grazing fee and now he owes around $1 million dollars to the government in grazing fees and so they BLM began to round up his cattle. Armed protestors from as far as Florida have come to the defense of Bundy. One protester says "we're not here to escalate things were only here to protect the rancher"

If you want to read the story then click the link above.

Actually, his argument is that the land his cattle are grazing on isn't owned by the federal govt but rather is owned by the state of Nevada and therefor the feds have no rightful claim to fees. Basically, it goes back to whether or not when Nevada became a state whether the land all went to the State of Nevada or whether the Feds could claim to retain ownership of some of it. (While so far the courts seem to be siding with the BLM, the guy does kinda have a point).

But moreover, the stupidest part of all this is that according to the BLm the guy owes about $1-$1.5 million in fees, but guess what it's estimated to cost the BLM $3 million to round up and sell off his cattle. So yeah, the BLM is wasting $3 mil to partially recover fees of $1 million this seems rather stupid doesn't it ?

He doesn't have any point at all. The constitutionality of the federal ownership of land is absolutely secure, and indeed as part of a state being formed from incorporated territory, the nascent state agrees to as much.

[Big Jim P]

Would this really be an issue if he'd use someone else's private land for grazing his cattle?

It's not just HIS land; it's OUR land, EVERYONE'S land.

It's the federal government's land.

---

the way things are going, it is just a matter of time until the civilian LEOs are equipped with tanks.

How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed thugs?

In this case the Feds were the thugs.

[Tekania]

Of course supporting Bundy's illegal grazing is the hip new thing for all the cool "Fuck the Nanny State" kids.

No it is pretty freaking old. dating to the 1970's.

Fads come and go.

[AiliailiA]

It's the federal government's land.

---

How else are they meant to safely arrest people who surround themselves with armed thugs?

In this case the Feds were the thugs.

They probably shouldn't have tasered the younger Bundy. I don't understand why he wasn't arrested for dangerous driving though.