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

[Roski]

The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued that the land belongs to the state.[3]

What do you mean by "[3]" ..?

Oh. I see. You're just copy-pasting stuff without attribution. Plagiarism.

That is attribution enough. People know it is wikipedia when they see that.

[Vazdania]

The Federal Government ought to hand over land to the State of Nevada. This sort of 'volatile semi-revolution' (if you'd like) was completely inevitable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov ... 2_PM-2.jpg

With basically ALL of Nevada being owned by the Federal Government (through agencies) it is no wonder why many citizens are pissed off.

The Federal Government is in the right however.

Legally yes. But the Federal Government ought to back the fuck up, because they're just helping to create a domestic terrorist movement.

The Federal Government should hand over land to the state proper, as such vast control of land is inefficient, unnecessary, and is creating problems.

[Pandeeria]

I will admit the BLM could've avoided coming off as assholes and just dropped it and gave Bundy a slap on the wrist, but they were acting within their legal rights.

It doesn't matter if rural areas like the power of the federal government. If they're taking up arms and making threats when THEY are in the wrong, some arrests should be dished out.

They risk a revolt. The "Patriots" out there would have started shooting.

Tonight at Ten, the Bloodbath in Nevada

Y'know, on matters like this and in my last post when I said "some arrests should be dished out" I let my secret little repressed authoritarian side of my self speak a lot but screw it.

If they're seriously going to make threats when they're in the wrong they should be arrested and punished accordingly.

[Death Metal]

Then plot twist, when the revolutionaries take power it will be a lot worse then whats currently going on.

These political fads are silly.

Ironically, this is something that was warned about in the Federalist Papers. By Hamilton if I recall correctly.

Yep, Hamilton:

An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty... a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

- Federalist No.1

[Ashmoria]

What the fuck did the cattle do to the Federal Agents? I honestly hope they're charged for this.

you know they would have gone to slaughter soon anyway, eh?

[Imperializt Russia]

The land was federally owned.

It's not a matter of law here. Yes, the law is on their side, but then they were the ones who have tasked themselves with creating and carrying out the law. No, what's at play here is something bigger, a matter of power. They could have dropped the matter, or they could have offered him a settlement, or they could have acted with a lot less show of force, but they chose not to. They chose to make this into a statement, to show others that the federal government is not to be trifled with. This was about the role of the federal government in relation to the role of individual states and counties.

And in a United States that's getting more and more divided and polarized on the role and the power of the federal government, this is an interesting development. These people didn't just turn up to defend the man's rights - they turned up to stand against the federal government, because many in the United States - especially in areas that are not urban - do not want it to be as powerful as it is.

No.

The federal government is down a million bucks on fees Bundy hasn't paid.
Understandably, they kind of want that million bucks. They've come to collect what they're owed.

The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued that the land belongs to the state.[3]

What do you mean by "[3]" ..?

Oh. I see. You're just copy-pasting stuff without attribution. Plagiarism.

Pointless statement much?

This isn't Turnitin.

The formation of new federal arms trump the status quo and bring federal subjects into line under them.

What you're saying isn't that important, but your wording is.
"To bring federal subjects into line."
That's what they tried to do here, and thankfully they failed.

One, no, two, they haven't, three, what?

The formation of an arm of the federal government, in this case the Bureau of Land Management, exists so that existing and new federal laws can be amalgamated and enforced.
Bundy claiming that his "right" to the land predates the BLM doesn't matter. Not in the fucking slightest.

The BLM, as a new federal arm, much like the introduction of a contradictory statue, repeals any and all prior statutes by implication.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Its not so much what, its the principle. This nations was supposed to be land of the free, home of the brave. Where everyone has a chance, yet only if you use their rules, and do what they say, do you get anything. If you don't do exactly what they say, then you get label a traitor for no good reason.

OMG! It's almost like there are LAWS!!! Oh, the horror!

[Nazi Flower Power]

I thought this was going to be about Ted Bundy's family and them finding a mass grave of his victims.

That would have been more interesting.

[Pandeeria]

The Federal Government is in the right however.

Legally yes. But the Federal Government ought to back the fuck up, because they're just helping to create a domestic terrorist movement.

The Federal Government should hand over land to the state proper, as such vast control of land is inefficient, unnecessary, and is creating problems.

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

[Dyakovo]

1: No, it isn't.
2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/
3: Ignorant rednecks with guns=/=military, so no.
4: You're the one that chose to use infowars as a source, and based your thread title off their false story. The fact that you have since edited the infowars link out of the OP is immaterial.

1: By technicality, it is.
3: 'Militia'. Nobody even said that a "Military" is involved. But it is still militarization, just not a federal Military doing it.
4: I took it out because people said it was not a good source. "Mass Graves" is sarcasm.

1: Again, no. It is a fee for use, no different from any other lease payment.
3: Eh, I'll allow is as annoying hyperbole...
4: Maybe so... The more you actually voice your own opinion, as opposed to attempting to defend your initial bad sources the more I'm inclined to believe that it was actually intended as sarcasm. This doesn't change the fact that your choice of initial sources and your fervent, albeit temporary defense of them, made it look like you were buying into infowars false version of the story. I am very confrontational, so we kinda got off on the wrong foot, it seems.

[Pandeeria]

Ironically, this is something that was warned about in the Federalist Papers. By Hamilton if I recall correctly.

Yep, Hamilton:

An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty... a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

- Federalist No.1

Funny.
Though I'm not really surprised.

[Vazdania]

Legally yes. But the Federal Government ought to back the fuck up, because they're just helping to create a domestic terrorist movement.

The Federal Government should hand over land to the state proper, as such vast control of land is inefficient, unnecessary, and is creating problems.

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada.

[Ashmoria]

Legally yes. But the Federal Government ought to back the fuck up, because they're just helping to create a domestic terrorist movement.

The Federal Government should hand over land to the state proper, as such vast control of land is inefficient, unnecessary, and is creating problems.

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

they have been doing that for the past 20 years.

I am quite happy that they didn't "pull a Waco" and escalate the situation until someone got killed.

[Dyakovo]

Legally yes. But the Federal Government ought to back the fuck up, because they're just helping to create a domestic terrorist movement.

The Federal Government should hand over land to the state proper, as such vast control of land is inefficient, unnecessary, and is creating problems.

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

Seizing the cattle is probably the only way they're going to get the money owed, so I fully support them doing it. In addition, I support law enforcement agents there to defend BLM agents as they seize the property doing what they need to when Bundy and his fellow criminals turn to violence.

[Roski]

They risk a revolt. The "Patriots" out there would have started shooting.

Tonight at Ten, the Bloodbath in Nevada

Y'know, on matters like this and in my last post when I said "some arrests should be dished out" I let my secret little repressed authoritarian side of my self speak a lot but screw it.

If they're seriously going to make threats when they're in the wrong they should be arrested and punished accordingly.

They should, but that can't happen without the South starting a civil war.

Even California and New York have a movement.
Point is, if you try to do that, there will be a lot of deaths and Riots over the entire country.

[Tekania]

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada.

The BLM didn't take his property. The Land was never his, and once the 45 day notice date hit any cows carrying his brand remaining on that land were not his either.

[Vazdania]

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

they have been doing that for the past 20 years.

I am quite happy that they didn't "pull a Waco" and escalate the situation until someone got killed.

"Pulling a Waco"


This is a thing now.

[Pandeeria]

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada.

Why?
Will Nevada make use of it?
Will Nevada make good use of it?

It was completely appropriate to take his property. A little Trollish on a legal level? Yes. Legally and morally wrong? No.

[Vazdania]

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada.

The BLM didn't take his property. The Land was never his, and once the 45 day notice date hit any cows carrying his brand remaining on that land were not his either.

They siezed his cattle, I.e. his property.

Was the notice ever officiated in court?

[Death Metal]

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

"State rights" are bunk anyway (the Bill of Rights only grants them limited powers), and almost always when invoked have been done so to take rights from the people within.

[Dyakovo]

I think the BLM should have stopped this from turning into a mess and just gave Bundy a slap on the wrist by saying "first pay our required bills" instead of taking the Cattle.

Though, mind you I'm not big on state rights, I think the Federal Government can just keep the land.

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.¹
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada².

1: No, it really isn't. See here for a good explanation as to why.
2: Why? The land belonged to the Federal government before Nevada even existed. If Nevada wants the land, they should work out a deal to purchase it from the Federal government.

[Quintium]

Here is something interesting that I've come across. It's in one of the sources posted by one of you - presumably one who does not support the Bundy family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells a local news outlet, "It's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over."

Do you see the subtle wording? It's not "we can't have people who violate the law and then just walk away from it." No, it's "we can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it." And still the people in Reid's camp argue that this isn't about affirming the government's power over the people.

[Dyakovo]

The BLM didn't take his property. The Land was never his, and once the 45 day notice date hit any cows carrying his brand remaining on that land were not his either.

They siezed his cattle, I.e. his property.

Was the notice ever officiated in court?

Yes.

[Roski]

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada.

Why?
Will Nevada make use of it?
Will Nevada make good use of it?

It was completely appropriate to take his property. A little Trollish on a legal level? Yes. Legally and morally wrong? No.

He would have.

[Vazdania]

Its completely unacceptable to take his property.
The Federal Government's BLM should hand over large swaths of land to Nevada.

Why?
Will Nevada make use of it?
Will Nevada make good use of it?

It was completely appropriate to take his property. A little Trollish on a legal level? Yes. Legally and morally wrong? No.

Because, was taking his property ever officiated in court? hmm?????
Of course, it will made the same or better use of it than the Federal government

It was completely inappropriate.