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

[AiliailiA]

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.

Oh yes silly me. I should also have been able to tell by the contrast between writing styles.

"The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada."
--Wikipedia

"The land does belong to the state, but, the federal government has the right to take it, but they can't just sue him out of it." --You

[Roski]

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

Was the notice ever officiated in court?

Yes.

It was in the United States vs The Bundy Family

[Vazdania]

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

Was the notice ever officiated in court?

Yes.

sauce mistuh? (I just want this for myself for later use)

[Dyakovo]

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.

No, it is saying that Bundy, despite what he personally believes, is an American citizen and is answerable to American laws.

[Pandeeria]

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.

The cows were his property. But he had to repay the BLM with something, and that something is his cattle.

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.

Then you punish those that support said riots with force

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.

Agreed.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Because he's an American, and you Americans are all fetishistic over being Americans.
Stop reading into things like you're trying to be Infowars.

[Vazdania]

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/



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.

No, it is saying that Bundy, despite what he personally believes, is an American citizen and is answerable to American laws.

No way. Sovereign Citizen and all!!!

[Pandeeria]

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.

It was completely inappropriate.

How?

[Roski]

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.

The cows were his property. But he had to repay the BLM with something, and that something is his cattle.

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.

Then you punish those that support said riots with force

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.

Agreed.

The National Guard would have been had to dispatch.
These Militias are armed to the teeth, the SWAT Team is not winning that fight.

[Quintium]

It was completely inappropriate.

That's not the point, though. This wasn't about turtles or cattle. This was about the reach of the federal government - how far can they go, how much can they regulate and how much do people have to take from them? Even though he's been avoiding the debate so far, you can bet that Obama knows what's going on and has been thinking about it. Should the federal government have been able to just trample over this ranch, then it would have been a very minor victory for the wildlife but a very major symbolic victory for any politician thinking of giving the federal government more funding, more power and more legal rights.

[Dejanic]

Seems like a reactionary revolution is on its way. With god, the founding fathers, and good clean American booze on their side, Bundy and his crew of patriots can accomplish anything.

[Nazi Flower Power]

There's also this line from an interview CNN quotes:

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy told the station.

This isn't how the law works, Cliven.

The formation of new federal arms trump the status quo and bring federal subjects into line under them.
Otherwise, no federal statute could ever be enforced.

You can apply the same logic to the NFA acts of 1934 or 1968 if you want, and unless you're an idiot, it will sound ridiculous.

If his version of the law was how it worked, then the land probably would belong to some Native Americans.

[Quintium]

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.

No, it is saying that Bundy, despite what he personally believes, is an American citizen and is answerable to American laws.

He explicitly did not say "Bundy". He did not even refer to individuals. He referred to "an American people", in the sense of roughly 317,899,000 residing within the United States of America.

[Tekania]

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?

Multiple times, Bundy was told to remove cattle the first time by November 30th, 1998 in the November 3rd 1998 ruling by the court which also initiated the $200.00 per day per head trespass fee, and the last judgement in July of 2013 gave him 45days to remove them and authorization for BLM to seize and remove and cattle remaining at Bundy's expense.

[Vazdania]

It was completely inappropriate.

How?

Unless you can otherwise show me, I don't see anywhere, where courts mandated the taking of his property.

[Roski]

There's also this line from an interview CNN quotes:

This isn't how the law works, Cliven.

The formation of new federal arms trump the status quo and bring federal subjects into line under them.
Otherwise, no federal statute could ever be enforced.

You can apply the same logic to the NFA acts of 1934 or 1968 if you want, and unless you're an idiot, it will sound ridiculous.

If his version of the law was how it worked, then the land probably would belong to some Native Americans.

Who would actually have it?

If I'm not mistaken, there aren't very many to keep it...

[Imperializt Russia]

The cows were his property. But he had to repay the BLM with something, and that something is his cattle.



Then you punish those that support said riots with force



Agreed.

The National Guard would have been had to dispatch.
These Militias are armed to the teeth, the SWAT Team is not winning that fight.

The SWAT team is permitted to own and use automatic weapons, chemical agents (tear gas) and body armour, and has formal training in clearing buildings and ground.

SWAT is beating wannabe secessionists.

[Dyakovo]

Yes.

sauce mistuh? (I just want this for myself for later use)

A timeline of the whole fiasco...
Story including mention of multiple seizure orders.

[Quintium]

If his version of the law was how it worked, then the land probably would belong to some Native Americans.

Their role in this matter has been limited, unfortunately. All I could find was:

"The federal government just wants control of us. But I'm not going to be controlled," Keith Nay says.
But those seeking greater access to federal land deny they are looking for an old-West shoot-out.
"Do you want to see my weapons?" asks Norm Tom, a Paiute Indian and Nay's son-in-law, who runs about 100 cows on range adjoining Bundy's.
He pulls out two copies of the Constitution, one pocket-sized, one full sized.

[Pandeeria]

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.

This ^.

The cows were his property. But he had to repay the BLM with something, and that something is his cattle.



Then you punish those that support said riots with force



Agreed.

The National Guard would have been had to dispatch.
These Militias are armed to the teeth, the SWAT Team is not winning that fight.

With the Smilie I was trying to imply some sarcasm there.

However, I doubt there would be deaths and riots across the country.

[Vazdania]

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

Was the notice ever officiated in court?

Multiple times, Bundy was told to remove cattle the first time by November 30th, 1998 in the November 3rd 1998 ruling by the court which also initiated the $200.00 per day per head trespass fee, and the last judgement in July of 2013 gave him 45days to remove them and authorization for BLM to seize and remove and cattle remaining at Bundy's expense.

Le source!!!!!!!! I'm not saying its wrong, I just want to see for myself.

[Roski]

The National Guard would have been had to dispatch.
These Militias are armed to the teeth, the SWAT Team is not winning that fight.

The SWAT team is permitted to own and use automatic weapons, chemical agents (tear gas) and body armour, and has formal training in clearing buildings and ground.

SWAT is beating wannabe secessionists.

These guys also use Automatic weapons, can produce Napalm in their back yards, and have lots of Ammunition to fall back on.

They would most likely have to use tanks.

[Dyakovo]

No, it is saying that Bundy, despite what he personally believes, is an American citizen and is answerable to American laws.

He explicitly did not say "Bundy". He did not even refer to individuals. He referred to "an American people", in the sense of roughly 317,899,000 residing within the United States of America.

If you understood context, you would realize he was referring to Bundy and his criminal buddies who have threatened violence against Federal agents.

[Roski]

Multiple times, Bundy was told to remove cattle the first time by November 30th, 1998 in the November 3rd 1998 ruling by the court which also initiated the $200.00 per day per head trespass fee, and the last judgement in July of 2013 gave him 45days to remove them and authorization for BLM to seize and remove and cattle remaining at Bundy's expense.

Le source!!!!!!!! I'm not saying its wrong, I just want to see for myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#United_States_v._Bundy

[Vazdania]

sauce mistuh? (I just want this for myself for later use)

A timeline of the whole fiasco...
Story including mention of multiple seizure orders.

AH! Thank you kind sir. Many hugs are owed to you.