A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

reply to post by namehere


he never had any land taken from him... he lost his permit to graze on property he never owned... originally, because he failed to pay a grazing fee.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

If a government has a right to exist, it has a right to own property, and do with it as it sees fit.

Governments don't' have rights.

Especially not the Federal Government. The Federal Government has powers. Those powers are described in the Constitution. It also has limits on those powers, also in the constitution.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Dont you think that a grazing fee by itself is a little bit insane?

Grass grows back as far as i understand, of course im no farmer or farming expert on such matters.

Not realy sure what the big deal is, could the land have been used for something else?
Were the cows in some way harming the land?

I mean the law is the law and im not saying they anyone should break it at any time, but a grazing fee? I fail to see the point, besides obvious additional tax for basically no good reason.

My grandfather was a farmer of sheep and his sheep grazed on his neighbors land on the condition that if the land we to be used for the actual owners needs, he would have to move his flock. pretty damned simple.

This entire situation in Nevada, is quickly spiraling out of control.

The problem is that both sides maybe right, though my gut feeling is that the government is wrong.
From what I understand, this all goes back to the late 1990’s, with a court case. The BLM took Bundy to court, over fees for grazing on the lands that they manage. He did not agree with the verdict and lost, but continued to graze. So for 10 years, he has been grazing, they have been issuing warning and fines, to which he has not been paying and ignoring all along. Now they are flexing the muscles, with law enforcement and other assets are brought into play.

What disturbs me is that this is going heavy handed, it has gone way beyond what should have been an appropriate response for this. Did this rancher, shoot someone, did he pull a weapon, did he take any aggressive action towards any person of authority? No, in fact if anything they have showed that the federal government is lying to the public when it comes to say the animals that they are trying to protect. Euthanizing them instead of releasing them to different areas to build up their population, and create a greater genetic diversity and help the species?

If it is true that there are snipers on the ground, set up and waiting, then this does not bode well, as it sets a dangerous precedence legally and ultimately creates a dangerous atmosphere in the USA.

The area is a powder keg, waiting to blow, and the winning move is not to continue to provoke, but to back down, one side has to do such, and from the looks of it, it looks like the federal government has to back down if they wish to avoid bloodshed. No matter who starts the fight, the BLM will be held accountable for the actions down there, and if the representatives that are in office are not going to yank the leash, perhaps it is a lesson that a lot of these people should be removed. If anything it looks like there are people from the local government on up to the federal level that are going to not be returning to office after the next election.

reply to post by projectvxn


which is just as I said. The cops were ordered by the court to get the cattle off the PUBLIC land that Bundy refused to move!

federal agents swooped in Tuesday after Cliven Bundy, dubbed the last remaining rancher in southern Nevada, refused to remove his herd of 900 cows from land he claims has been in his family since 1870.

The heavily-armed federal agents, equipped with eight helicopters and backed-up by snipers, surrounded the Bundy ranch after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attained a federal court order to confiscate the family's herd.

Do you understand why they brought in helicopters?

you are talking 900 head of cattle you need to herd elsewhere... a helicopter or 8 would come in terribly handy for herding cattle! Wish I had had one... would take less people to herd that way!

Yes, the government escalated at the exact same time Bundy did!

samsamm9
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Serious question please.

Is this just a redneck conflict ?
All I see is white Americans, cows and guns ...

That's a serious question to you?

Come back when you have something substantive to add to the thread.

Bigot.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


The helicopters aren't the part that bothered me.

It was the snipers.

And erecting a ROZ.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


look... as you agree he lost his grazing rights over 15 years ago... yet continues to squat on this land.

Did he do anything violent, not yet but trying to get the militia involved means he has a willingness to... a serious willingness to.

the government has two choices, allow him to ignore them completely... or move his cattle off the land which he has no right to.

Should the government just let people break the law anytime they want? Should the government allow people to ignore the law and do anything they damn well please?

Sure, the government can pretend none of this ever happened and there can be no action on the part of the government, but if you prefer laws, then you should prefer them to be enforced, even if you don't agree with the decision.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Logarock

 

Bundy does not contest the legitimacy of the federal government’s existence. He looks right to the constitution for a solution to his problem, and fails to find one. If a government has a right to exist, it has a right to own property, and do with it as it sees fit.

Who is contesting the legitimacy of the federal governments existence? Was someone doing that? I mean since the days of the Federalist Papers?

The Federal government of any other government state and local only owns property, in theory, in the name of the people. There are not running a GB business, nor are they kings that we should kiss their azz. And certainly when they are collecting fees from "public" land they are subject to the suspicion of the people, who should be ever watchful, that they maintain an attitude of stewardship. Its not the governments land its the peoples land and we can complain about any action taken as WE the people see fit.

Biigs
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Were the cows in some way harming the land?

Yes they are farting all over the place causing global warming. They had to charge grazing fees to offset the future cost of carbon credits seeing how the cows are "legally" on federal land. Besides with the new upcoming legislation being presented in the House, now federal institutions are considered "people" and will be allowed to vote as representatives of their employes and no cap on political contributions. /end sarcasm

Rosinitiate

Biigs
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Were the cows in some way harming the land?

Yes they are farting all over the place causing global warming. They had to charge grazing fees to offset the future cost of carbon credits seeing how the cows are "legally" on federal land. Besides with the new upcoming legislation being presented in the House, now federal institutions are considered "people" and will be allowed to vote as representatives of their employes and no cap and political contributions. /end sarcasm

edit on 12-4-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

Its actually funny you say that, because i was thinking of exactly that way to link cows to terrorism, via global warming there fore making them an enemy of the state.

LOL

+1 sir. good show.

some one phone the FDA and the global warming assault squad!

projectvxn

samsamm9
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Serious question please.

Is this just a redneck conflict ?
All I see is white Americans, cows and guns ...

That's a serious question to you?

Come back when you have something substantive to add to the thread.

Bigot.

Bigot ?

Americans is a land of many different types of people and cultures, but all I see is white Americans, guns and cows, yes.
No African Americans, no Native Americans, Asian Americans ?? I guess not.

You seem to want to rally Americans to this so called "righteous cause", again I'll ask, are there JUST white folks rallying for the Bundy Ranch ?

Because it sure looks like a redneck party, with the usual guns and cows.

projectvxn
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

If a government has a right to exist, it has a right to own property, and do with it as it sees fit.

Governments don't' have rights.

Especially not the Federal Government. The Federal Government has powers. Those powers are described in the Constitution. It also has limits on those powers, also in the constitution.

1...this isn't about the "bundy ranch"....it's about BLM grazing land....no matter how many times you repeat it.
2...bundy went to court twice and lost...seems his rights to a trial were upheld
3...simple example...if I had 5 acres of land that I allowed you to graze you cattle on, and then after a few years I decided to do something else with it...you couldn't ignore me and continue to graze your cattle on that land, without me calling the LEO's to forcibly remove them

reply to post by projectvxn


from what I am gathering, its Bundy himself as the only person stating anyone has snipers. a person who eagerly breaks laws and obviously exaggerates.

reply to post by Logarock


So then shouldn't we be legally taking up issues? Legally?

he went to court, he lost, he went to court, he lost.... perhaps the fight legally should be taken higher and on different grounds, much different grounds.

but until then he should have moved his cattle. Hell I would have a hell of a long time ago! He just seems to me not to give a #.

If you don't like laws, work to change them, if you like law at all... you should prefer them to be enforced, even if you disagree.

reply to post by projectvxn

Governments don't have rights.

I want to know where they thought they had the right to end the lives of his cattle.

Whoever authorized that ... should have the cost of those cows taken out of their paycheck.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Logarock

 

but until then he should have moved his cattle. Hell I would have a hell of a long time ago! He just seems to me not to give a #.

Now if only the government could get everyone to think like you. Just imagine the rainbow and butterflies.

reply to post by projectvxn


Just so you know, I think the federal government way oversteps their bounds way too much... that said... I see Bundy as no different than some person on welfare acting as if they are somehow entitled to handouts.

God forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is what I see. No matter which article I read.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Oh get a grip... I love that constitution, and I love the fact that we have laws in this country. I think many changes need to be made, but they need made legally. I think many people in government need fired, and replaced with thinking people who are willing to follow the constitution...

but right now, that constitution is not the problem. If Bundy cared for his family, he would have moved his cattle off public land and continued the fight in court.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

Sure, the government can pretend none of this ever happened and there can be no action on the part of the government, but if you prefer laws, then you should prefer them to be enforced, even if you don't agree with the decision.

This idea of going along even if we don't agree with the decision has already cost american dearly. Americans maybe like no one else have seen what parades behind the rule of law. Disagreement with the law has come to symbolize the lawless when it should be the other way around. That the lawless hide behind laws and are busy with the manufacture of same in abundance. Reduction of this guy to a "squatter" for allowing his cattle to eat grass is a bit of a stretch. This goes back to John Lockes argument about the apples on the tree.

Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

Link John Locke

My contention is that the state has no right to charge fees to the land anyway for this purpose. This man and others like him owe the people or the government nothing for their use.