Breaking! Bundy Ranch Double Cross? More Feds, Cops, Vehicles, Equipment Arriving!

a reply to: HauntWok

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the government the right to do anything outside of its delegated authority folks. I know one thing for certain, sicking 300 armed federal agents on one man, from an unaccountable bureaucracy, is not in the job description of the federal government. If you are a liberal and can’t see this, then there is no hope for you.

Labelling Its Own Citizens as Domestic Terrorists - The Ultimate Betrayal

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

You mad bro? lol

Bundy, and your argument has been completely destroyed. The rule of law is just that. Bundy does not get to choose which laws to abide by. The resulting terrorist actions by him and his militia buddies confirm he is in the wrong.

Exactly. As part of letting Nevada into the United States, Nevada gave up the rights to state owned land. It is right in the Nevada constitution. The feds in turn gave Nevada much of the land back to build schools, railroad, etc.

The irony is the gun nuts that came to so-call defend Bundy from the feds used federal highways. In fact, their antics closed a federal highway causing economic damage.

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: gariac
Big talk from a person that hasn't mastered capitalization. Thanks for playing.

lol....so rather than actually make a point, or say something intelligent, you're just gonna pick on capitalization...

i should have expected as much...you got nothing.

thank YOU for playing...

Shift key still broken, Or do you have, shall we say, other problems?

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: gariac
I know this is complicated, but Russia and the Ukraine are different countries. Nevada is a state in the United States. You can look that up. Hence Obama didn't invade Nevada. Rather he is, indirectly, enforcing the laws of the United States.

Such a shame that kid had to expose himself to public humiliation for holding such a stupid sign. If only he had better parents.

um...it says "attacked", not "invaded"....big difference between the two..

english, man...

also, if you could drop the smug aloof superior attitude, that'd be great....

Did you mean English? In an event, the federal agents are from the United States. Nevada is in the United States. Therefor the analogy to Russia attacking Ukraine is nonexistent. But thanks for playing.

a reply to: Phoenix

Congressman Stockman is from Texas. Texas is a state that retained their state owned land when they joined the United States. Thus on two fronts, taking legal advice from Stockman is dubious:
1) He is not from Nevada.
2) He has no history with the BLM since Texas has little federal land.

Taking legal advice from Stockman is like taking taking legal advice from Dick Cheney. You just make up your own facts.

originally posted by: gariac
Shift key still broken, Or do you have, shall we say, other problems?

oh SNAP, son....you implied i'm stupid(and/or retarded)...holy christ, i think i hafta go cry now...

i see you still have no argument, and instead, wish to pull up red herrings....

i'll file your complaint under "nobody gives a s**t", and call you a WAAHmbulance, forthwith...

originally posted by: gariac
Did you mean English? In an event, the federal agents are from the United States. Nevada is in the United States. Therefor the analogy to Russia attacking Ukraine is nonexistent. But thanks for playing.

it's a joke, grow up..

a reply to: Logarock

This isn't the 18th century, Bundy has representation, your pitiful argument is invalid.

Just because he doesn't like a law gives him no right to ignore it. That's the point the TEA party doesn't get. When you threaten Americans with guns because you don't like the law, then you are committing a textbook act of terrorism.

If Bundy doesn't like the law, he should petition the government to change the law. that's how this republic works.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: Phoenix
He has no history with the BLM since Texas has little federal land.

Perhaps this might be worth a read.

BLM intends to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Logarock



That's the point the TEA party doesn't get. When you threaten Americans with guns because you don't like the law, then you are committing a textbook act of terrorism.

Can you provide a link where it says TEA party members pointed guns, I'd like to see that!

Or....Shall I make an unfounded statement such as yours with a turn of phrase,

BLM and their progressive wing nut supporters pointed guns at American's Tuesday 4/12 making them terrorists - how's that sound?

My question, who's in charge of the BLM and where does the buck stop? because in the BLM's zeal for ENFORCEMENT peoples rights to freedom of speech were infringed, of that there is no doubt. Seems the place where the buck stops should have reorganized this little party at such a point.

It appears that personal feelings in this matter have obscured some of the facts. While Bundy's actions and beliefs may well be against policy and law, the actions of the BLM are definitely against US Code. The facts versus beliefs have become extremely clouded and the apparent truth depends on the individual beliefs and viewpoints of contributors to this forum.
A point made in another forum was that the BLM did not follow US Code in how they sought to enforce the court order.

U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.” (emphasis mine)

In this case, the appropriate local agency would be the County Sheriff Doug Gillespie and his organization. One of the more vocal contributors to this forum brushed this off by saying that local law enforcement could not be trusted because they are sympathetic to Bundy.

Apparently the BLM and its paramilitary force did not bother to read US Code. In BLM guidance documents the necessity to use local LEO is omitted.
BLM Guidance
As mentioned earlier in this forum the BLM made a show of force long before any Bundy supporters decided to show up armed and in support. It appears that this contingent of armed individuals appeared as a DIRECT response to the presence of a paramilitary force in the area of Bunkerville/Mesquite NV.

Folks, regardless of personal beliefs and biases, the BLM did not follow US Code, period. Whether this justifies the response of private citizens is open to personal interpretation. In my case, I believe it is justified even if Dingy Harry Reid believes we are "domestic terrorists". Take it for what is worth, this is my belief. You may disagree, that is your right. BUT, please look at the obvious facts, the BLM did NOT follow US Code. Along with the establishment of an illegal "First Amendment Area" demonstrates to what lengths the PTB will go to do whatever they want.

This matter has become so much more that a rancher disobeying a court order, it has become a test of the perceived powers of the Feds IMO.

a reply to: rockflier
This is the next paragraph below the portion you quoted 43 U.S.C. Section 1733 Subsection C

2) The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources. Such designated personnel shall receive the training and have the responsibilities and authority provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

www.law.cornell.edu...

This authorized the Sec. of the Interior to train and use federal LEO on public lands.

a reply to: Olivine
In 40+ years of dealing with military and government agencies, I learned the hard way with the FAA that SHALL is absolutely mandatory, no questions asked. May is just that, maybe. Again, I guess this is a matter of interpretation. When dealing with any Federal entity, as a civilian you have NO choice when it comes to SHALL. Perhaps the Feds play by different rules.

More information about our illustrious Senator Reid and his shady dealings.
USA Today

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Logarock

This isn't the 18th century, Bundy has representation, your pitiful argument is invalid.

Just because he doesn't like a law gives him no right to ignore it. That's the point the TEA party doesn't get. When you threaten Americans with guns because you don't like the law, then you are committing a textbook act of terrorism.

If Bundy doesn't like the law, he should petition the government to change the law. that's how this republic works.

did i not post the textbook definitions of both terrorist, AND terrorism for you?

did you ignore that post, or are you just slow?

you are right about one thing...this is SUPPOSED to be a constitutional republic....unfortunately, while on paper, it's still a republic, in practice it's a democracy, in the process of becoming a fascist oligarchy....

a reply to: Olivine

Shall = Must, Mandatory,This is a Required Action

May = Can Do, Optional, You have permission to so this


there is a distinct difference between the two words, ESPECIALLY in legalese...rockflier says maybe it's a matter of interpretation, but that's bunk too, as the words are not open to interpretation....they mean what they mean..

a reply to: Daedalus

I was being kind in my reference to interpretation. We both know they both mean what they say. Trying to soothe some nerves and yet be sarcastic.

a reply to: rockflier

it was more me closing that particular avenue of argument, as it is completely invalid. not a knock on you, man.

screw soothing nerves....there's far too much coddling in this world. the words mean what they mean...they can deal with it, or they can piss right off...

a reply to: Daedalus
I like your attitude!!!

a reply to: Phoenix

You have a right to peaceful assembly, bringing and pointing guns at people isn't peaceful.

get it?