Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is a video I found in a newstory today about Bundy Ranch. Apparently there was a sort of riot out there with protestors blocking the roads to keep backhoes from going in to kill and bury Mr. Bundy's cattle. That was their claim. You can watch the video and see what you think. 3/4 through video you see the law enforcement / fed agents withdrew and left peacefully. Hope that is the end of it now.
They should settle the matter in court - whoever is right - let a judge decide.
Now you know what happened to the farmers when Stalin took over.
You mean Stalin tried to make farmers pay up on their grazing fees?
The BASTARD
diversionary hyperbole
Have anything that actually applies?
I really do fear for this man and his family's safety. Sadly, I don't think Big Brother would have any problem killing this man and his family over some grazing cattle. It just wouldn't surprise me these days.
They aren't there after him. They are there to remove his cattle from the public lands, as a federal judge ordered him to do in 1998.
That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.
Nope, Bundy NEVER had a receipt because he NEVER owned the land. You are right in that the rightful owner of Bundy's grazing land is obvious - it is the people of the United States of America. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made for anything else. From the very beginning there was an understanding that the land did not belong to the ranchers. The ranchers never made any improvements or put up fences, or erected any structures, or any of the other things that indicate ownership now did they?
Nope - because they understood from day 1 that this land was not theirs, but they would be allowed to graze their cattle their as long as they abide by the rules. The rules changed. This guy paid his fees for x number of years - an indication of his consent to the rules. Allowing cows to graze on the land is not "mixing work and the land." The cows who were grazing were the only ones doing any "work." So by your standard, the cows own the land.
Later - he decides he disagrees with the rules. He'll pay his grazing fees to the county, but not the Feds.
All these facts indicate that Bundy 1) acknowledged the land was not his 2) acknowledged his debt for grazing fees
Just because you suddenly don't agree with a law, doesn't mean you have the right to take up arms in order to disobey that law.
Your contention that Bundy (even though he doesn't realize it) owns the land, is indefensible.
I'm going to address your last sentence first. What a person might think does not necessarily equate to the truth of a situation. A person can have little or no knowledge of the principle of homesteading, which seems to be the case with Bundy, but whether the principle is true or not has nothing to do with this person's knowledge. If they homestead unowned land, but have no knowledge of the homesteading principle, does that mean they did not homestead the land? Now you can disagree with the principle, of course, but you cannot deny that, whether they knew this is what they were doing or not, the ranchers clearly homesteaded land that was unowned and unoccupied at the time.
Now to address your receipt argument. This goes back to the principle of homesteading, and whether or not you agree with it. In my opinion, the people who mixed their labor with this land originally are the proper owners of the land regardless of whether they were given a "receipt," or some other form of arbitrary sanction by the government. There is clearly nobody with a better claim, at the very least. The simple fact is that there is no "receipt" because they are the original owners of the land. I only received a receipt to prove my ownership of this computer because I am not the original owner of the computer, but they were the original owners of the land so there was nobody in any position to give them a receipt.
Now it would at least appear as if you believe that any land that is unowned or unoccupied is somehow automatically the property of the federal government, but I don't see any logic to that position. You can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
Ranch Riot!! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9's. - YouTube
In this riot video, Winter Born, they are accusing the law enforcement of bringing in back hoes - killing the cattle and burying them. I do not see any evidence of this other than the claims of the protesters at this point as they continue to demand, what are the back hoes for? I think they should settle it in court. If the govt. killed all of Mr. Bundy's cattle that would be a major lawsuit I would think. With the price of beef going up this does not make sense to kill perfectly healthy cattle and bury them. There is nothing on tv about this story. I checked.
Now you know what happened to the farmers when Stalin took over.
You mean Stalin tried to make farmers pay up on their grazing fees?
The BASTARD
diversionary hyperbole
Have anything that actually applies?
she seldom does. Better you find that out sooner rather than later. She's a bitter, nativist, old rw hack spinster
As to the OP, yeah, breaking the law is now approved by Repub-voters
Here is a video I found in a newstory today about Bundy Ranch. Apparently there was a sort of riot out there with protestors blocking the roads to keep backhoes from going in to kill and bury Mr. Bundy's cattle. That was their claim. You can watch the video and see what you think. 3/4 through video you see the law enforcement / fed agents withdrew and left peacefully. Hope that is the end of it now.
They should settle the matter in court - whoever is right - let a judge decide.
It has been settled in court already. In 1998, a federal judge ruled that Bundy had to stop grazing his cattle on public lands. In 2013, another federal judge restated the same thing and authorized the removal of the cattle.
Bundy has refused to follow the federal judges orders and refused to remove his cattle.
The feds are removing the cattle.
In the video you will see the law enforcement all left peacefully and drove away. I didn't see any snipers in the video. I believe this is the outer perimeter of Bundys ranch and the actual ranch is down the road.
In the video you will see the law enforcement all left peacefully and drove away. I didn't see any snipers in the video. I believe this is the outer perimeter of Bundys ranch and the actual ranch is down the road.
Here is a video I found in a newstory today about Bundy Ranch. Apparently there was a sort of riot out there with protestors blocking the roads to keep backhoes from going in to kill and bury Mr. Bundy's cattle. That was their claim. You can watch the video and see what you think. 3/4 through video you see the law enforcement / fed agents withdrew and left peacefully. Hope that is the end of it now.
They should settle the matter in court - whoever is right - let a judge decide.
Ranch Riot!! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9's. - YouTube
* I didn't mention this before but I should have. I think David Koresh was in the wrong to not be open and willing to talk to the authorities from the beginning. He should have met with them openly and by not doing so he gave them reason to believe he was hiding something. If the kids were endangered as the later reports indicated, that could have been a factor in deciding to go in. I don't know as I didn't follow the story years ago. Still in this matter all parties involved know it could be settled in court. That is the right way to proceed. imo.
I really do fear for this man and his family's safety. Sadly, I don't think Big Brother would have any problem killing this man and his family over some grazing cattle. It just wouldn't surprise me these days.
They aren't there after him. They are there to remove his cattle from the public lands, as a federal judge ordered him to do in 1998.
Snipers surrounding the place? Yikes! I don't think they'll hesitate in killing him and his family if they get in the way. Just the way things are these days in this Police State. It's very sad.
Ranch Riot!! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9's. - YouTube
In this riot video, Winter Born, they are accusing the law enforcement of bringing in back hoes - killing the cattle and burying them. I do not see any evidence of this other than the claims of the protesters at this point as they continue to demand, what are the back hoes for? I think they should settle it in court. If the govt. killed all of Mr. Bundy's cattle that would be a major lawsuit I would think. With the price of beef going up this does not make sense to kill perfectly healthy cattle and bury them. There is nothing on tv about this story. I checked.
It has already been settled in court. A federal judge ruled that Bundy must stop grazing his cattle on the public lands. The messed up part is that the judge made that ruling in 1998. So for 16 years, not only has Bundy been grazing on public lands for free, he has been in violation of a court ruling. Another judge reaffirmed the ruling in July of last year.
Now, if the feds do slaughter all his cattle and bury them, it is no one's fault but the rancher who ignored the court orders for 16 years.
But I have not seen any evidence that that is there intention. But what it boils down to is, if you leave your property where it does not belong and where you have been told to remove it from, you really have no complaint about the way the land owner removes it. Especially when they have given you 16 years to get it.
Nope, Bundy NEVER had a receipt because he NEVER owned the land. You are right in that the rightful owner of Bundy's grazing land is obvious - it is the people of the United States of America. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made for anything else. From the very beginning there was an understanding that the land did not belong to the ranchers. The ranchers never made any improvements or put up fences, or erected any structures, or any of the other things that indicate ownership now did they?
Nope - because they understood from day 1 that this land was not theirs, but they would be allowed to graze their cattle their as long as they abide by the rules. The rules changed. This guy paid his fees for x number of years - an indication of his consent to the rules. Allowing cows to graze on the land is not "mixing work and the land." The cows who were grazing were the only ones doing any "work." So by your standard, the cows own the land.
Later - he decides he disagrees with the rules. He'll pay his grazing fees to the county, but not the Feds.
All these facts indicate that Bundy 1) acknowledged the land was not his 2) acknowledged his debt for grazing fees
Just because you suddenly don't agree with a law, doesn't mean you have the right to take up arms in order to disobey that law.
Your contention that Bundy (even though he doesn't realize it) owns the land, is indefensible.
I'm going to address your last sentence first. What a person might think does not necessarily equate to the truth of a situation. A person can have little or no knowledge of the principle of homesteading, which seems to be the case with Bundy, but whether the principle is true or not has nothing to do with this person's knowledge. If they homestead unowned land, but have no knowledge of the homesteading principle, does that mean they did not homestead the land? Now you can disagree with the principle, of course, but you cannot deny that, whether they knew this is what they were doing or not, the ranchers clearly homesteaded land that was unowned and unoccupied at the time.
Now to address your receipt argument. This goes back to the principle of homesteading, and whether or not you agree with it. In my opinion, the people who mixed their labor with this land originally are the proper owners of the land regardless of whether they were given a "receipt," or some other form of arbitrary sanction by the government. There is clearly nobody with a better claim, at the very least. The simple fact is that there is no "receipt" because they are the original owners of the land. I only received a receipt to prove my ownership of this computer because I am not the original owner of the computer, but they were the original owners of the land so there was nobody in any position to give them a receipt.
Now it would at least appear as if you believe that any land that is unowned or unoccupied is somehow automatically the property of the federal government, but I don't see any logic to that position. You can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
Your homesteading argument is invalid in this case because "grazing" is not homesteading. Homesteading requires an application (since 1862) and residency. Since neither of these requirements were met in this case - the whole homestead discussion is moot.
As to Bundy being the "original owner" I think you are drawing an arbitrary line in time and saying "original" means 1880 and beyond.
So, imho, your arguments have no basis in law or logic. But I still really like the way you disagree without being disagreeable. I'm not nearly as good at that as you are, but I'm gonna work on it.
Here is a video I found in a newstory today about Bundy Ranch. Apparently there was a sort of riot out there with protestors blocking the roads to keep backhoes from going in to kill and bury Mr. Bundy's cattle. That was their claim. You can watch the video and see what you think. 3/4 through video you see the law enforcement / fed agents withdrew and left peacefully. Hope that is the end of it now.
They should settle the matter in court - whoever is right - let a judge decide.
Ranch Riot!! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9's. - YouTube
* I didn't mention this before but I should have. I think David Koresh was in the wrong to not be open and willing to talk to the authorities from the beginning. He should have met with them openly and by not doing so he gave them reason to believe he was hiding something. If the kids were endangered as the later reports indicated, that could have been a factor in deciding to go in. I don't know as I didn't follow the story years ago. Still in this matter all parties involved know it could be settled in court. That is the right way to proceed. imo.
How bout we let the people of Nevada decide and not some political judge?
