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.
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.
Snipers? Who said anything about snipers surrounding the public lands?
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.
You make a good point, Winter Born, but how do we know the facts of this case when the people on the video say news media told them they were ordered to stay away from the story? Why isn't FOX news reporting it? CNN? I believe the administration has made an error in judgment by not allowing the story to run on a mainstream media station. If the administration is not telling the mainstream news media to not report the story then why aren't they reporting it?
Where there is no transparency people are suspicous. There needs to be transparency and tell the full story of what happened and what is happening now. This is America and this is how it should be done. imo.
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.
That the government has tried to redefine homesteading to make it necessary to get their permission to do so does not change the fact that this land was clearly homesteaded by the ranchers, because, again, I think more goes into being a rancher than simply allowing your herd to roam. Regardless, so far we've had nobody come up with a person or party with a better claim to the land than the ranchers.
As for not being disagreeable, I wish I was better at it, but I appreciate your comments nonetheless.
) I think that creates a far better case for the Feds than for a farmer who got free grazing land for a while.
Keep in mind People, in this Police State most would dutifully justify their beloved Big Brother murdering Citizens over some grazing cattle. That's just the sad state of affairs in this Police State.
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?
The people of Nevada? You want to have an election to decide whether to enforce federal law?
And since it is federal lands, shouldn't the rest of the states have a say too?? How about a national referendum concerning whether one rancher is allowed to ignore federal law?
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.
That the government has tried to redefine homesteading to make it necessary to get their permission to do so does not change the fact that this land was clearly homesteaded by the ranchers, because, again, I think more goes into being a rancher than simply allowing your herd to roam. Regardless, so far we've had nobody come up with a person or party with a better claim to the land than the ranchers.
As for not being disagreeable, I wish I was better at it, but I appreciate your comments nonetheless.
So I am gathering that your arguments are based on what you think the laws ought to be and not based on existing law - is that correct?
Because clearly, existing law doesn't support the homesteading claim and has not since well before Bundy's family started allowing their cattle to roam this land. And since the Federal Government paid Mexico for this land (they may have even gotten a receipt - we can check
Keep in mind People, in this Police State most would dutifully justify their beloved Big Brother murdering Citizens over some grazing cattle. That's just the sad state of affairs in this Police State.
Keep in mind People, in this Police State most would dutifully justify their beloved Big Brother murdering Citizens over some grazing cattle. That's just the sad state of affairs in this Police State.
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
Keep in mind People, in this Police State most would dutifully justify their beloved Big Brother murdering Citizens over some grazing cattle. That's just the sad state of affairs in this Police State.
Police State??? WTF???
This freeloading rancher has been feeding his commercial cattle operation off OUR lands, and has refused to pay the fees. He was also ordered to remove his cattle from public lands. He has not done so for 16 years!!
If you steal from the people for 21 years, and ignore the law for 16 years, shit is eventually gonna happen.
Keep in mind People, in this Police State most would dutifully justify their beloved Big Brother murdering Citizens over some grazing cattle. That's just the sad state of affairs in this Police State.
Sorry, I didn't know that someone was murdered over this. Got a link?
How bout we let the people of Nevada decide and not some political judge?
The people of Nevada? You want to have an election to decide whether to enforce federal law?
And since it is federal lands, shouldn't the rest of the states have a say too?? How about a national referendum concerning whether one rancher is allowed to ignore federal law?
Yeah, gramps' idea that federal land management is a state issue, as well as his contention that since it took the Fed's at least 11 months to act on the authorization to remove the cattle means they have to back off, are dying a slow painful death.
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
As is free-loading on the People's dime.
That the government has tried to redefine homesteading to make it necessary to get their permission to do so does not change the fact that this land was clearly homesteaded by the ranchers, because, again, I think more goes into being a rancher than simply allowing your herd to roam. Regardless, so far we've had nobody come up with a person or party with a better claim to the land than the ranchers.
As for not being disagreeable, I wish I was better at it, but I appreciate your comments nonetheless.
So I am gathering that your arguments are based on what you think the laws ought to be and not based on existing law - is that correct?
Because clearly, existing law doesn't support the homesteading claim and has not since well before Bundy's family started allowing their cattle to roam this land. And since the Federal Government paid Mexico for this land (they may have even gotten a receipt - we can check
I wouldn't phrase it as such, but I suppose that's a fair assessment of my position.
Though in response I would say that the federal government simply makes laws in an attempt to benefit itself and its cronies. In this case, we see that perversion of principles of property ownership by the law have created a scenario whereby the government is claiming the right to go after a person's livelihood. And I would say there's no reason we should defend something simply because it's a law.
Keep in mind People, in this Police State most would dutifully justify their beloved Big Brother murdering Citizens over some grazing cattle. That's just the sad state of affairs in this Police State.
Police State??? WTF???
This freeloading rancher has been feeding his commercial cattle operation off OUR lands, and has refused to pay the fees. He was also ordered to remove his cattle from public lands. He has not done so for 16 years!!
If you steal from the people for 21 years, and ignore the law for 16 years, shit is eventually gonna happen.
Sadly, you sound like one of those sad dupes who would dutifully justify Big Brother murdering this man and his family over some grazing cattle. And unfortunately, you're far from being alone on that thinking. Big Brother needs his worshippers. And Lord knows, he has plenty at this point. So sad.
