BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[Katzndogz]

So, can anyone give me one reason that the taxpayers should continue feeding this guy's cattle for him?

How much do you think the tax payers are paying for desert scrub?

 

[paulitician]

Ah, just label him a 'Cult Leader', murder em all, and call it a day. The Sheeple will gobble up anything their beloved Big Brother feeds em. Such is life in a Police State.

And let's see if he posted a video on YouTube!

Yeah, the duped Sheeple have their pitchforks out and are ready to lynch this poor guy. If Big Brother plays the old 'He's a crazed Cult Leader' card, the Sheeple are really gonna lose it. They'll be fully on board with a massacre. Doesn't take much to dupe em.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The better question is why should the Feds own so much land?

Map Maker

And that (imho) is a legitimate question.

But it doesn't really mean anything to THIS particular case.
At THIS point, we follow existing law. If this case, any other case, or a cumulative review of all these cases leads us to believe that our current laws are flawed, we can push to change them.

But in a civilized society, we don't get to choose to disobey a law just because we don't like it. Especially when our founding fathers - who were well aware of how damaging it can be to leave citizens with no other option but rebellion - created peaceful and lawful avenues to address grievances.

 

[MikeK]

While law enforcement agencies will negotiate with hostage takers, which is exactly what Koresh was doing with the kids, they also put a SWAT team on the roof to take them out, should they come to the conclusion that the hostages are in danger of being killed or injured by the hostage takers.

Koresh knew that, and he made no effort whatsoever to protect those kids. He was using them as a shield.

So what?

So, as someone stated earlier, when one decides to take up arms against a law enforcement agency, there should be no surprise as to what the outcome will be. I am certain that Koresh orchestrated the whole thing to it's inevitable conclusion.

You seem more concerned with assigning blame than with the horrendous deaths of twenty-one children, some as young as two. The primary concern should have been the safety of those innocent tots -- not the urgency of affirming the will of the State and its enforcement agents.

It is believed Koresh was insane, so why even consider expecting him to behave rationally? Would you agree the worst thing to do is provoke him -- which is exactly what they did. And therein lies the tale.

 

[boedicca]

The better question is why should the Feds own so much land?

Map Maker

And that (imho) is a legitimate question.

But it doesn't really mean anything to THIS particular case.
At THIS point, we follow existing law. If this case, any other case, or a cumulative review of all these cases leads us to believe that our current laws are flawed, we can push to change them.

But in a civilized society, we don't get to choose to disobey a law just because we don't like it. Especially when our founding fathers - who were well aware of how damaging it can be to leave citizens with no other option but rebellion - created peaceful and lawful avenues to address grievances.

The Fed owning so much land is the germane issue. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the Feds. How on earth is that in the interest of the state's residents when they are prevented from earning a living by petty bureaucrats in DC?

 

[Againsheila]

OK - now I get it.

Have a nice day and enjoy your meds.

OK...let me see if I have this right. [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] should be on meds for stating facts but the nutcases defending this guy, Koresh, McVeigh, et al, are sane?

Here's what I see.

This dude was breaking the law by not paying the fees to graze his cattle on federal land. He refused to pay those fees after paying them for many years.

Period.

So now all tin-hatted militia types are rallying around this guy, crying like two year olds.


When all he had to do was follow the law.

It's just that simple. Follow the law, you don't get in trouble.

Don't like the law? Run for office and get it changed.

I looked at everything from the fox news articles and other stories that ran yesterday afternoon, Howie. I believe he needs to obey the law of the land. If they say he owes the money and he says he has it - let him pay it and be done with it. David Koresh should have come out of the house when he was asked to. The fact he refused to led to the belief he was hiding something - perhaps harming the children inside. He should have been willing to show the authorities there was nothing wrong there. My 2 cents.

They should have picked him up in town a couple of hours earlier when there were no kids around. Of course, they didn't have the cameras then either. This was really a case of our government going off the deep end.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then you make a joke about the incident created by the agents by saying the agents should have been so happy to see their friends die in their attack on liberty so as to hand out lolipops to the children

Re-writing what I said to generate some outrage I see. Well, I said no such thing - but I'd preferr you to dislike me intensely - being hated by someone of your caliber is the one of the greatest compliments I could receive.

Thank you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do they? And what about his rights?

His rights? His rights to graze his cattle on public land while refusing to pay the associated fees? His right to defy a federal judge?

His rights have not been violated. He owns over 150,000 acres of land. But his cattle are on public land.

You are sorely mistaken in thinking that Public Land is actually in the interest of the country.

It is certainly not Cliven Bundy's private land, which is at the heart of this issue. He grazed 900 head of cattle there for 21 years without paying the grazing fees required.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The better question is why should the Feds own so much land?

Map Maker

And that (imho) is a legitimate question.

But it doesn't really mean anything to THIS particular case.
At THIS point, we follow existing law. If this case, any other case, or a cumulative review of all these cases leads us to believe that our current laws are flawed, we can push to change them.

But in a civilized society, we don't get to choose to disobey a law just because we don't like it. Especially when our founding fathers - who were well aware of how damaging it can be to leave citizens with no other option but rebellion - created peaceful and lawful avenues to address grievances.

The Fed owning so much land is the germane issue. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the Feds. How on earth is that in the interest of the state's residents when they are prevented from earning a living by petty bureaucrats in DC?

Don't like the law - change it. I may even support you.

But until you can change it - you abide by it.

That's MHO.

(While I don't believe this makes any difference to THIS case - I will say, I believe you've presented one of the most thought-provoking posts offered by any of those who believe the government should not be enforcing grazing fees on this rancher)

 

[boedicca]

And that (imho) is a legitimate question.

But it doesn't really mean anything to THIS particular case.
At THIS point, we follow existing law. If this case, any other case, or a cumulative review of all these cases leads us to believe that our current laws are flawed, we can push to change them.

But in a civilized society, we don't get to choose to disobey a law just because we don't like it. Especially when our founding fathers - who were well aware of how damaging it can be to leave citizens with no other option but rebellion - created peaceful and lawful avenues to address grievances.

The Fed owning so much land is the germane issue. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the Feds. How on earth is that in the interest of the state's residents when they are prevented from earning a living by petty bureaucrats in DC?

Don't like the law - change it. I may even support you.

But until you can change it - you abide by it.

That's MHO.

Uh. How about bureaucrats quit making up laws via regulatory fiat instead?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The issue is why the Feds think they have the power to take over lands in any state.

No, that's not close to "the issue".

The federal government has no need to "take over" land that it has always controlled.

 

[boedicca]

Spoken like a True Collectivist.

But at least you get 10 Points For Consistency.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Correction: Big Brother doesn't have RIGHTS. It has POWER.

Which it quite readily abuses in order to gain more POWER.

I agree.
There are many cases that demonstrate the governments willingness to overreach and abuse their power.

This just ain't one of 'em.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's a factor, and it's very disturbing. Do you really own anything? You probably don't even realize that what you think is yours, is actually Big Brother's. If he says it's so, it becomes so.

Bundy has title to the land in question?

His legal argument is that after 140 years of continuous use he has an implied easement. He has continuously paid grazing fees to the state of Nevada for the use of the open range. By payment of the fees the easement was perfected.

His argument is that his family predates the BLM, so he doesn't have to recognize federal law.

Tell us all, how long does a family have to be here to be able to ignore the law? 100 years? 50 years?

Shit changes and stomping your feet does not change that fact.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Spoken like a True Collectivist.

But at least you get 10 Points For Consistency.

When you've been made a fool of as badly as you have in this thread, I guess personal attacks are really all you've got left...

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Fed owning so much land is the germane issue. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the Feds. How on earth is that in the interest of the state's residents when they are prevented from earning a living by petty bureaucrats in DC?

Don't like the law - change it. I may even support you.

But until you can change it - you abide by it.

That's MHO.

Uh. How about bureaucrats quit making up laws via regulatory fiat instead?

Well - in the case of this rancher - the applicable laws were written by congress.
But if you are talking about something like the EPA's war on coal - then yes, I agree with you 100%.

 

[paulitician]

Government stole the land from Native Americans. And now it's gonna steal yours. And don't think that's just far-fetched paranoia either. Eminent Domain is very real. When Big Brother wants yours, he's gonna take it. Such is life in this Police State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh i'm pretty sure Communist Globalists are all-in on Eminent Domain. If Big Brother says it's his, it's his. End of story. It's so sad so many in this country have become servile Authority-Worshippers.

Oh please! Could you be any more dramatic?? lol

I have seen no serious argument that the land is anything but public land. The gov't didn't take anything away.

And if there are any "Authority Worshippers" (whatever the hell that is) it is certainly not evident in this case. This is about a rancher running a business on public land and refusing to pay the fees. And about ignoring a legitimate court order.

Pretty sure you're the type who would justify your beloved Big Brother murdering this man and his whole family over some some grazing cattle. You do come off as a servile Authority-Worshipper. I just call em like i see em.

Yeah, you call'em like you see'em. The problem is, all you do is insinuate that there are facts we don't know. But you never actually offer any of these facts. You just stick with your "Big Brother is evil" routine.

The feds are not after the rancher or his family. They are not surrounding the family's ranch. They are simply removing trespass cattle from public land, per a federal judges orders.

The Bundy family has never owned the land in question. But they want to use it, without paying fees or following any regulations.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do they? And what about his rights?

His rights? His rights to graze his cattle on public land while refusing to pay the associated fees? His right to defy a federal judge?

His rights have not been violated. He owns over 150,000 acres of land. But his cattle are on public land.

Yes, some are more equal than others. Big Brother's rights are far more important & valid, than some little rancher peon's rights.

His rights have NOT been violated. He has grazed his cattle on land he does not own for 21 years. The feds are simply removing his cattle from public land after the rancher has refused to do so.

 

[bendog]

There's a lot up the street than never had a house built. I think I'll homestead and see how that works out for me.