Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[martybegan]

Um, what would happen if you didn't PAY for your electricity, water and gas?

What if the electric company decided I only needed 25% of the kilowatts I wanted? What if the gas company decided to shut my gas off because of a turtle?

you take a gun to your electric and gas company?

if someone did that, you'd say they should go to jail.

just like these people should be tried for raising their weapons against their government.

Considering no firearm was used in any altercation to this point, your point is moot.

You can be a sheep all you want, now go ask permission from the government for your next post.

 

[Camp]

Okay, so I did some research, and came across a post in another forum

"Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ...." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)... only within the bounds of The Enclave Clause of the Constitution, (Article I, section 8, clause 17), which sets the limits to federal land ownership...

... by giving Congress the power “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia and “to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

...

Being public land in this case, or be it private land, it's owner cannot lawfully be the federal government, even If the state constitution cedes land ownership to the federal government, "forever."... WHY?... Because the US Constitution forbids the federal government from accepting it. ...Again see Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17, US Constitution.

This was the essence of Bundy's argument, and the reason he sought remedy in a state court..

What do you think?

the land should not be owned by the feds period

Wrong Article of the Constitution to apply. Situation doesn't relate to a a fort, arsenal, the District of Colombia, etc. The Article that applies is Article 4, Sec. 3, Claus 2.
Now stop trying to give our real estate holding away.

 

[Seawytch]

It is his fucking land. its all our fucking land, not the BLM's land. They are caretakers, nothing more, and the caretakers have taken the side of a tortoise over a person.

Yes...caretakers for a FEE. All he has to do is pay for the use. It's not his land and WE THE PEOPLE decided that land needed to be protected or another animal species would die off because of what WE did.

Will that "person" die if he can only have 50 cows on land that is not his and not 100 cows? No, but those tortoises were completely disappearing.

The people didn't decide. No law was passed. what happened is some unaccountable FEDERAL bureaucracy decided to screw him over, and FEDERAL judges agreed to the screwing.

Find other ways to save the tortoises and allow him to ranch as he wants to. But progressive like you are lazy, and go for the easy solution, ban this, restrict that, and fuck anyone who disagrees.

Last time I checked, we are a representative Republic. That means that WE THE PEOPLE voted for the administration that decided that land needed to be protected.

Know how Bundy can ranch without having the BLM involved? Buy his own fucking land to graze his moocher Welfare Queen cows on...or PAY THE VERY LOW, VERY REASONABLE FEE.

 

[martybegan]

Yes...caretakers for a FEE. All he has to do is pay for the use. It's not his land and WE THE PEOPLE decided that land needed to be protected or another animal species would die off because of what WE did.

Will that "person" die if he can only have 50 cows on land that is not his and not 100 cows? No, but those tortoises were completely disappearing.

The people didn't decide. No law was passed. what happened is some unaccountable FEDERAL bureaucracy decided to screw him over, and FEDERAL judges agreed to the screwing.

Find other ways to save the tortoises and allow him to ranch as he wants to. But progressive like you are lazy, and go for the easy solution, ban this, restrict that, and fuck anyone who disagrees.

Last time I checked, we are a representative Republic. That means that WE THE PEOPLE voted for the administration that decided that land needed to be protected.

Know how Bundy can ranch without having the BLM involved? Buy his own fucking land to graze his moocher Welfare Queen cows on...or PAY THE VERY LOW, VERY REASONABLE FEE.

When the bureaucracy gets to the size it is now, there is no real representation. Representatives don't get involved, its up to FEDERAL bureaucracies and FEDERAL courts. There are too many people, such as yourself, complacent to let our government fuck over other people simply because you either don't care, or agree with the fucking over.

The land in the area that is privately owned has always had access to BLM land for uses such as this. Its part of the value of the property. If you change it, the government at a minimum should compensate the people losing its use. Especially over a fucking tortoise.

 

[Camp]

What if the electric company decided I only needed 25% of the kilowatts I wanted? What if the gas company decided to shut my gas off because of a turtle?

You'd pay or you'd have your gas shut off, right? You really think you have the right to arm yourself against the utility company if they shut you off? Really?

Bundy is getting a sweet deal. $1.35 a month per cow. Know how much he'd be paying another rancher to eat his grass? $16 bucks per.

It's not his fucking land. He either abides by the rules or gets his fucking cows off land that does not belong to him. This is not a difficult concept. It doesn't matter how many cows they say he can have on land that is not his...it's NOT HIS.

It is his fucking land. its all our fucking land, not the BLM's land. They are caretakers, nothing more, and the caretakers have taken the side of a tortoise over a person.

The BLM is the agency Congress created to manage our real estate holdings. Part of a real estate managements duty is to act as caretakers. While part of the job is as a caretaker, it is not the only job of a real estate manager.

 

[peach174]

Um, what would happen if you didn't PAY for your electricity, water and gas?

What if the electric company decided I only needed 25% of the kilowatts I wanted? What if the gas company decided to shut my gas off because of a turtle?

you take a gun to your electric and gas company?

if someone did that, you'd say they should go to jail.

just like these people should be tried for raising their weapons against their government.

We here in Benson AZ. have a whole bunch of people who wear their pistols on their hips when they go in to pay their eclectic and gas bill.
Then they go out on the range to do fence patrol.

Raising their weapons against a tyrannical government, is why we have the 2nd amendment in order to keep the rest of them.

 

[Sallow]

Considering that is actually private property given over for public use under a set of conditions, It appears you are comparing apples and circuit boards.

He is not anti-american, he opposes policies of the federal government. I remember a time when progressive such as yourself called that patriotic.

Hypocrites.

Yeah..Marty.

Clever.

The park is part of a public plaza and is maintained in part with public money.

But don't let those little facts get in your way.

And YES, he is ANTI-AMERICAN.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is an institution created by the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Part and parcel with that is the Justice Department. When you've had your day in court you are EXPECTED to abide by the decisions of the said court.

Bundy BROKE the law.

Doesn't that even matter to you?

No, it isn't. In NYC certain buildings get the air rights to build higher than a certain level in exchange for providing a public space on their own PRIVATE property, and maintaining it. \

Privately owned public space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Privately owned public spaces in New York City were introduced as a formal concept in a 1961 zoning resolution. The city offers zoning concessions to commercial and residential developers in exchange for a variety of spaces accessible and usable for the public.[2]

And Martin Luther King Jr broke tons of laws during his protest. Was he Anti-american as well?

First off..the part sits in a public plaza. The streets that surround it are also public.

Secondly..the First Amendment has no prohibition on peacefully protesting on private land.

Third? Martin Luther King didn't surround himself with gun nuts that put their wives and kids in front of Federal Officers. He did the jail time. And he wasn't protesting to secure private profit.

It's debasing to use his name and Bundy's in the same post.

 

[Sallow]

What if the electric company decided I only needed 25% of the kilowatts I wanted? What if the gas company decided to shut my gas off because of a turtle?

you take a gun to your electric and gas company?

if someone did that, you'd say they should go to jail.

just like these people should be tried for raising their weapons against their government.

We here in Benson AZ. have a whole bunch of people who wear their pistols on their hips when they go in to pay their eclectic and gas bill.
Then they go out on the range to do fence patrol.

Raising their weapons against a tyrannical government, is why we have the 2nd amendment in order to keep the rest of them.

Find that in the amendment.

Heck..find that in the entire constitution.

You won't.

In fact..the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to blast to smithereens, anyone who does that.

 

[peach174]

Okay, so I did some research, and came across a post in another forum



What do you think?

the land should not be owned by the feds period

Wrong Article of the Constitution to apply. Situation doesn't relate to a a fort, arsenal, the District of Colombia, etc. The Article that applies is Article 4, Sec. 3, Claus 2.
Now stop trying to give our real estate holding away.

Yes and it says congress has the power.
Not some top brass at the BLM Department who made a very wrong decision.

 

[Camp]

The people didn't decide. No law was passed. what happened is some unaccountable FEDERAL bureaucracy decided to screw him over, and FEDERAL judges agreed to the screwing.

Find other ways to save the tortoises and allow him to ranch as he wants to. But progressive like you are lazy, and go for the easy solution, ban this, restrict that, and fuck anyone who disagrees.

Last time I checked, we are a representative Republic. That means that WE THE PEOPLE voted for the administration that decided that land needed to be protected.

Know how Bundy can ranch without having the BLM involved? Buy his own fucking land to graze his moocher Welfare Queen cows on...or PAY THE VERY LOW, VERY REASONABLE FEE.

When the bureaucracy gets to the size it is now, there is no real representation. Representatives don't get involved, its up to FEDERAL bureaucracies and FEDERAL courts. There are too many people, such as yourself, complacent to let our government fuck over other people simply because you either don't care, or agree with the fucking over.

The land in the area that is privately owned has always had access to BLM land for uses such as this. Its part of the value of the property. If you change it, the government at a minimum should compensate the people losing its use. Especially over a fucking tortoise.

It isn't over the tortoise. They tortoise is symbolic and the key being used to protect and restore the natural environment of the area. Look at a map. The region is filling up with tourist type land use. The property in question is becoming less valuable as grazing land and more valuable as tourist affiliated uses. The BLM is taking the logical steps to bring the the maximum value of the property to the region and the people who reside in the region.

 

[Camp]

the land should not be owned by the feds period

Wrong Article of the Constitution to apply. Situation doesn't relate to a a fort, arsenal, the District of Colombia, etc. The Article that applies is Article 4, Sec. 3, Claus 2.
Now stop trying to give our real estate holding away.

Yes and it says congress has the power.
Not some top brass at the BLM Department who made a very wrong decision.

If Congress is not doing it's job, fix it. We have ways to fix these things. At the present time, Congress seems content with the job the BLM is doing, otherwise they would fix these perceived problems, right?

 

[martybegan]

Last time I checked, we are a representative Republic. That means that WE THE PEOPLE voted for the administration that decided that land needed to be protected.

Know how Bundy can ranch without having the BLM involved? Buy his own fucking land to graze his moocher Welfare Queen cows on...or PAY THE VERY LOW, VERY REASONABLE FEE.

When the bureaucracy gets to the size it is now, there is no real representation. Representatives don't get involved, its up to FEDERAL bureaucracies and FEDERAL courts. There are too many people, such as yourself, complacent to let our government fuck over other people simply because you either don't care, or agree with the fucking over.

The land in the area that is privately owned has always had access to BLM land for uses such as this. Its part of the value of the property. If you change it, the government at a minimum should compensate the people losing its use. Especially over a fucking tortoise.

It isn't over the tortoise. They tortoise is symbolic and the key being used to protect and restore the natural environment of the area. Look at a map. The region is filling up with tourist type land use. The property in question is becoming less valuable as grazing land and more valuable as tourist affiliated uses. The BLM is taking the logical steps to bring the the maximum value of the property to the region and the people who reside in the region.

And fuck the ranchers who have been able to use the land for decades.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong Article of the Constitution to apply. Situation doesn't relate to a a fort, arsenal, the District of Colombia, etc. The Article that applies is Article 4, Sec. 3, Claus 2.
Now stop trying to give our real estate holding away.

Yes and it says congress has the power.
Not some top brass at the BLM Department who made a very wrong decision.

If Congress is not doing it's job, fix it. We have ways to fix these things. At the present time, Congress seems content with the job the BLM is doing, otherwise they would fix these perceived problems, right?

The federal government has gotten to big for that to work. People will not vote out their congress-critters over single issue topics like this. This is why these things are best handled at the local level, so local people can decide if they are being represented fairly, and have an easier time of getting rid of people they don't want representing them anymore.

 

[peach174]

you take a gun to your electric and gas company?

if someone did that, you'd say they should go to jail.

just like these people should be tried for raising their weapons against their government.

We here in Benson AZ. have a whole bunch of people who wear their pistols on their hips when they go in to pay their eclectic and gas bill.
Then they go out on the range to do fence patrol.

Raising their weapons against a tyrannical government, is why we have the 2nd amendment in order to keep the rest of them.

Find that in the amendment.

Heck..find that in the entire constitution.

You won't.

In fact..the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to blast to smithereens, anyone who does that.

You have to fire the weapon first in order for them to do that and they didn't.
That is the whole point, and Feds backed down because of it.
Without them the Feds would have taken his cattle and would have killed them, instead they gave them back, but killed his prized bulls and orphaned 16 calf's.
The people at the BLM knew nothing about how to round up cattle and used helicopters.
The Feds don't know a thing about cattle and should never have done what they did.
If you knew our history and have read the founders letters and papers that is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment.
Many of them talked about why we should have an armed citizens because they knew that Governments can and will become tyrannical.
They knew because the Kings Government took away the colonists guns.

 

[Statistikhengst]

you take a gun to your electric and gas company?

if someone did that, you'd say they should go to jail.

just like these people should be tried for raising their weapons against their government.

We here in Benson AZ. have a whole bunch of people who wear their pistols on their hips when they go in to pay their eclectic and gas bill.
Then they go out on the range to do fence patrol.

Raising their weapons against a tyrannical government, is why we have the 2nd amendment in order to keep the rest of them.

Find that in the amendment.

Heck..find that in the entire constitution.

You won't.

In fact..the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to blast to smithereens, anyone who does that.

 

[Sallow]

We here in Benson AZ. have a whole bunch of people who wear their pistols on their hips when they go in to pay their eclectic and gas bill.
Then they go out on the range to do fence patrol.

Raising their weapons against a tyrannical government, is why we have the 2nd amendment in order to keep the rest of them.

Find that in the amendment.

Heck..find that in the entire constitution.

You won't.

In fact..the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to blast to smithereens, anyone who does that.

You have to fire the weapon first in order for them to do that and they didn't.
That is the whole point, and Feds backed down because of it.
Without them the Feds would have taken his cattle and would have killed them, instead they gave them back, but killed his prized bulls and orphaned 16 calf's.
The people at the BLM knew nothing about how to round up cattle and used helicopters.
The Feds don't know a thing about cattle and should never have done what they did.
If you knew our history and have read the founders letters and papers that is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment.
Many of them talked about why we should have an armed citizens because they knew that Governments can and will become tyrannical.
They knew because the Kings Government took away the colonists guns.

Wait what?

No you don't.

If you brandish assault rifles at Federal Agents? They can lawfully kill you.

Simple as that.

And I am quite familiar with my history. Some of the founders wrote some pretty outrageous things.

And those things? Never made it into the Constitution. And with good reason.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah..Marty.

Clever.

The park is part of a public plaza and is maintained in part with public money.

But don't let those little facts get in your way.

And YES, he is ANTI-AMERICAN.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is an institution created by the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Part and parcel with that is the Justice Department. When you've had your day in court you are EXPECTED to abide by the decisions of the said court.

Bundy BROKE the law.

Doesn't that even matter to you?

No, it isn't. In NYC certain buildings get the air rights to build higher than a certain level in exchange for providing a public space on their own PRIVATE property, and maintaining it. \

Privately owned public space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Privately owned public spaces in New York City were introduced as a formal concept in a 1961 zoning resolution. The city offers zoning concessions to commercial and residential developers in exchange for a variety of spaces accessible and usable for the public.[2]

And Martin Luther King Jr broke tons of laws during his protest. Was he Anti-american as well?

First off..the part sits in a public plaza. The streets that surround it are also public.

Secondly..the First Amendment has no prohibition on peacefully protesting on private land.

Third? Martin Luther King didn't surround himself with gun nuts that put their wives and kids in front of Federal Officers. He did the jail time. And he wasn't protesting to secure private profit.

It's debasing to use his name and Bundy's in the same post.

There is so much dumb in this post, its reached truthmatter's level dumb.

The plaza is not public land. it is private land made available for public use via an agreement allowing the property owners to build higher than X amount of stories. It is maintained either by the property owner, or in some cases an entity created by a bunch of local property owners to maintain all the public spaces in a given area.

Trespassing laws have a prohibition on ANY occupation of private land. The fact the area was a Publicly used Private Space complicated this, but in the end the private owner was legally able to remove the protesters by changing the rules of the park (which was also legal).

and I seem to have hit a nerve with the MLK reference, because you know the comparison rips your original statement to shreds, and all you have to respond with indignation.

Thanks for playing.

 

[martybegan]

Find that in the amendment.

Heck..find that in the entire constitution.

You won't.

In fact..the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to blast to smithereens, anyone who does that.

You have to fire the weapon first in order for them to do that and they didn't.
That is the whole point, and Feds backed down because of it.
Without them the Feds would have taken his cattle and would have killed them, instead they gave them back, but killed his prized bulls and orphaned 16 calf's.
The people at the BLM knew nothing about how to round up cattle and used helicopters.
The Feds don't know a thing about cattle and should never have done what they did.
If you knew our history and have read the founders letters and papers that is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment.
Many of them talked about why we should have an armed citizens because they knew that Governments can and will become tyrannical.
They knew because the Kings Government took away the colonists guns.

Wait what?

No you don't.

If you brandish assault rifles at Federal Agents? They can lawfully kill you.

Simple as that.

And I am quite familiar with my history. Some of the founders wrote some pretty outrageous things.

And those things? Never made it into the Constitution. And with good reason.

Define brandishing? In a state like Nevada carrying around a long rifle is not threatening in and of itself. Now if you aim the rifle at someone, that's different.

 

[martybegan]

We here in Benson AZ. have a whole bunch of people who wear their pistols on their hips when they go in to pay their eclectic and gas bill.
Then they go out on the range to do fence patrol.

Raising their weapons against a tyrannical government, is why we have the 2nd amendment in order to keep the rest of them.

Find that in the amendment.

Heck..find that in the entire constitution.

You won't.

In fact..the Constitution gives the power to the Federal Government to blast to smithereens, anyone who does that.

it must make you all warm and fuzzy supporting the concept that the federal government can crush dissent.

 

[editec]

I can definitely understand that some of us want a "shot heard round the world" event that sparks that revolution that some of you imagine will save our nation from socialism/fascism (choose one or both).

But THIS deadbeat is not the cause célèbre to spark a revolution over.

This clown is just deadbeat pretending to be a libertarian.