Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[peach174]

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.

Not when you out number the Feds.
Armed Feds 200 armed militias 600
The protesters were being abused before the Militia's showed up.

OWS's got pepper sprayed.
Bundy protesters were tazered and throwen to the ground and were told where they could protest in a little fenced off area. When have we ever had an area that says 1st amendment area? Never till now.

This is not just about Bundy.
This is about the BLM who is out of control.
Now they are in Texas trying to take away a Ranchers private property of which he has paid his taxes. With the bogus excuse that the red river has shifted so they have the rights to it.
BLM is out to try and get as much property as it can.
This is the exact opposite of what our Government is suppose to be.
They are suppose to be for the people, not for themselves.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The fee isn't the issue oh Obtuse one. The issue is the rule where he has to get rid of all his cows. The feds took all the land so there's none to buy. The rancher's only choice is to move off his ancestor's land to a state like TX where the state is willing to fight the BLM.

 

[martybegan]

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

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

 

[martybegan]

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.

Some of us don't want the shot heard round the world. What we want is people to recognize that we have allowed the federal government to exceed its mandate.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

Where did he say he was against the consitution? Why are you such a liar? Where is the the insurrection? You think not paying grazing fees as the government tries to run you out of business is an insurrection? What are you daft?

 

[koshergrl]

Besides which, Bundy never threatened anybody with a weapon at all. His fb page was begging people to come unarmed.

But that won't stop idiots like seawytch from circulating the lie. Because the objective is to justify murder.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't hate America, but I do hate the President.

I don't hate all libtards, but I would like to slap a few.

I don't hate the Consitution, but I do hate the 14th due process clause, and a few other post civil war amendments.

 

[koshergrl]

From the Bundy ranch fb page (posted by his son):

"o here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.

Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.

Thank you,
Ammon Bundy"

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch

 

[Sallow]

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

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

1. Yes. It did.

2. The Declaration was a specific and one shot deal. No legislation is derived from it or tested against it.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol.

 

[bodecea]

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.

The fee isn't the issue oh Obtuse one. The issue is the rule where he has to get rid of all his cows. The feds took all the land so there's none to buy. The rancher's only choice is to move off his ancestor's land to a state like TX where the state is willing to fight the BLM.

It most certainly is.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. That's the difference between you and me: when you are losing an argument, you decide to try to attach an emotion to a person to give him a negative "look".

But it doesn't work with me. I argue the points.

What [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] wrote is actually quite correct. The US Constitution does allow the Federal Goverment to quell rebellions:





Right there, in the US Constitution.


Why are you so against the US Constitution?

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

1. Yes. It did.

2. The Declaration was a specific and one shot deal. No legislation is derived from it or tested against it.

It describes a concept of the Rights of people. That they have the RIGHT to revolt if a government is unjust. It doesn't matter if no legislation came from it.

Where in the document does it say this is a one shot deal?

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

I don't see a limit to just the British Empire here, or of them talking about a certain time frame.

 

[Mertex]

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.

And it gives you great pleasure for an individual to dis the Constitution and stick it to the rest of us....genuis!

 

[martybegan]

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

And it gives you great pleasure for an individual to dis the Constitution and stick it to the rest of us....genuis!

Where is the BLM listed in the constitution?

 

[Mertex]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But the Government isn't being destructive....just wanting to be fair to everyone...everyone that can, pays taxes, so why should this deadbeat get special treatment? Because he's rich? Oh, I forgot about that...

 

[Sallow]

did what happened out in Nevada reach the level of an insurrection?

And guess what? if the government ever does become so onerous that revolt is necessary, then we write a new one. (Or we restore the old one, what we have now isn't the constitution.)

The Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to revolt against an unresponsive and onerous government. Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence.

(two can play at this game)

1. Yes. It did.

2. The Declaration was a specific and one shot deal. No legislation is derived from it or tested against it.

It describes a concept of the Rights of people. That they have the RIGHT to revolt if a government is unjust. It doesn't matter if no legislation came from it.

Where in the document does it say this is a one shot deal?

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

I don't see a limit to just the British Empire here, or of them talking about a certain time frame.

Um..

-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Additionally..this "right to revolt" didn't carry over into the Constitution of the United States.

 

[martybegan]

1. Yes. It did.

2. The Declaration was a specific and one shot deal. No legislation is derived from it or tested against it.

It describes a concept of the Rights of people. That they have the RIGHT to revolt if a government is unjust. It doesn't matter if no legislation came from it.

Where in the document does it say this is a one shot deal?



I don't see a limit to just the British Empire here, or of them talking about a certain time frame.

Um..

-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Additionally..this "right to revolt" didn't carry over into the Constitution of the United States.

yes. The document goes on to the specific case of the colonies against the British Empire, but that does not negate the initial sentiment that the people reserve the right to remove a government that has become unjust.

The right to revolt is not created by a document, it is an inherent right, described in the declaration. The key is to win your revolt. At that point an offending government is removed, and their reliance on the tools and laws of their oppression are rendered moot.

 

[Sallow]

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

And it gives you great pleasure for an individual to dis the Constitution and stick it to the rest of us....genuis!

Where is the BLM listed in the constitution?

Here:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[martybegan]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But the Government isn't being destructive....just wanting to be fair to everyone...everyone that can, pays taxes, so why should this deadbeat get special treatment? Because he's rich? Oh, I forgot about that...

What Bundy is doing isn't a revolt. Its civil disobedience, you know the protest form lauded by progressives when MLK and all the hippies did it. There has been no violence or refusal to recognize all government input into his situation, his dispute is with the BLM.

And by the nature of the argument, the government is not trying to be "fair" to everyone. Its sure as hell not being fair to Bundy or the other ranchers.