The Battle of Bunkerville: Restoring the Rule of Law

[theDoctorisIn]

I get it quite well, actually. You told me yourself. Besides, how is it right to give only 13% of a state to the people and 86% of it to the Government? If it were the state of Nevada's business Doc, then why are the Feds involved? I'm not questioning the fact he broke the law. I'm questioning the government's right to have all that land out there and denying the fair use of it to the people. It's time the government gave up some of that land to be settled upon, not be hoarded for an eternity. Just imagine how it would be if you only had 13% of your state to live in.

The government didn't "give" itself 86% of the state - in fact, they spent a hundred years trying to give it away. No one wanted it.

The government doesn't have a "right" to the land, they own it. We're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is. Whether or not you feel that it's fair to the state, that doesn't change the way things are - and feelings don't change the law.

I don't believe the US government should have thousands of troops and bases all over the world. You don't believe the US government should own 86% of Nevada. Neither of us gets what we want.

What we believe is entirely irrelevant. Only the law is relevant.

The government doesn't have a "right" to the land, they own it. We're not talking about what should be, we're talking about what is. Whether or not you feel that it's fair to the state, that doesn't change the way things are - and feelings don't change the law.

First of all, Doc, I cited case law, meaning I didn't use my feelings to debate this issue. Using feelings for arguments will lead anyone down a path of destruction, but I digress. Owning 86% of the state doesn't really make it a state, now does it? I see this as a 10th Amendment problem. You can't really say or do much when almost everything around you, including the ground you walk upon is owned by the government. Whatever happened to territorial sovereignty?

You cited laws that don't apply to the situation at all.

I think you're also missing a good part of the situation in Nevada as well. The land that BLM control is barren desert. No one lives on it, no one works on it (other than cattle ranchers). Rarely is anyone "walking upon" BLM land, unless they're having a party in the desert.

You may see it as a 10th Amendment issue, but apparently the state of Nevada doesn't, because they've never pursued getting control of that land. They don't seem to want it.

They've had 150 years to make the argument that you're making now. They haven't, so until they do, Cliven Bundy has no leg to stand on.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Those "faceless ghouls" in the page 1 photos are Federal agents assigned to tactical teams (obviously), and are almost certainly ex-military. The same people who praised and honored for enforcing laws in Baghdad, and doing the will of the United States in those countries.

But now we hate them for doing the same here?

And you see why I hate politics and partisan dipshits.

EVERYONE needs to fucking tone it down. There are some mentally loose cannons out there, and thank goodness the government was smart enough to avoid a conflict.

So are the Militia members and the Oathkeepers who were present. Except, we can actually prove they are veterans/ex-military.

One group keeps their Oaths, the other group breaks them.

Oathkeepers vs Oathbreakers, who will win?

 

[bucs90]

So the Feds have basically ignored that land forever, but now is enforcing it.


I wonder. If we tried to enforce the border that we have also ignored....and a mass of armed citizens showed up to stop the government's action.....would we demand that the Feds "do their job, enforce the law" or not?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Cliven Bundy has no leg to stand on.

The feds preparing to murder Americans for turtles have no leg to stand on. Let's try to keep everything in perspective.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Unless the government is planning a mass slaughter, the court orders are ineffective so long as there are people willing to fight them. You don't realize the situation this government is in. People have already had enough of heavy handed government tactics. If they so much as injure one person, kill someone else, or touch one cow, then they will be seen as tyrannical, on top of murderous.

You vastly over-estimate the extent that people are willing to "fight" for a shady cattle rancher in Nevada, and if anyone does something stupid enough that they get hurt by the feds, it will almost certainly be their own damn fault.

This idea that the federal government is actually trying to kill Bundy or the protestors is ludicrous, and the idea that there's any sort of significant political movement behind him is equally ludicrous.

Sure, call him shady, but is government not shady itself? And if they weren't trying to kill him, explain why they felt the need to have snipers trained on his residence? So far all he did was make a threat. He himself has carried out no violent action against the government. All threats are are words. With no real way to carry them out Bundy didn't deserve having a militaristic operation carried out against him, now did he?

Actually, you vastly underestimate the extent to which people hate the government, Doc. If anything, the government brings this stuff on itself.

Of course the government is shady - but if they were trying to kill him, they would have. Bundy didn't have a "military operation" carried out against him - "military operations" tend to have body counts. It's not about "deserving" or not, it's about the situation, and the rhetoric that Bundy was using.

The response came because of his rhetoric - not to kill him and his supporters, but to make sure they didn't kill any federal officers.

And as to the other part - I don't think I do. It may be true that many people hate the government, but very few of them hate the government to any real extent.

Most are comfortable being keyboard warriors.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Of course the government is shady - and if they were trying to kill him, they would have.

They would have if the Militias weren't' there with an array of live footage.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Cliven Bundy has no leg to stand on.

The feds preparing to murder Americans for turtles have no leg to stand on. Let's try to keep everything in perspective.

"Perspective."

 

[bucs90]

Those "faceless ghouls" in the page 1 photos are Federal agents assigned to tactical teams (obviously), and are almost certainly ex-military. The same people who praised and honored for enforcing laws in Baghdad, and doing the will of the United States in those countries.

But now we hate them for doing the same here?

And you see why I hate politics and partisan dipshits.

EVERYONE needs to fucking tone it down. There are some mentally loose cannons out there, and thank goodness the government was smart enough to avoid a conflict.

So are the Militia members and the Oathkeepers who were present. Except, we can actually prove they are veterans/ex-military.

One group keeps their Oaths, the other group breaks them.

Oathkeepers vs Oathbreakers, who will win?

Which makes it all the stupider and sadder. Men who may have once fought alongside each other overseas, now aim guns at each other in Nevada.


My question is, DID the cattle farmer break a law? Just like we demand Obama enforce immigration laws.......if he broke a law, he broke a law. And Oathkeepers also know that the law is the law.

If ICE agents showed up to do an immigration raid, and 1,000 armed pro-immigration folks showed up, would we demand ICE do their job? Would it be "Oathbreaking" if they DID enforce the law?

That's the problem. As stupid as the law may be, its a law, and we are a civil, law abiding nation.

What if the National Guard was activated? Same guys we heralded for fighting in Iraq?

I hate a lot of laws. But, when the guys show up to enforce them, I don't take up arms against them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Of course the government is shady - and if they were trying to kill him, they would have.

They would have if the Militias weren't' there with an array of live footage.

Why would the government being trying to kill Cliven Bundy?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So the Feds have basically ignored that land forever, but now is enforcing it.


I wonder. If we tried to enforce the border that we have also ignored....and a mass of armed citizens showed up to stop the government's action.....would we demand that the Feds "do their job, enforce the law" or not?

The Federal Government is authorized by Article IV, Section 4, to defend the borders. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection. The Militia would then be obliged to obey to enforce the Laws of the Union and put down the Insurrection.

Powers of Congress:

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

Bear in mind that Congress must first declare it an act of Insurrection (The Congress of the People) before the Militia is obliged (duty-bound) to suppress them. And if an Insurrection occurs, no department or organization, even the US Armed Forces or DHS, are authorized to quell the Insurrection. Only a Militia of the People, by the People, and for the People, summoned by the Congress of the People, under the Leadership of the President of the People, are authorized to suppress other People of the United States who are in rebellion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So the Feds have basically ignored that land forever, but now is enforcing it.


I wonder. If we tried to enforce the border that we have also ignored....and a mass of armed citizens showed up to stop the government's action.....would we demand that the Feds "do their job, enforce the law" or not?

The Federal Government is authorized by Article IV, Section 4, to defend the borders. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection. The Militia would then be obliged to obey to enforce the Laws of the Union and put down the Insurrection.

..and it's authorized by Article IV, Section 3 to regulate and dispose of federal property as it wishes. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Of course the government is shady - and if they were trying to kill him, they would have.

They would have if the Militias weren't' there with an array of live footage.

Why would the government being trying to kill Cliven Bundy?

For turtles or grazing fees or both. Why don't you ask them? They were there in full military gear tazering and abusing Citizens of the United States.

 

[joejonbob]

Those "faceless ghouls" in the page 1 photos are Federal agents assigned to tactical teams (obviously), and are almost certainly ex-military. The same people who praised and honored for enforcing laws in Baghdad, and doing the will of the United States in those countries.

But now we hate them for doing the same here?

And you see why I hate politics and partisan dipshits.

EVERYONE needs to fucking tone it down. There are some mentally loose cannons out there, and thank goodness the government was smart enough to avoid a conflict.

The government escalated the situation by putting these goons there in the first place.

Why would you put an army there if you weren't willing to fight a war.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So the Feds have basically ignored that land forever, but now is enforcing it.


I wonder. If we tried to enforce the border that we have also ignored....and a mass of armed citizens showed up to stop the government's action.....would we demand that the Feds "do their job, enforce the law" or not?

The Federal Government is authorized by Article IV, Section 4, to defend the borders. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection. The Militia would then be obliged to obey to enforce the Laws of the Union and put down the Insurrection.

..and it's authorized by Article IV, Section 3 to regulate and dispose of federal property as it wishes. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection....

it is common knowledge that Article IV, Section 3 does not apply to US territories within State boundaries. And even if did, these regulations must be passed by Congress, not some unelected bureaucrat hand picked by Harry Reid, nor any President or Officer of the Executive Branch under the guise of an "Executive Order."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They would have if the Militias weren't' there with an array of live footage.

Why would the government being trying to kill Cliven Bundy?

For turtles or grazing fees or both. Why don't you ask them?

If I asked them, I think it's likely that they'd say the same thing as I have: that they're not trying to kill him at all.

You seem to be the only one who thinks the federal government wants Bundy dead, yet you can't seem to explain why they would.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It may be true that many people hate the government, but very few of them hate the government to any real extent.

I hope you just heard yourself right now, Doc. Government is extremely unpopular.

Public Trust in Government: 1958-2013 | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[jon_berzerk]

They would have if the Militias weren't' there with an array of live footage.

Why would the government being trying to kill Cliven Bundy?

For turtles or grazing fees or both. Why don't you ask them? They were there in full military gear tazering and abusing Citizens of the United States.

They were there in full military gear

but they are far from professional

check out the dudes barrel who is crouched behind the shield --LOL

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You seem to be the only one who thinks the federal government wants Bundy dead, yet you can't seem to explain why they would.

The "only one" ???

What a propaganda artist. There are millions who KNOW that the federal government wants him dead.

Why were they there in full military gear BEFORE the Militias arrived?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Federal Government is authorized by Article IV, Section 4, to defend the borders. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection. The Militia would then be obliged to obey to enforce the Laws of the Union and put down the Insurrection.

..and it's authorized by Article IV, Section 3 to regulate and dispose of federal property as it wishes. Armed citizens attempting to stop it would be in a state of Insurrection....

it is common knowledge that Article IV, Section 3 does not apply to US territories within State boundaries. And even if did, these regulations must be passed by Congress, not some unelected bureaucrat hand picked by Harry Reid, nor any President or Officer of the Executive Branch under the guise of an "Executive Order."

It is most certainly not "common knowledge" - in fact, there's absolutely no legal precedent that backs up your interpretation.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

They were there in full military gear

but they are far from professional

check out the dudes barrel who is crouched behind the shield --LOL

I wouldn't doubt if they hired them straight out of prison if they swore to mow down Americans.

Also, what emblem is that?