Range War

[woodchip]

So it appears the rancher Mt Bundy and friends stared down the federales and the feds blinked. I guess because the cowboys had arms and the feds were all too exposed that someone had brains enough to call it off. Heck I bet the powers that be didn't want our govt to look like Egypt or Syria. At any rate the Desert Tortise is now safe even though the cattle could have kept roaming there if rental monies were paid. Thankfully no blood was shed even though it looks like the ranchers own senator might of wanted it. Chinese solar companies Si!, Cows No!

[Will Robinson]

going into an election with all the 'big government baggage' the current crop is carrying it is likely they realized a massacre in the desert would have boosted Tea Party ranks and campaign donations to scary levels so someone gave the order to stand down. At least no one died from the order this time...

[callmeslick]

what welfare....other pay grazing fees and that weasel didn't think he owed them? They should have confiscated his entire ranch. A terrible precedent, actually, if they don't, because you allow mobs of idiot thugs to rule the day. Sort of like the Ukraine, actually. BLM should have mowed them down.

[callmeslick]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/1 ... ap=%5B%5D#

a real American, not some right-wing crazy wannabe.

[woodchip]

So why are the feds even involved in owning range land?:

" Under the Constitution, the only land the United States was supposed to hold for the long term was to run "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".

Doesn't much sound like range land to me.

[woodchip]

BLM should have mowed them down.

This from the guy who can only think to hide when trouble happens and not help. Bet you would of enjoyed the pictures of dead children being held by their equally dead mothers after they were "mowed down". What a man. It's people like you slick that really scare me.

[CUDA]

BLM should have mowed them down.

YA thats exactly what we needed. Another Ruby ridge / Waco.

those are the kind of things that have lead to this standoff.

stupid comment slick.

[Will Robinson]

what welfare....other pay grazing fees and that weasel didn't think he owed them? They should have confiscated his entire ranch. A terrible precedent, actually, if they don't, because you allow mobs of idiot thugs to rule the day. Sort of like the Ukraine, actually. BLM should have mowed them down.

Thats all well and good if you apply your respect for the law equally.
Under your stated support for following the law and not setting bad precedent there are a number of hot button issues you are in complete disagreement with yourself though. So it's hard to respect your opinion on 'following the law' based on principle!

A great number of your favorite political leaders would be in jail and illegal immigration would be...well...actually illegal under your sudden loyalty to the law and resistance to setting bad precedence!
So your contradiction makes it much more believable that you are selectively citing law as it suits you in a partisan political way rather than you genuinely having any kind of principled stance on the matter.

[callmeslick]

So why are the feds even involved in owning range land?:

" Under the Constitution, the only land the United States was supposed to hold for the long term was to run "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".

Doesn't much sound like range land to me.

ever heard of the National Park System? That doesn't sound like any of those, either. The Federal government owns, and has the right to own, millions of acres managed for the public good(hence the Bureau of Land MANAGEMENT). Tons of ranchers can use some of those lands for grazing, and do, for a minimal fee, thus not requiring that they actually purchase grazing land. It is good governance of the nation.
Further, as Federal supremacy was established around 1850, there is no debate of state vs feds here, let along some solitary cheapskate unwilling to follow simple rules.

[callmeslick]

A great number of your favorite political leaders would be in jail and illegal immigration would be...well...actually illegal under your sudden loyalty to the law and resistance to setting bad precedence!
So your contradiction makes it much more believable that you are selectively citing law as it suits you in a partisan political way rather than you genuinely having any kind of principled stance on the matter.

utter nonsense. That goes in all circumstances. Suffice it to say, immigration is sort of a grey area, as there really are only regulations. The back history of immigration into this nation would have ALL been 'illegal' by your definition. Hell, you didn't have to be a citzen to vote circa 1880!! It's just that this is another case of the right wing attempting mob rule when they can't get enough votes to effect their own agenda. We've had public lands for over 125 years, we have a pretty damned good utilization of those lands, managed pretty well(perfect? No, but pretty good). Why celebrate a complete jerk and worse still, an armed mob of ideological zealots in this nation? What purpose is served?

[Will Robinson]

A great number of your favorite political leaders would be in jail and illegal immigration would be...well...actually illegal under your sudden loyalty to the law and resistance to setting bad precedence!
So your contradiction makes it much more believable that you are selectively citing law as it suits you in a partisan political way rather than you genuinely having any kind of principled stance on the matter.

utter nonsense. That goes in all circumstances. Suffice it to say, immigration is sort of a grey area, as there really are only regulations. The back history of immigration into this nation would have ALL been 'illegal' by your definition. Hell, you didn't have to be a citzen to vote circa 1880!! It's just that this is another case of the right wing attempting mob rule when they can't get enough votes to effect their own agenda. We've had public lands for over 125 years, we have a pretty damned good utilization of those lands, managed pretty well(perfect? No, but pretty good). Why celebrate a complete jerk and worse still, an armed mob of ideological zealots in this nation? What purpose is served?

What a typical bowel movement from slick...steaming pile of equivocation!

[Tunnelcat]

So why are the feds even involved in owning range land?:

" Under the Constitution, the only land the United States was supposed to hold for the long term was to run "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".

Doesn't much sound like range land to me.

This one is really pissing me off! Ya know, the Feds don't OWN the land, it's the US CITIZEN who owns the land. You've been listening to the FOX propaganda channel waaaaaay too much. That land not there for the express purpose of freeloading ranchers that send out their cows to trample, pollute and destroy our wild land heritage on our dime. I doubt this rancher even monitors what his stupid cows do on that land. He probably just lets them out to do what cows do, eat, poop, trample stream beds and denude the land. That's why ranchers pay grazing fees, so that the government can have the FUNDS to make sure the land is monitored, kept pristine, unaltered and as natural as possible for EVERYONE ELSE'S use, not just this bastard's. What he's doing is using OUR land as he sees fit and not paying for the maintenance or for the protection of that land. That land is our national heritage, not some blank land that exists solely for his pleasure and use. It has to maintained by someone so that ALL OF US have equal access and no one is allowed to abuse it! That's also why the BLM manages National Parks as well, so greedy jerks like him don't trash things for everyone else. With assholes like these nutcases with guns in Nevada, I can see why BLM rangers are armed!

http://www.blm.gov/or/faq/index.php

I think this anti-government movement has gone too far. It's gone well into sedition land. I think this rancher should either pay up, or remove his damned cows and let some other rancher who's willing to pay the grazing fees use the land. As a taxpayer who ALSO has the right to use that land, he can GO TO HELL. As a taxpayer getting screwed by this guy, I would stand right beside those beleaguered BLM cops, armed myself if necessary, and I would have no compunction about shooting those military wannabe seditionists lying on that bridge like little fake soldiers. In fact, it's time for pissed off people all over to stand up for the rights of the national commons to be maintained for ALL OF US, not just the ONE, greedy individual or the corporations.

[Will Robinson]

Hey TC, where was your ready-to-go -shoot -the-bad-guy-on-"our"- land when it was going on down in Arizona?
Have some consistency if you want credibility....or demand the BLM do so.
Why not just have them put up some of those signs telling you and all your fellow citizens to avoid these dangerous cow infested acres!
You know, like they did in Arizona

Heh! Maybe he should just lease the ranch and the business to some illegal immigrants so the government will ignore it!

[callmeslick]

Hey TC, where was your ready-to-go -shoot -the-bad-guy-on-"our"- land when it was going on down in Arizona?

because, once again, it was self-appointed vigilantes. We are more civilized, or one would hope.

Heh! Maybe he should just lease the ranch and the business to some illegal immigrants so the government will ignore it!

.....because, they tend to pay their fair taxes, and then some.

[Will Robinson]

Hey TC, where was your ready-to-go -shoot -the-bad-guy-on-"our"- land when it was going on down in Arizona?

because, once again, it was self-appointed vigilantes. We are more civilized, or one would hope.

Heh! Maybe he should just lease the ranch and the business to some illegal immigrants so the government will ignore it!

.....because, they tend to pay their fair taxes, and then some.

You are such a predictable demo-sycophant! You don't even read the content you just assume you know it all.
If you had bothered to resist your knee-jerk desire to respond with a democrat talking point you would realize your answer doesn't apply to the Drug smugglers shooting at American law enforcement personnel.

Lol, what a tool!

[callmeslick]

Hey TC, where was your ready-to-go -shoot -the-bad-guy-on-"our"- land when it was going on down in Arizona?

because, once again, it was self-appointed vigilantes. We are more civilized, or one would hope.

Heh! Maybe he should just lease the ranch and the business to some illegal immigrants so the government will ignore it!

.....because, they tend to pay their fair taxes, and then some.

You are such a predictable demo-sycophant! You don't even read the content you just assume you know it all.
If you had bothered to resist your knee-jerk desire to respond with a democrat talking point you would realize your answer doesn't apply to the Drug smugglers shooting at American law enforcement personnel.

Lol, what a tool!

Oh, my bad, and what does the smuggler example show us, again?

[Will Robinson]

Try actually reading TC's comments from start to finish...then mine....including the link...resist your training to fit everything through the left wing talking point template and use those mad skills for nuance you profess to have. Watch for key subject matter references like "BLM" or "signs" now process it in the context of what was actually said instead of what you incorrectly assume is implied... you'll figure it out.

[Tunnelcat]

Hey TC, where was your ready-to-go -shoot -the-bad-guy-on-"our"- land when it was going on down in Arizona?
Have some consistency if you want credibility....or demand the BLM do so.
Why not just have them put up some of those signs telling you and all your fellow citizens to avoid these dangerous cow infested acres!
You know, like they did in Arizona

Heh! Maybe he should just lease the ranch and the business to some illegal immigrants so the government will ignore it!

OK, why doesn't that damn dog and pony show playing in Nevada right now pick up their little automatic pop guns, quit aiming them at Americans trying to do their JOB? They can stay dressed in their fancy white supremacist cammo suits and sun glasses and head on down to the stupid border and shoot those Mexican smugglers and make the border lands safe for the rest of us to play in, hmmmmmmm? It'd would be a hell of a lot better to shoot them instead of some American BLM cops who probably have their own families and kids. Stupid, stupid morons. Americans killing Americans over land we ALL own, all over laws some don't want to follow because it violates their "liberty". Jaysus!

If you've got a better solution for our border security, other than line it with American troops armed to the teeth standing side by side like an armed wall or invading Mexico and killing all those bad people who keep desecrating our lands, I'm all ears. Plus, you'd need the budget to do all that too. Dollars to donuts Republicans in Congress wouldn't even pay for THAT, damn hypocrites.

And it doesn't change my mind. That damn rancher wants the liberty to steal from taxpayers and use public lands to enrich himself, not the people of this country that actually OWN the land. He can go royally f**k himself. Better yet, why doesn't he move to Mexico, where there are no land laws, or police to enforce them, then he'd be able to abuse all the land he wants, make a fat profit, take his little armed contingent with him and shoot Mexican smugglers and immigrants to protect himself. It'd be a win, win for all of us.

[Will Robinson]

...
OK, why doesn't that damn dog and pony show playing in Nevada right now pick up their little automatic pop guns, quit aiming them at Americans trying to do their JOB? They can stay dressed in their fancy white supremacist cammo suits and sun glasses and head on down to the stupid border and shoot those Mexican smugglers and make the border lands safe for the rest of us to play in, hmmmmmmm?

First off, I don't know anything about those guys, neither the rancher nor the camo and sunglasses bunch. Might be all wrong...might be alright...

That aside, since my focus was on what I do know about:
Your reaction and slicks and all the other left wing suddenly-sanctimonious defenders of the law jumping on the 'law-is-the-law'...'sets a bad precedence'...bullcrapbandwagon.

So to answer that first question...They shouldn't go down there to shoot back at the smugglers because:
a/ the federal government should do that instead of ignoring it other than to put up signs telling us to stay away...
b/ I'm thinking if these guys went down there they would be the group the Fed had enough contempt for to create that 'americans-shooting-americans' situation you want to avoid!!

...

If you've got a better solution for our border security, other than line it with American troops armed to the teeth standing side by side like an armed wall or invading Mexico and killing all those bad people who keep desecrating our lands, I'm all ears. Plus, you'd need the budget to do all that too. Dollars to donuts Republicans in Congress wouldn't even pay for THAT, damn hypocrites.

More selective outrage and hypocrisy on your part here. You like the armed troops surrounding the rancher, you wanted to go join them and shoot some yourself...

For the better solution lets start with some of that consistency I asked for? If the Fed wants to shoot at people on taxpayer land who don't belong there my thought is start with the trespassers who smuggle drugs and shoot at cops on sight, who are not even citizens and are not obviously posturing for public sympathy trying to get peaceful relief from the government!
Outright murderous invaders instead of a rancher who has issues with the Fed walking over State authority to pump up their chest and make him submit. He might be all wrong and an asshat to boot but he's our asshat and all he is doing is feeding his cows on grass he thinks he has a right to use.

If your laughable assertion about budgets is somehow true how about setting priorities to reflect the severity of the offense. On one hand a guy who lets his cows eat grass on the wrong side of the fence...on the other hand an invasion of a foreign cartel's killers and smugglers. if you are only going to be able to afford one or the other what should it be? Your call.

After all they found the budget to swarm the rancher in spite of those rascally republicans....

[Tunnelcat]

First off, Americans shooting Americans is just plain stupid. What's this country coming to when our own citizens are willing to point guns at other Americans enforcing the law. You don't like the law, vote in people to get it changed. Laws are not changed at the end of a gun. That's anarchy.

Second, rancher Bundy is nothing but a freeloader who's stirring up a revolution just so's he can graze his stupid cows for free on our dime and ruin land that he doesn't own while doing it. Tough titties, that's the facts ma'am.

Third, you're right that the present government leadership has a warped sense of priorities concerning our border with Mexico and should be focusing on solving the problem there instead of just posting stupid signs telling people to keep out and then look the other way as a solution. It's even more warped when we're spending boatloads of our taxpayer money on a foreign land by sending military personnel and equipment to Africa instead of protecting and cleaning up our own criminal infested border. If you want change, start protesting against THAT policy instead of taking your guns and aiming them at other American citizens doing their jobs. For the record, it stinks and Obama should be ashamed.

Fourth, the BLM rangers were outnumbered by protesters and THEY backed down. The protestors were not being swarmed. The BLM rangers were the ones being swarmed. I'll have to hand it to them for having restraint and not firing on people with bullets or unleashing the dogs.

[youtube]LhJ6H9vlEDA[/youtube]

[callmeslick]

worth noting, those 'stupid signs' in Arizona were a response to more armed mobs of stupid people trying to play vigilante, as I tried to point out
above. We're gotten to a point in this nation, as TC notes, where some folks think it to be just fine that mobs of idiots point guns at other citizens who are merely trying to uphold the law.

[Spidey]

Mow em down...

[callmeslick]

yup, that's what I said.........maybe the next group of complete jerks with guns won't try and instigate violence against officers of the law.

[flip]

I said I wasn't going to do this anymore!

This kind of rebellion is exactly what those who want to enslave people need.

EDIT: The officers backing down probably saved us from another huge National Incident, but the ranchers must be held accountable for this.

[flip]

While I agree that Sheriff's are the highest level of Constitutional law enforcement, "Former Sheriff Mack" should be arrested for inciting.

[Spidey]

So if someone is attempting to instigate violence, the proper response is…violence…

That must be some of that thar progressive thinking.

[Tunnelcat]

Mow em down...

Mow down Americans, or mow down Mexican immigrants and criminal smugglers?

[Spidey]

You would have to ask slick, those were his words.

[flip]

I'm not sure who you were responding to Spidey.

EDIT: NM, I see. Slick, who says he respects the law, actually thinks exactly the same way as the rancher but from the other side of the coin.

[vision]

EDIT: NM, I see. Slick, who says he respects the law, actually thinks exactly the same way as the rancher but from the other side of the coin.

Except you are wrongly assuming the other side of the coin is an equally valid perspective. It is not. The ranchers are breaking the law. Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant to the fact we have laws and they are enforced, sometimes, and unfortunately, under threat of violence.

Imagine any criminal. Let's say the criminal robbed a bank. The criminal knew they robbed a bank. When cornered and up against armed law enforcement, this criminal decided to threaten violence with a firearm. What do you think the expected outcome will be? Ideally the criminal would be disarmed and taken into custody unharmed, but if this situation ended up fatally for the criminal would you say the enforcement agency was wrong to uphold the law?

In the case of these ranchers, they are breaking the law and have enough accomplices to outnumber law enforcement. This is nothing more than organized crime and all persons involved should be arrested and tried. If they don't agree with the law, band together legally and go through the proper channel to change it. However, it seems they want to live by the sword. Well, they are also free to die by the sword, but this doesn't contribute to progress and equality.

[Will Robinson]

If the ranchers are wrong them by all means prosecute...
But if the ranchers are wrong for making gestures of possibly shooting at law enforcement then slicks hypocrisy is a deep puddle of poo! We have dead Americans at the hands of mexical cartel invaders. Not gestures of possibly shooting at our cops....we have numerous shootings and truly dead cops in the border regions!

The State of Arizona begged for federal man power to stop the invaders, the Obama administration decided slicks interpretation was correct, they are mere regulations not immigration law...not border security laws....not a sovereignty question. So they posted signs as a response to Arizonas request. Complete partisan non enforcement of immigration/border law for re-election purposes, specifically the huge Latino voting block that swings heavily in favor of Democrats. To the Dems law is the law unless it is a campaign issue....
Which means we are currently governed as a people subject to rule by the Party, for the Party.
It's no wonder some people see the Fed as an outside entity instead of as a representation of the people's will!

Slicks equivocating and rationalization to separate the two examples by suggesting the rancher broke laws but the cartels killers are just breaking regulations is a sick twisted corruption of what America once was.

[flip]

reconsidered

[flip]

reconsidered

[flip]

Under the Founders design, the states were to control their own land, unless, and until, the federal government purchased a particular piece of land, with the consent of the state legislature, for a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, etc.

As Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 states, Congress has the power:

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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Maybe I was wrong, the rancher does have a case.

If the State of Nevada told him to move, then he has no case, but the BLM has no Constitutional authority to enforce Federal Law here.

[Spidey]

From what I have read on this issue…Nevada sounds more like a territory than a state.

The rancher definitely should be paying fees to use the land…but the question is to whom.

There is definitely an issue here that should be explained to the people…and not by internet knowitalls.

[callmeslick]

A few facts:
1. The land is Federal Land, legally belonging to all of us. It is managed by the BLM
2. There are no group of 'ranchers' taking Bundy's position. Most ranchers view him as an a-hole and freeloader.
3. The state of Nevada has NO say over the process.
4. Bundy's case was adjudicated(with him losing) in something like 6 different courts, prior to the Feds determining to go
forward and remove the illegally grazing cattle. Bundy doesn't have that much by way of assets beyond the cattle, so
those who might suggest merely going after his bank accounts don't allow for that bit of financial breakdown.

The people who were MOST in the wrong here were the armed jerks who chose to 'support' Bundy, by threatening BLM officers, and
as many have noted, I (semi-tongue in cheek) suggested mowing them down by way of showing them a lesson. Why so harsh, Slick?
Because I think it's high time we got past drunken idiots with guns talking tough over a six-pack about taking on the government, and
especially bearing arms to attack the government, and let them find out EXACTLY what that little project entails. Perhaps, folks would
show a bit more restraint and sense the NEXT time. MOW THEM DOWN.

[flip]

From what I've read, there were another 50 or so Ranchers that have been run out of town. I agree that he should have been paying fees. The Governor and the Sheriff from there have both said that it is unconstitutional but have abstained beyond that, and a Texas Senator has said:

“Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”

He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman's]


“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out because I definitely advocate for a reversal of the Federal Government getting too big for their britches, but I can't help but think all this could have been avoided if the ranchers would have just paid the fees.

[Will Robinson]

Hey slick, that's great, get all tough with 'drunks talking tough' but that part about cartel smugglers who actually shot at our law enforcement personnel and the locals asked for help....you said that was different because those were 'regulations not respected but not laws being broken'....

What's up with your ridiculous interpretation of 'law' in that case? Why did you try so hard to make excuses for the blatant refusal by the Feds to send agents after those guys too?!?
Lol

[Nightshade]

[callmeslick]

I know it was meant to be funny, TB, but there might indeed be a grain of truth that a bunch of Tea Party types with guns is FAR more dangerous to American life than a handful of Muslim terrorists.