BLM vs. Nevada Rancher

Technically youre correct and most posters would agree with that to a point. The biggest issue most have with BLM is the 200 heavily armed men, snipers, killing of bulls, destruction of improvements he made on the land........ The fact that the government was going to kill these tortoises themselves a few years ago, the shady deal with the Reids and the Chinese...... Need i go on?

Same thing as David Koresh... If the Feds wanted to remedy the situation, they could have picked up Bundy while he was in town, on his own. Instead they decide to make a military style action out of it and it goes bad.


ETA: I don't know who is right and who is wrong, all I know is that there is a shite ton of grey area in regards to the situation.

quote:

---

violating the law

---

Did Congress pass this Law? Or is it more of the "pen and phone" lawmaking? Enforce the Laws that the Administration approves of...and ignore the lawful mandates of the ones they don't like.

This kind of Governmental overreach - bordering on tyranny - is exactly what the sabre rattling out there is all about. Reid knows this; and he also knows - as does Obama/Holder/Progs - that such open revolt against THEIR GOVERNMENTAL ABUSE can not be allowed. Less such become a viable future option to their Authoritarian Statist hegemony.

Will be interesting to see how they handle it. Reid et al would love to spray blood on the ground for such atrocious disrespect for THEIR Governmental power. Of course, they also know that if blood were on the ground...MILLIONS would pick up arms and force a showdown. One which the Government would lose. That's why they backed off.

No need to pull a *Saddam*, and jump the shark before gaining total control. In just a matter of years, the *Beast* (Biblically prophesied World Government) will have economic control over "spreading the wealth around", healthcare, subsidies and all other manner of essential goods and services. And anybody that don't take (The) "number, and worship the Beast"...won't be able to buy and sell"...and will be effectively 'neutralized'. Game, set...match. Until that grandiose misadventure implodes.

What a scene!

sorry for the edit, I should read this stuff before posting. But then, I might not post it.

This is a complex issue and because of that most people fail to see the symbolic significance the Bundy stand has taken on.

- There is a Constitutional question on whether owning those vast sums of land is part of the enumerated powers of the federal government. I would argue it is not, especially for the sole purpose of endangered species. No where is that power given in the Constitution. This is Bundy's entire argument and why he chose to pay the grazing fees to Clark Co. Nevada.

- There is the issue of enforcement. I think most agree the government went way overboard. Terrifyingly so IMO.

- There is the issue of the government using strongarm tactics to rid the ranchers of the area. They decided they wanted to get rid of them and used the Endangered Species Act to do it, even though the reason they wish to get rid the ranchers has nothing to do with a tortoise (this has been proven factual).

- On the symbolic significance, I posted this in another thread:

quote:

---

That is the current perception of the matter. The whole incident has taken on a larger significance than whether or not Bundy is legally in the right. It has become symbolic of what many believe is becoming a tyrannical government.

The situation is more symbolic than technical, and it's the symbolic interpretation of tyranny (heavily armed federal agents bullying around hardworking ranchers) that has people moved. People's emotions are not going to separate the legalities and the corruption. The corruption being a product of the legalities just makes the legalities absurd.

---

Basically, this became (or has become) a watershed moment for the approximate half of the general population who thinks government overreach has gone too far.

quote:

---

What am I missing?

---

The fact that the idea of government-owned land is nuts, thus making the law entirely bogus.

quote:

---

But they know it's far from being over

---

I read that the OK militias have started to mobilize and rattle their sabers. They are apparently 50k strong.

What is going to happen if another instance like this takes place and 10k militia members show up? Would the federal govt engage them?

quote:

---

1. the feds ARE "pushing back" with a bit too much force for a person who owes taxes

---

There are no taxes involved. This is the BLM, not the IRS. The BLM is claiming fees for grazing rights.

Where does the BLM get that authority?

(Just asking the question)

quote:

---

Why is the BLM wrong? Seems to me the rancher is violating the law. What am I missing?

---

Why should citizens have to follow laws, when the government ignores those they do not agree with?

There is that term, lead by example. We all know Obama and his administration do not exhibit any leadership whatsoever, nor does a single person in that regime have traits of a leader.

You are asking why does a citizen violate a law he disagrees with, because he has historical standing? He's got more reason to disregard a law he disagrees with than Obama does. How many times has he ignored his own Health Care law? How many times has Eric Holder refused to enforce laws that he disagreed with? How many times has he refused to prosecute criminals simply because they have the same political ideology?

The government does not deserve the people of the United States. And any slight overreach by the government should be met with overwhelming rebellion. Any egregious overreach, such as this, should be met with force.

quote:

---

There are no taxes involved. This is the BLM, not the IRS. The BLM is claiming fees for grazing rights.

Where does the BLM get that authority?

(Just asking the question)

---

Add in the fact the BLM has already spent SEVERAL MILLION dollars to collect 100-200 k in grazing "fees", and it quickly becomes apparent this has nothing to do with that lame arse excuse either.