- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:31 pm to darkhorse
quote:
Why doesn't the Gov send out the national guard to stand up for this man's rights?
I'm not sure but this is not over with by a long shot. There are actual leaders taking notice and getting involved. No matter what short-sighted Rex likes to spew, Bundy had many of his rights violated and so did the state itself. I have a feeling this will be stopped while a full review is done.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:32 pm to darkhorse
I've read most articles I can find on this matter, and I'm just not sure how compelling this fight is. I'm certainly predisposed to limited government, but I'm also skeptical of "militia" types looking to accelerate conflict. Here's what I have concluded tell about the situation:
1) The response is overkill. Totally unjustifiable. I think that is valid and certainly appears to be the contention Sandoval and others are making.
2) The rancher is operating under some "how it should be" version of the law, not the law. He admits failing to make payments. He "believes" if anyone should get fees, it should be the state. This isn't law, this is his opinion, which may or may not justify his peaceful non-compliance.
3) I've seen nothing indicating his family ever owned the land, or that it is state land. It appears to be public land managed by BLM. Moreover, his arguments are that his family's livestock has been able to graze on public land for generations, prior to the BLM's existence. While an interesting argument, this isn't exactly a legally sound argument for not following the law. If I used to ride horses through national parks, only to be regulated out once the national parks were created, am I aggrieved too based on prior use?
4) Don't take my hesitation for support of the government. I'm merely exercising caution, which we all should. The encroachments on liberties are very real, and we should be careful not to empty our cannons (speaking figuratively, DHS) on unworthy cases.
1) The response is overkill. Totally unjustifiable. I think that is valid and certainly appears to be the contention Sandoval and others are making.
2) The rancher is operating under some "how it should be" version of the law, not the law. He admits failing to make payments. He "believes" if anyone should get fees, it should be the state. This isn't law, this is his opinion, which may or may not justify his peaceful non-compliance.
3) I've seen nothing indicating his family ever owned the land, or that it is state land. It appears to be public land managed by BLM. Moreover, his arguments are that his family's livestock has been able to graze on public land for generations, prior to the BLM's existence. While an interesting argument, this isn't exactly a legally sound argument for not following the law. If I used to ride horses through national parks, only to be regulated out once the national parks were created, am I aggrieved too based on prior use?
4) Don't take my hesitation for support of the government. I'm merely exercising caution, which we all should. The encroachments on liberties are very real, and we should be careful not to empty our cannons (speaking figuratively, DHS) on unworthy cases.
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:32 pm to Rex
quote:
No, Mr. Bundy... I don't think so. My liberty and freedom are just fine.
quote:
If you were refused entrance at Yellowstone for not paying the gate fee would my liberty and freedom be at stake then, too?
But I bet you care when a woman/minority/homosexual's liberty and freedom are at stake. Why the double standard?
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:33 pm to darkhorse
quote:
Why doesn't the Gov send out the national guard to stand up for this man's rights?
A state is going to start an armed conflict with the federal government because a guy doesn't want to pay fees to the government for using land that isn't his?
This is the exact type of rhetoric we need to avoid.
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:35 pm to Paluka
quote:
Bundy had many of his rights violated
List them.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:36 pm to DosManos
quote:
ut I bet you care when a woman/minority/homosexual's liberty and freedom are at stake. Why the double standard?
There's no double standard. Yes, I do care when somebody's rights are actually being violated. Which of Mr. Bundy's are?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:38 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I've read most articles I can find on this matter, and I'm just not sure how compelling this fight is. I'm certainly predisposed to limited government, but I'm also skeptical of "militia" types looking to accelerate conflict. Here's what I have concluded tell about the situation: 1) The response is overkill. Totally unjustifiable. I think that is valid and certainly appears to be the contention Sandoval and others are making. 2) The rancher is operating under some "how it should be" version of the law, not the law. He admits failing to make payments. He "believes" if anyone should get fees, it should be the state. This isn't law, this is his opinion, which may or may not justify his peaceful non-compliance. 3) I've seen nothing indicating his family ever owned the land, or that it is state land. It appears to be public land managed by BLM. Moreover, his arguments are that his family's livestock has been able to graze on public land for generations, prior to the BLM's existence. While an interesting argument, this isn't exactly a legally sound argument for not following the law. If I used to ride horses through national parks, only to be regulated out once the national parks were created, am I aggrieved too based on prior use? 4) Don't take my hesitation for support of the government. I'm merely exercising caution, which we all should. The encroachments on liberties are very real, and we should be careful not to empty are cannons (speaking figuratively, DHS) on unworthy cases.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:40 pm to Pettifogger
Another rare voice of reason on this board. Congratulations.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:43 pm to Rex
quote:
Yes, I do care when somebody's rights are actually being violated. Which of Mr. Bundy's are?
Don't worry his rights to death and taxes will not be imposed on by this government. The hundreds of heavily armed LEO's surrounding his property will see to that. But surely a couple hundred cattle warrant such a response right? Everything has a breaking point.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:44 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:46 pm to son of arlo
The perfect place for his b.s.!
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:47 pm to Rex
quote:
Yes, I do care when somebody's rights are actually being violated
Like the right to free contraception and abortions?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:48 pm to Rex
quote:
List them.
I am REALLY going to enjoy dragging you through the mud on this.
Let's first begin with the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. This is a fundamental violation of the state's possession of their land by the Feds.
Since I've been talking with the Chief Justice of my State's Supreme Court for last few weeks about numerous things I feel quite well-armed to detroy your smug little arse.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:49 pm to Paluka
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:49 pm to C
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:53 pm to Paluka
quote:
I am REALLY going to enjoy dragging you through the mud on this.
quote:
I feel quite well-armed to detroy your smug little arse.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:54 pm to Paluka
quote:
Since I've been talking with the Chief Justice of my State's Supreme Court for last few weeks about numerous things I feel quite well-armed to detroy your smug little arse.
So, when are you going to start?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 2:55 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/11/14 at 3:04 pm to Rex
quote:
So, when are you going to start?
I already have. Care to address my first point?
Page 14 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News