.png)
Anyone Following the Bundy Ranch Decades War With the BLM?
- Thread starter Kennydale
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Polarbear6
Active Member
Wow. Thanks for that. That video was wonderfully educational. I sincerely mean that.
The speaker, by the way, is one of the most talented rabble-rousers I've ever seen. He makes up a completely specious connection between Bundy and government overreach, declares it to be truth, and manages to extrapolate it all the way to snipers shooting the innocent, government-dictated food availability requirements, and Indian paintbrushes.
It takes talent like Picasso to draw all those lines in thin air and so capably convince the crowd they're real that he gets rewarded with more than a smattering of applause.
You're right, there is a lot of hyperbole in that mans statement. Does that mean he's wrong about everything? Are all the good folks in that room supporting him wrong? I'm from the western states and cattle land area, Roundup, Montana. And I have kin in Nevada outside Vegas and Reno. I can tell you that folks are getting pretty fed up with the Feds and the BLM, and have been for some time. Just take another look at the map matefrio posted.
That gentleman is right in that this is about a lot more than just Mr. Bundy. He's also right about the calfs being separated from their mothers. I think he makes a good point about where is the governments concern over the calfs as compared to the turtles they profess to be looking out for. It’s BS and we know it. There are hundreds of FBI and BLM agents in the area acting like real asses and intimidating folks, and there have been snipers deployed. Why did the BLM agents stop and engage those protesters with the dogs and tasers? They didn’t need to stop; they could have kept right on driving. What law were the protesters breaking that the BLM agents felt a need to stop? I think they stopped because they wanted to try and intimidate those folks and it backfired on their bully asses.
How many millions of dollars and hundreds of agents is our goverment spending to round up his cattle? And what do they intend on doing with them? Just to send a message I think to all the ranchers, land owners and folks out there. And that message is comply. That message is, we're in charge, we decide what's best and you damn well better not try and resist. That's how this feels to me and to my kin out there.
I wonder if this statement is true? I'm inclined to believe it is. Per Mr. Bundy "“Years ago, I used to have 52 neighboring ranchers,” he said. “I’m the last man standing. How come? Because BLM regulated these people off the land and out of business.”
Last edited:
Thank you so much for a reasoned and articulate response.
And, of course, they have adapted. They pay their grazing fees, among other things. Then they get mad when the BLM changes the rules.
That's completely understandable. It's completely human.
It's also short sighted. "We've always done it this way" is not an adequate justification for continuing to do something the same way, forever. Admittedly, the issues here just plain hurt. For the BLM to look at environmental interests then change grazing rules or even completely close off land, thus putting ranchers out of business, is harsh. But is it wrong?
Not always. It's easy, for example, to find examples where eminent domain has been abused. That doesn't mean eminent domain shouldn't exist. That means that, occasionally and only for very good reasons, a family might lose their land or livelihood. Things like that should be very rare, of course, but the principle remains.
Nothing stays the same. Sometimes things change. Sometimes when things change, businesses fail and ways of life die off.
Ranchers will resist. Feds will enforce. Courts will decide. And, hopefully, if we live under just laws, the outcome will be just. It might not be completely fair to everyone but it will be just.
If this case is producing injustice, then the feds perpetrating such should be held accountable under the law.
However, even if this case is producing injustice, it's still not justification for Bundy to simply fail to recognize any legal authority on the part of the federal government. That's just wacky.
Sic 'em, PETA.
(Lordy, I never thought I'd say that.)
When the law is broken, it's simply the right thing to do to enforce the law.
If enforcing the law is bad because the law, itself, is bad, then the law needs to be changed. Civil disobedience is a good way to start that process but Bundy has gone way too far. He's threatened violence and that's definitely beyond the pale, given the history of this case and the damages that have been done to him.
In this case, the "bad actor" is doing something that lots of innocent people also do (although he stopped paying the fees, so it became illegal). For that reason, all those other ranchers and all their friends see the enforcement and feel threatened. That's, again, reasonable and human.
It doesn't mean that starting a shooting war is justified, as our friend in the video hinted so un-subtly. It just means that all those rugged individualists need to band together and work within the system for changes to the legalities of the situation.
If that becomes impossible, if true reform becomes something that state actors illegally prevent, then I'll join you on the barricades.
But that time has not come yet.
Just my opinion, obviously.
It's pretty much impossible to be wrong about everything.
Possibly. That's the point of rabble-rousing - to get people to support things that they wouldn't if they'd just take some time to calmly think things through.
You're absolutely right about that.
Interesting point. However, I think people lose sight of the fact that the percentages shown are a function of when and how those states joined the Union. They are not the result of any recent land grab and everyone currently alive has grown up with the situation. You'd think people would adapt.
And, of course, they have adapted. They pay their grazing fees, among other things. Then they get mad when the BLM changes the rules.
That's completely understandable. It's completely human.
It's also short sighted. "We've always done it this way" is not an adequate justification for continuing to do something the same way, forever. Admittedly, the issues here just plain hurt. For the BLM to look at environmental interests then change grazing rules or even completely close off land, thus putting ranchers out of business, is harsh. But is it wrong?
Not always. It's easy, for example, to find examples where eminent domain has been abused. That doesn't mean eminent domain shouldn't exist. That means that, occasionally and only for very good reasons, a family might lose their land or livelihood. Things like that should be very rare, of course, but the principle remains.
Nothing stays the same. Sometimes things change. Sometimes when things change, businesses fail and ways of life die off.
Ranchers will resist. Feds will enforce. Courts will decide. And, hopefully, if we live under just laws, the outcome will be just. It might not be completely fair to everyone but it will be just.
If this case is producing injustice, then the feds perpetrating such should be held accountable under the law.
However, even if this case is producing injustice, it's still not justification for Bundy to simply fail to recognize any legal authority on the part of the federal government. That's just wacky.
That was the single strongest point he made. If the BLM contractors are that incompetent, then they and their employers should be held to account. They wouldn't want me as a judge.
Sic 'em, PETA.
(Lordy, I never thought I'd say that.)
Your conclusion seems reasonable to me.
That is almost completely unimportant. Law enforcement is rarely about return on investment. Murders, for example, are expensive to investigate. Most of them are one bad guy killing another bad guy. We still expect the police to investigate.
When the law is broken, it's simply the right thing to do to enforce the law.
If enforcing the law is bad because the law, itself, is bad, then the law needs to be changed. Civil disobedience is a good way to start that process but Bundy has gone way too far. He's threatened violence and that's definitely beyond the pale, given the history of this case and the damages that have been done to him.
Individual law enforcement officers and whole agencies have always made examples out of bad actors simply to discourage others.
In this case, the "bad actor" is doing something that lots of innocent people also do (although he stopped paying the fees, so it became illegal). For that reason, all those other ranchers and all their friends see the enforcement and feel threatened. That's, again, reasonable and human.
It doesn't mean that starting a shooting war is justified, as our friend in the video hinted so un-subtly. It just means that all those rugged individualists need to band together and work within the system for changes to the legalities of the situation.
If that becomes impossible, if true reform becomes something that state actors illegally prevent, then I'll join you on the barricades.
But that time has not come yet.
Just my opinion, obviously.
Last edited:
Whatcha wanna bet if I started running cattle out on that same Public Land Mr.Bundy would have an issue with it?
I'm in agreement with you Ben.
Seems like this same attitudes are espoused by certain parties down here on the coast who think they own the bays because they make their living from the bays.
As usual its about money.
I'm in agreement with you Ben.
Seems like this same attitudes are espoused by certain parties down here on the coast who think they own the bays because they make their living from the bays.
As usual its about money.
when we we know it has then? What is your defining point?
BTW, not trolling you, just honestly asking what would be the tipping point, considering everything we have seen happen here in Nevada and assuming that the man will get no relief from the courts.
Fantastic question.
I won't be considering the outcome of the Bundy situation because I don't care about him. I can't consider "everything we have seen" because I'm not quite sure what you've seen.
Oh, I realize you're not trolling. This is a perfectly legitimate question. I don't have a specific answer.
I'm reminded of and rely for guidance on the example of the Declaration of Independence. It's really a boring read for the most part, what with all those listed infringements on liberty. It's possible to point at many of them and rightly say "That's no justification" because the particular listed offense is either not a major problem by itself or is worded very vaguely.
It was the weight of them all that made the Declaration a reasonable act.
Some of the things our forefathers endured seem like they come from today's newspaper. According to the Declaration, the King "...erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." That sounds very familiar. The colonials were also very upset that the King was hindering the naturalization of foreigners, impeding much-needed immigration. (Oh, wait, maybe that one doesn't apply today.
)
Yet a soul-sucking, oversize bureaucracy, by itself, wasn't enough.
Anyone who goes back and re-reads the Declaration of Independence will find several lines that could be written today.
Yet, they will also find several that could not. Our government does not quarter troops among us (OK, maybe that one doesn't count, either.), enslave prisoners and force them to act as soldiers to commit violence against the people, burn whole towns, or use military forces and tactics as a routine and indiscriminate law enforcement tool.
I think that's where the line is crossed. When murder on a wide scale is considered a viable law enforcement tactic, it's time to sell everything, buy ammo, and shoot back.
Modern examples are easy to find. After Allende, how many people were "disappeared" in Chile? That was justification for revolution. When the death squads were roaming Nicaragua, that was justification for revolution.
We don't yet have a government that murders people on a large scale to keep control. We have a dysfunctional government that drives us crazy and needs to be changed by legal means but not yet one that needs to bleed to death in the street.
I'm not saying we won't get there...but I consider us to be quite a distance from that, still.
I won't be considering the outcome of the Bundy situation because I don't care about him. I can't consider "everything we have seen" because I'm not quite sure what you've seen.
Oh, I realize you're not trolling. This is a perfectly legitimate question. I don't have a specific answer.
I'm reminded of and rely for guidance on the example of the Declaration of Independence. It's really a boring read for the most part, what with all those listed infringements on liberty. It's possible to point at many of them and rightly say "That's no justification" because the particular listed offense is either not a major problem by itself or is worded very vaguely.
It was the weight of them all that made the Declaration a reasonable act.
Some of the things our forefathers endured seem like they come from today's newspaper. According to the Declaration, the King "...erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." That sounds very familiar. The colonials were also very upset that the King was hindering the naturalization of foreigners, impeding much-needed immigration. (Oh, wait, maybe that one doesn't apply today.
)Yet a soul-sucking, oversize bureaucracy, by itself, wasn't enough.
Anyone who goes back and re-reads the Declaration of Independence will find several lines that could be written today.
Yet, they will also find several that could not. Our government does not quarter troops among us (OK, maybe that one doesn't count, either.), enslave prisoners and force them to act as soldiers to commit violence against the people, burn whole towns, or use military forces and tactics as a routine and indiscriminate law enforcement tool.
I think that's where the line is crossed. When murder on a wide scale is considered a viable law enforcement tactic, it's time to sell everything, buy ammo, and shoot back.
Modern examples are easy to find. After Allende, how many people were "disappeared" in Chile? That was justification for revolution. When the death squads were roaming Nicaragua, that was justification for revolution.
We don't yet have a government that murders people on a large scale to keep control. We have a dysfunctional government that drives us crazy and needs to be changed by legal means but not yet one that needs to bleed to death in the street.
I'm not saying we won't get there...but I consider us to be quite a distance from that, still.
Last edited:
I have read the DOI many many times over. I find the most compelling portions in the first part and beginning in the 2nd paragraph
"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"
It is my humble opinion that the "certain unalienable rights" of men that the government has been instituted to secure unto these men have been deprived by the government to men. The Federal government no longer has the majority consent of the governed and therefore has no "just power" but rather oppressive power. Just as we see in Nevada, this man has his cattle killed and taken and for what? becuase some 30 year old with a degree said the land is no longer public and under Federal control to protect a turtle?
this is not justification and anyone with any sense knows it already.
Shooting Vicky Weaver in the back of the head while holding her child was not justified.
Burning children in Waco was not justified when they could have taken Koresh in town.
Making felons out of gun owners with the stroke of a pen is not justified, although I know that is a state issue for now in NY and CT.
Taxing a man into the poor house is not justified.
Running guns to drug cartels and then covering up the murder of Brian Terry is not justifed.
Abusing the power of the IRS on certain organizations becuse of difference in poliical views is not justified.
Forcing you to buy insurance and taxing you if you don't is not justified.
so we have sort of have our own list if we just think about it.
while the full out murder of citizens has not happend yet , if you look the other way at Kent State, we are living under a soft tyranny and if you take all of the abuses en mass you cannot deny it.
"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"
It is my humble opinion that the "certain unalienable rights" of men that the government has been instituted to secure unto these men have been deprived by the government to men. The Federal government no longer has the majority consent of the governed and therefore has no "just power" but rather oppressive power. Just as we see in Nevada, this man has his cattle killed and taken and for what? becuase some 30 year old with a degree said the land is no longer public and under Federal control to protect a turtle?
this is not justification and anyone with any sense knows it already.
Shooting Vicky Weaver in the back of the head while holding her child was not justified.
Burning children in Waco was not justified when they could have taken Koresh in town.
Making felons out of gun owners with the stroke of a pen is not justified, although I know that is a state issue for now in NY and CT.
Taxing a man into the poor house is not justified.
Running guns to drug cartels and then covering up the murder of Brian Terry is not justifed.
Abusing the power of the IRS on certain organizations becuse of difference in poliical views is not justified.
Forcing you to buy insurance and taxing you if you don't is not justified.
so we have sort of have our own list if we just think about it.
while the full out murder of citizens has not happend yet , if you look the other way at Kent State, we are living under a soft tyranny and if you take all of the abuses en mass you cannot deny it.
Last edited:
Yeah, well, OK. Those are the parts we all memorized in school.
Those high-minded words, though, were inspired by definite acts committed by and on behalf of the King. If the King had not done all he did, the words at the beginning would still have held true but the DOI would not have been able to enumerate reasons for revolt.
Your question to me was regarding the precise tipping point, not the general principles. We agree on the general principles.
How is this measured? Given the rate at which Americans vote, it can be reasonably argued that the federal government has lacked majority consent for pretty much as long as I've been able to vote, if not as long as I've been alive.
Uh, no. Because he stopped paying his grazing fees and "fired" the BLM. And because he had his day in court and lost. And because after losing in court, he has refused to remove his cattle.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Agree 1000% on all that.
Doesn't happen. Our tax rates are much lower than in much of the first world. Generally, when taxes are to blame for someone's life completely crashing and burning, it's because they failed to pay them on time or committed fraud to avoid them. The consequences of those can be devastating.
Conditionally agreed because this has not yet been proved. I believe the abuse occurred at Justice...but perhaps that's just a technical point.
"Soft tyranny"? That's a good description. I kinda like that turn of a phrase. It seems applicable to me.
Now, my question to you is "Is 'soft tyranny' enough justification to shoot back?"
I say no.
I say "soft tyranny" is reason to protest, march, cajole, lobby, vote and use every other peaceful means to make things better.
Again, just my opinion.
Ouch. I don't know what this dude did to you to receive this kind of scorn or what this situation has to do with a "shooting war" as mentioned in your later posts.
They made a bunch of movies about this kind of thing from the 30s to the 50s. Remember the one about the old farmer who refused to pay federal income tax because he (rightly) believed it was illegitimate. They made Waltons episodes about this subject too. How many of your grandparents buried money and coins because they remember how gold was basically stolen from the American people in the 30s?
Or when the public schools still taught things, who remembers reading Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"? We were taught that he was ahead of his time, inspiring MLK and Gandhi, for his refusing to pay the poll tax as a way of withdrawing his consent from the federal government and protesting illegal wars and slavery.
Mr. Bundy has the right to withdraw consent, it's his decision, whether you agree or not. I'm looking at this situation and seeing where people stand, who falls by the wayside, who has fear, who is delusional, so I can mentally prepare for things to come and know what to expect. And as the saying goes, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
I'm sorry Ben, but I have to reread your posts several times. The wishful thinking and rose-colored glasses makes my head spin. The mental gymnastics you display to prove to yourself that everything is still okay after one hundred years of abuses is kind of sad. Another point, your legal clarifications do not override common sense.
It's not exactly scorn. I just can't have respect for people who say "I'm special. The law doesn't apply to me."
There's a subtle difference between that and "The law is evil and I won't obey it", a stance I can support.
See the video in post #16. There are people who want to start shooting, using the Bundy situation and all it symbolizes as their excuse.
I'd phrase it differently; he has the ability to break the law. His free will may be exercised by him to do so.
We all are in the same boat as far as that is concerned.
I don't have any problem with him disobeying a law he deems unjust. I just don't think he has justification to threaten violence if he doesn't get his way.
Wow. I'm genuinely sorry. I've truly screwed up with my previous posts.
Let me be clear. I firmly agree that things are NOT still okay.
My comments are intended to convey my belief that in this particular situation Bundy should not be threatening violence. Others should not be jumping on the bandwagon, standing up at public meetings and threatening a new American revolution. This case does not rise to that level of abuse.
The levels of abuse enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, specifically including the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of life and property on a scale much larger that we currently see, would be justification to start shooting. This situation does not meet that standard.
No rose-colored glasses here. Lots of things in the U.S. are screwed up and need fixing. Acknowledged and agreed, wholeheartedly.
They never do...but people who are pushing for armed insurrection would be well advised to have all their ducks, including the minor legal points, in a row before they take action.
Then I stand corrected. And I do agree with a lot of your points, I just wonder how far things will go.
I do too.
As easy as it has been to point out that this particular case is not justification for radical action, it should also be apparent that the shift toward authoritarianism in this country is real, undeniable, and (most troubling) accelerating. There's a knot in the pit of my stomach that hints this course will not be changed except by violently disruptive means.
For that reason, I worry. Quite a bit, actually.
He's absolutely correct in the most fertile farm area of Libtard California the EPA shut farm irrigation water OFF to farmers , to supposedly protect the snail darter ??? Except in California that accept this kind of big government overreach.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
I am confident that no amount of lawsuits, voting, or protesting will bring our government back into the proper context of power that is from us, the people who they work for and are supposed to serve. Too many storm troopers with MRAPS and machine guns, like the kind in these videos from Nevada.
there are fumes in the air and all it takes is a spark.
no matter what level of "bad" you may think we are in, it's still bad.
there are fumes in the air and all it takes is a spark.
no matter what level of "bad" you may think we are in, it's still bad.
shooterfpga
TGT Addict
The government via a military contractor is trying to use blm rangers to enforce an eviction in the sake of a desert tortoise which the government has been systematically killing itself. The true cause of the issue is that bundy didnt want to sell out his big portion of his property which his family has owned since the 1800s to make way for a pipeline and precious minerals located in the area. This unknown contractor has since employed other contractors as a kill squad aka security detail. The government escalated the situation, escalated force and now they are calling foul. So far 8 militia groups have mobilized as well as many other concerned citizens and american patriots.
Also, a big complaint of blm is that his irrigation and use of bringing water to a desolate area is causing harm..... lets do the math... water=life, fauna, flora...... governments math doesnt add up.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Also, a big complaint of blm is that his irrigation and use of bringing water to a desolate area is causing harm..... lets do the math... water=life, fauna, flora...... governments math doesnt add up.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Yup... I haven't researched this particular case at all yet, but the BLM has a history of thuggery towards ranchers in NV. Take for example Wayne Hage. The federal government wrongfully confiscated his cattle and took away water rights. After a long legal battle a court actually ruled in his favor and awarded his estate a nice sum, but the government refused to pay it and is still harassing his family. It got the point where the local sheriff told the federal government that if they show up with a swat team, then his swat team would be there to meet them.
Even if the federal government had stopped the harassment and payed up, do you really think the people that carried out the wrongful actions would be held accountable? Of course not... we the tax payers would have foot the bill and the bad actors wouldn't have been penalized at all.
On to Brady's case... If his family has been working the land since the 1800s, I'd be inclined to agree with him. Common law tends to dictate that if you start working a piece of land that no one else claims, then that land is yours. It becomes yours through your labor. The federal government never should have taken that away in the first place.
shooterfpga
TGT Addict
They just arrested three bundy family members and are moving to arrest protesters.
This whole situation sounds familiar. They did it to the indians and now to ranchers.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
This whole situation sounds familiar. They did it to the indians and now to ranchers.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
It seems to have reached a polarizing crescendo. People have taken the first little bits of hyperbole and made up their minds which side they are on and are not willing to rationally look at the other sides argument.
Gotta say thank you to Ben, his continued explanations are appreciated.
Gotta say thank you to Ben, his continued explanations are appreciated.
The feds want his land plain and simple and the BLM is abusing their power and are no longer working for the people hand in hand at being good stewards of the land.
Follow the money.
He may not legally be in the right but when you look at tbe federal government and how they selectivy enforce laws, it is enougb for some to draw lines in the sand.
Look at how many IRS employee's owe back taxes yet continue to not pay them. Look at how many in congress deal at insider trading and are millionaires and owe taxes but are never held accountable.
Congress passing laws that the people don't want but yet they are exempt from them.
Sit down shut your mouth and do as your told or we will make an example out of you.
Follow the money.
He may not legally be in the right but when you look at tbe federal government and how they selectivy enforce laws, it is enougb for some to draw lines in the sand.
Look at how many IRS employee's owe back taxes yet continue to not pay them. Look at how many in congress deal at insider trading and are millionaires and owe taxes but are never held accountable.
Congress passing laws that the people don't want but yet they are exempt from them.
Sit down shut your mouth and do as your told or we will make an example out of you.
