Even if all the conspiracy shit is true, the rancher is in the wrong and people need to get over it. It’s been established he doesn’t have the right to be there. Just because he offers to give money to the county doesn’t make him whole with the law. The Fed owns that shit and he isn’t paying. Doesn’t matter what his reasons are, unless he takes that shit to court and wins.
RANT BELOW
I love these militia videos showing all their super tricked out guns and tactical shit ready to go. Don’t forget to read the description about tactics and other bullshit. These fucking weekend internet keyboard warriors are a huge rallying cry for the anti-gun movement. Let’s have another circle jerk where we mentally masturbate about how we’d stop the goverment with our 2nd amendment rights. The fact of the matter is that only the insane/stupid would draw down on armed goverment officials even if they are violating your rights. Sure if there is only one or two maybe you could take them but wake the fuck up. Doesn’t matter if you lawfully killed them, you think you are going to live to see the trial? The 2nd amendment only ensures freedom if enough people stand together…then the military shows up with one helicopter (or drone) and puts an end to that. Our rights have been hollowed out over decades and the arms that we have acess to would not stop our government. Now you can argue that a resistance just has to “not” lose, guerrilla tactics, ieds, low morale from fighting countrymen, etc. would contribute to stopping our government but I’m not sure what “that” victory would look like in our modern age. We are controlled with food, big pharma, rape of individual privacy, education, media, and entertainment. But don’t worry dude I bet the numbed and dumbed masses will get off their asses to help each other. Then again we can’t seem to get up off our asses and get a job. So I highly doubt the welfare state is going to bite the hand that feeds. Well if all else fails that Glock and redonkulous drum magazine on the AR will save 'Merica.
Well I’ve depressed myself now. Happy weekend and…WOLLLLVERINEEEEESSSS!!!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Paramilitary organizations are no longer relevant in the present security environment. How am I an elitist? [/quote]
They seemed to do well against US military in Iraq. Remember what Kissinger said: if the guerrilla doesn’t lose, it wins. If the army doesn’t win, it loses.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right, if I was referring to paramilitary groups outside of the US, which I wasn’t. I would also place the PMs in Iraq quite a bit higher on the totem pole of operational capability.
I have a question, isn’t it illegal to travel across state lines with firearms? So how does that work I know if you have permits in multiple states then you can travel from one state to another. So couldn’t many of the people there just be arrested for that?
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
I have a question, isn’t it illegal to travel across state lines with firearms? So how does that work I know if you have permits in multiple states then you can travel from one state to another. So couldn’t many of the people there just be arrested for that?[/quote]
not to my knowledge , I know people going to Alaska send their guns to avoid Canada
Bundy does not recognize Federal Authority on his land , he owes more than a million dollars in the rears ,he quit paying the fees when the Feds wanted him to reduce his herd , there are presently 16,000 public land ranchers
via Associated Press
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Bundy … owes more than a million dollars in the rears … [/quote]
Now that has got to hurt…
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Bundy … owes more than a million dollars in the rears … [/quote]
Now that has got to hurt…[/quote]
We are talking true IRONY
[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.
FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]
Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.
*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.
Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.
So what’s his beef?
Before BLM was involved, his fees actually went to managing the land, not unrelated bullshit, eg expansive administration, so he’s saying, fuck off with your fees because they’re not benefiting me like they ought to.
On one hand you can say fuck him, if I have to pay so should he. But then you’re also perpetuating the wasteful ever expanding gov’t.
On other hand you can say, hey I agree with you standing up for yourself, when previously the payments you were making were to actually manage the land, and not for unrelated bullshit.
I’d rather do the latter. Gov’t gets and wastes enough money. If enough people tell them to fuck off with their bullshit, maybe that would slow down gov’ts endless expansion.
Plus, I’d feel like a real asshole encouraging the gov’t to take more from people.
I think the tortise is a smoke screen
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.
FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]
Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.
*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.
Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.
So what’s his beef?
[/quote]
Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.
FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]
Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.
*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.
Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.
So what’s his beef?
[/quote]
Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]
that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.
FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]
Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.
*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.
Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.
So what’s his beef?
[/quote]
Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]
that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]
Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Before BLM was involved, his fees actually went to managing the land, not unrelated bullshit, eg expansive administration, so he’s saying, fuck off with your fees because they’re not benefiting me like they ought to.
On one hand you can say fuck him, if I have to pay so should he. But then you’re also perpetuating the wasteful ever expanding gov’t.
On other hand you can say, hey I agree with you standing up for yourself, when previously the payments you were making were to actually manage the land, and not for unrelated bullshit.
I’d rather do the latter. Gov’t gets and wastes enough money. If enough people tell them to fuck off with their bullshit, maybe that would slow down gov’ts endless expansion.
[/quote]
Hasn’t the BLM been the administrator since 1946?
The Rancher has the rights of a lessor, not of a land owner.
The BLM administers the land according to its legal charge–the resources are for the benefit of an abstraction called the American people; it is not always supposed to support the business interests of an individual…
…Unless a court of law directs otherwise. And it has spoken on the matter.
What else am I missing?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:…
This makes sense.
FWIW, I have a ranching background.[/quote]
Ok, I am confused. Straighten me out here.
*Mexico ceded Nevada to the People of the United States.
*The land in question, whether in Clark or other counties, has been in the control/posession of the General Land Office, until it legally ceded to the the BLM the administration of this land.
*The land in question was never owned by Rancher or his family; grazing rights were leased to his family or to him from the relevant authority.
*According to the Federal Land Management Act of 1976, the BLM is charged to manage these lands “and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
*The Rancher has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this matter–since he has put suit in them–and they have ruled against him.
*In any case, he has not paid the grazing fees the appropriate authority
*Or, the BLM had decided that the land can support fewer cattle.
Whether the BLM chooses to protect a tortoise or protect oil drillers is a challenging political issue. But the courts have ruled here, the Rancher does not hold ownership rights or rights in perpetuity, and the BLM are acting in “the interests” of the American people until the courts have decided otherwise.
So what’s his beef?
[/quote]
Bundy has already paid fees to Clark county in a pre-existing arrangement. The BLM are now changing the conditions and demanding more fees. When he refused to pay they used the specious excuse of wanting to protect a tortoise. [/quote]
that was County Tax , Why did he not object to paying his portion of his GAS tax
[/quote]
Because he already had a pre-existing arrangement with Clark county for water and grazing rights.
[/quote]
So who has jurisdiction? Clark County or BLM?
Clark County administers and enforces law, but the land is owned by the U.S. and administered through the BLM, correct?
So were is this “preexisting agreement?” What exactly does it say? Does the BLM cede its rights in perpetuity?