Ruby Ridge-style standoff? Bundy says he is prepared to Die

[travelinman67]

...and Reid today called Bundy's supporters "...domestic terrorists."

I. can't think of any congressman during my life who is/was less fit to serve than Reid...

...and the Dumbocrats double down on him.



Speaks volumes.

[Col Hogan]

[kalm]

Nobody is calling Bundy a terrorist. Just a law-breaking free loader.

Conks…tough on crime and welfare.

[Col Hogan]

Nobody is calling Bundy a terrorist. Just a law-breaking free loader.

Conks…tough on crime and welfare.

You obviously didn't ready what Harry Reid said...he called all the folks who supported Bundy Domestic Terrorists...

You do support Harry Reid, don't you???

[Baldy]

Nobody is calling Bundy a terrorist.

Harry Reid would like to have a word.

[kalm]

Nobody is calling Bundy a terrorist. Just a law-breaking free loader.

Conks…tough on crime and welfare.

You obviously didn't ready what Harry Reid said...he called all the folks who supported Bundy Domestic Terrorists...

You do support Harry Reid, don't you???

No I didn't, and no I don't. That's a pretty dumb statement.

To make up for it Col, here's another one for you.

[Col Hogan]

You obviously didn't ready what Harry Reid said...he called all the folks who supported Bundy Domestic Terrorists...

You do support Harry Reid, don't you???

No I didn't, and no I don't. That's a pretty dumb Donk statement.

To make up for it Col, here's another one for you.

Agreed...

[BDKJMU]

So let's review, your references to law enforcement support of illegal immigration, national park fees and western heritage were all red herrings ad the reference to RWR was a diversion?

Huh?

1) We have this wonderful heritage of wide open spaces out west that are owned by everyone. The federal government manages them through the BLM, Forest Service, etc. Hunters, fisherman, white water rafters, ranchers etc get to use them. Some require user fees, others require permits for usage at more than a fair rate. Because they belong to the people, everyone gets to use them, but there are some reasonable regulations. Most users don't have a problem with this. Bundy does. Bundy is being supported by tea party/militia types who pay homage to Ronald Reagan. Ironically, Reagan signed an executive order regulating the use of these lands. Tea party/militia types are mad. High ironic comedy ensues as tea party/militia types congregate under a highway overpass built by a brutal over-reaching government. Government types back down in the name of safety and somehow, some way, tea party/militia types claim victory.

2) Read above.

But 88% of the land???

And why so many designations?

National Parks, National Monuments, National Memorials, National Battlefield Parks, National Battlefield Sites, National Military Park, National Historical Site, National Wildlife Refuges, National Reserves, National Preserves, National Wilderness Area, National Seashores, National Lakeshores, National Rivers, Wild Scenic Riverways, National Scenic Trails, National Parkways, National Heritage Areas, National Rec Areas, National Forests, National Grasslands, National Conservation Areas, etc, etc, etc

National Park Service, US Fish & Wildlife, National Forest Service, BLM....

It sounds like the food stamp program- numerous agencies administering numerous programs. Its massively convoluted, and wastes $$. How about 1-2 agencies and a handful of land designations, not the 20+ listed above.

[BDKJMU]

Reading comprehension.

Bundy owns 150 acres. About enough to support maybe ten head. He is the textbook example of your welfare cowboy.
Interesting that the Nevada Cattlemen's Association does not support him.

Kind of hard to own more when the govt has gobbled up 88% of the land in Nevada..

[BlueHen86]

Bundy owns 150 acres. About enough to support maybe ten head. He is the textbook example of your welfare cowboy.
Interesting that the Nevada Cattlemen's Association does not support him.

Kind of hard to own more when the govt has gobbled up 88% of the land in Nevada..

Link?

[kalm]

Huh?

1) We have this wonderful heritage of wide open spaces out west that are owned by everyone. The federal government manages them through the BLM, Forest Service, etc. Hunters, fisherman, white water rafters, ranchers etc get to use them. Some require user fees, others require permits for usage at more than a fair rate. Because they belong to the people, everyone gets to use them, but there are some reasonable regulations. Most users don't have a problem with this. Bundy does. Bundy is being supported by tea party/militia types who pay homage to Ronald Reagan. Ironically, Reagan signed an executive order regulating the use of these lands. Tea party/militia types are mad. High ironic comedy ensues as tea party/militia types congregate under a highway overpass built by a brutal over-reaching government. Government types back down in the name of safety and somehow, some way, tea party/militia types claim victory.

2) Read above.

But 88% of the land???

And why so many designations?

National Parks, National Monuments, National Memorials, National Battlefield Parks, National Battlefield Sites, National Military Park, National Historical Site, National Wildlife Refuges, National Reserves, National Preserves, National Wilderness Area, National Seashores, National Lakeshores, National Rivers, Wild Scenic Riverways, National Scenic Trails, National Parkways, National Heritage Areas, National Rec Areas, National Forests, National Grasslands, National Conservation Areas, etc, etc, etc

National Park Service, US Fish & Wildlife, National Forest Service, BLM....

It sounds like the food stamp program- numerous agencies administering numerous programs. Its massively convoluted, and wastes $$. How about 1-2 agencies and a handful of land designations, not the 20+ listed above.

Because we have parks, monuments, memorials, battlefields, battlefield sites, military parks, historical sites, wildlife reggaes reserves, preserves, wilderness areas seashores, lake shores, rivers, scenic river ways, scenic trails, parkways, heritage areas, rec areas, forests, grasslands, and conservation areas. Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge requires a different management approach and different professional training than Custer Battlefield.

A little bit of redundancy on some of it? Yes. Could some money be saved? Sure. But four agencies to manage all of that land and infrastructure ain't exactly shocking.

[kalm]

Bundy owns 150 acres. About enough to support maybe ten head. He is the textbook example of your welfare cowboy.
Interesting that the Nevada Cattlemen's Association does not support him.

Kind of hard to own more when the govt has gobbled up 88% of the land in Nevada..

When did the govt "gobble up" this land? Or have they always owned 88% of a large state composed of 10,000 ft mountain ranges, high desert valleys, a few jackrabbits, some coyote's, and virtually no arable land. Why would a rancher want to own all of that land when the BLM charges practically nothing to lease it and you don't have to pay property taxes or mend the fence posts?

[Baldy]

Kind of hard to own more when the govt has gobbled up 88% of the land in Nevada..

When did the govt "gobble up" this land? Or have they always owned 88% of a large state composed of 10,000 ft mountain ranges, high desert valleys, a few jackrabbits, some coyote's, and virtually no arable land. Why would a rancher want to own all of that land when the BLM charges practically nothing to lease it and you don't have to pay property taxes or mend the fence posts?

I agree with komrade kalm. Private property ownership is highly overrated. Secede all your property to the BLM so they can maintain it and lease it back to us for pennies on the dollar.

[travelinman67]

Kind of hard to own more when the govt has gobbled up 88% of the land in Nevada..

When did the govt "gobble up" this land? Or have they always owned 88% of a large state composed of 10,000 ft mountain ranges, high desert valleys, a few jackrabbits, some coyote's, and virtually no arable land. Why would a rancher want to own all of that land when the BLM charges practically nothing to lease it and you don't have to pay property taxes or mend the fence posts?

Kalm, here's where you shut up before unequivocally proving your ignorance.

Nevada is one of our nation's richest natural resource regions. Mining, manufacturing and agriculture are growing faster than all but two other states, and state govt. is Very business friendly. I had quite a few large NV company/clients, all surviving the recession.

You can belch out the dumbocrat talking points all day, but the facts remain unchanged: The current federal admin. has grown out of control, and worse, the fed. govt managers are CLEARLY not carrying out their constitutional mandates under which they are empowered.

No federal agency should EVER use or even contemplate using deadly force to collect a debt.

NEVER!

Clearly, donk/ideologues as yourself do not understand this basic tenet.

Rather than proving your ignorance, you would be prudent to walk away from this "battle".

[BDKJMU]

Earlier cited figure, like in CNN article, says 87-88%.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/18/politics/ ... bar_google" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This article below article says 81%.

"Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land

The fight over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cows grazing illegally on federal land is a symbol of a much larger issue: control of land in western states, where the federal government is dominant...."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0420/ ... deral-land" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Stupid MSNBC anchor getting owned by Nevada assemblywoman:
http://therightscoop.com/this-clip-of-c ... s-awesome/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

When did the govt "gobble up" this land? Or have they always owned 88% of a large state composed of 10,000 ft mountain ranges, high desert valleys, a few jackrabbits, some coyote's, and virtually no arable land. Why would a rancher want to own all of that land when the BLM charges practically nothing to lease it and you don't have to pay property taxes or mend the fence posts?

Kalm, here's where you shut up before unequivocally proving your ignorance.

Nevada is one of our nation's richest natural resource regions. Mining, manufacturing and agriculture are growing faster than all but two other states, and state govt. is Very business friendly. I had quite a few large NV company/clients, all surviving the recession.

You can belch out the dumbocrat talking points all day, but the facts remain unchanged: The current federal admin. has grown out of control, and worse, the fed. govt managers are CLEARLY not carrying out their constitutional mandates under which they are empowered.

No federal agency should EVER use or even contemplate using deadly force to collect a debt.

NEVER!

Clearly, donk/ideologues as yourself do not understand this basic tenet.

Rather than proving your ignorance, you would be prudent to walk away from this "battle".

Ummm…not only can you run cattle for cheap on those federal lands, you can also mine for real cheap.

As for the use of force, did the feds go in guns a-ablazing? Was Bundy not warned that they might confiscate his cattle? Have they not removed cattle from other offenders peacefully? Did they not have reason to believe that a confrontation might occur between their personnel and the violator?

Did the Feds just acquire land under the "current administration" or did the law breaking perhaps occur before Obushma took office?

I'm not sure if the "Federalist" is donk publication or not, but this analysis seems fairly reasonable to me.

But does Bundy really qualify as a law-abiding Nevadan? Atlantic contributor Matt Ford pointed out Monday that Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution directly contradicts Bundy’s actions:

“... Whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”
Bundy isn’t upholding state sovereignty—he’s upholding his own personal conception of state sovereignty…

The problem with Bundy’s stance is that he has no higher end in this fight than his own interests. Though it’s true that the federal government’s takeover of Nevada land is decidedly frustrating to many, there are other methods of protest—less flashy and attention grabbing, perhaps, but methods which appeal to both parties and grasp the importance of compromise and persuasion. But Bundy is not interested in such methods. Rather than using the avenues and pathways presented to him, Bundy has staunchly declared his own law and allegiances.

Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work this way. If only it did—we could rebel for paying stupid taxes, refuse to ever attend jury duty, sell whatever we want on the streets without a license. Maybe our world would be better for it—or maybe it would become chaotic and anarchical, characterized by a tyrannical majority that insists on whatever it wills for its own good.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/17/the ... rebellion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are a nation of laws T. You and I are both in business and understand there's a process involved with disputing government fines and restrictions. I've actually one a few of these by following the process and fighting within the rules, and not a single shot was fired!

We are nation of laws. Bundy violated the laws, took advantage of the people's land, and is a criminal.

Why do you hate the constitution?

[HI54UNI]

Kalm, here's where you shut up before unequivocally proving your ignorance.

Nevada is one of our nation's richest natural resource regions. Mining, manufacturing and agriculture are growing faster than all but two other states, and state govt. is Very business friendly. I had quite a few large NV company/clients, all surviving the recession.

You can belch out the dumbocrat talking points all day, but the facts remain unchanged: The current federal admin. has grown out of control, and worse, the fed. govt managers are CLEARLY not carrying out their constitutional mandates under which they are empowered.

No federal agency should EVER use or even contemplate using deadly force to collect a debt.

NEVER!

Clearly, donk/ideologues as yourself do not understand this basic tenet.

Rather than proving your ignorance, you would be prudent to walk away from this "battle".

Ummm…not only can you run cattle for cheap on those federal lands, you can also mine for real cheap.

As for the use of force, did the feds go in guns a-ablazing? Was Bundy not warned that they might confiscate his cattle? Have they not removed cattle from other offenders peacefully? Did they not have reason to believe that a confrontation might occur between their personnel and the violator?

Did the Feds just acquire land under the "current administration" or did the law breaking perhaps occur before Obushma took office?

I'm not sure if the "Federalist" is donk publication or not, but this analysis seems fairly reasonable to me.

But does Bundy really qualify as a law-abiding Nevadan? Atlantic contributor Matt Ford pointed out Monday that Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution directly contradicts Bundy’s actions:

“... Whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.”
Bundy isn’t upholding state sovereignty—he’s upholding his own personal conception of state sovereignty…

The problem with Bundy’s stance is that he has no higher end in this fight than his own interests. Though it’s true that the federal government’s takeover of Nevada land is decidedly frustrating to many, there are other methods of protest—less flashy and attention grabbing, perhaps, but methods which appeal to both parties and grasp the importance of compromise and persuasion. But Bundy is not interested in such methods. Rather than using the avenues and pathways presented to him, Bundy has staunchly declared his own law and allegiances.

Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work this way. If only it did—we could rebel for paying stupid taxes, refuse to ever attend jury duty, sell whatever we want on the streets without a license. Maybe our world would be better for it—or maybe it would become chaotic and anarchical, characterized by a tyrannical majority that insists on whatever it wills for its own good.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/17/the ... rebellion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are a nation of laws T. You and I are both in business and understand there's a process involved with disputing government fines and restrictions. I've actually one a few of these by following the process and fighting within the rules, and not a single shot was fired!

We are nation of laws. Bundy violated the laws, took advantage of the people's land, and is a criminal.

Why do you hate the constitution?

The question that should be asked from all of this is why does BLM and many other federal agencies have what are essentially SWAT teams? If Bundy isn't paying and needs to be arrested and have his cattle seized than why doesn't BLM work with the local law enforcement to do this? Or bring in federal marshals or the FBI if necessary Why do they need their own armed force?

Same goes with the post office, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, etc.

[houndawg]

Ummm…not only can you run cattle for cheap on those federal lands, you can also mine for real cheap.

As for the use of force, did the feds go in guns a-ablazing? Was Bundy not warned that they might confiscate his cattle? Have they not removed cattle from other offenders peacefully? Did they not have reason to believe that a confrontation might occur between their personnel and the violator?

Did the Feds just acquire land under the "current administration" or did the law breaking perhaps occur before Obushma took office?

I'm not sure if the "Federalist" is donk publication or not, but this analysis seems fairly reasonable to me.


http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/17/the ... rebellion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are a nation of laws T. You and I are both in business and understand there's a process involved with disputing government fines and restrictions. I've actually one a few of these by following the process and fighting within the rules, and not a single shot was fired!

We are nation of laws. Bundy violated the laws, took advantage of the people's land, and is a criminal.

Why do you hate the constitution?

The question that should be asked from all of this is why does BLM and many other federal agencies have what are essentially SWAT teams? If Bundy isn't paying and needs to be arrested and have his cattle seized than why doesn't BLM work with the local law enforcement to do this? Or bring in federal marshals or the FBI if necessary Why do they need their own armed force?

Same goes with the post office, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, etc.

Planning for the future of our Prison Industrial Complex. In the future everybody who isn't incarcerated for something will be a prison guard working for the ruling elite. It won't be much fun but if we have trains they'll be on time.

[kalm]

Ummm…not only can you run cattle for cheap on those federal lands, you can also mine for real cheap.

As for the use of force, did the feds go in guns a-ablazing? Was Bundy not warned that they might confiscate his cattle? Have they not removed cattle from other offenders peacefully? Did they not have reason to believe that a confrontation might occur between their personnel and the violator?

Did the Feds just acquire land under the "current administration" or did the law breaking perhaps occur before Obushma took office?

I'm not sure if the "Federalist" is donk publication or not, but this analysis seems fairly reasonable to me.


http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/17/the ... rebellion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are a nation of laws T. You and I are both in business and understand there's a process involved with disputing government fines and restrictions. I've actually one a few of these by following the process and fighting within the rules, and not a single shot was fired!

We are nation of laws. Bundy violated the laws, took advantage of the people's land, and is a criminal.

Why do you hate the constitution?

The question that should be asked from all of this is why does BLM and many other federal agencies have what are essentially SWAT teams? If Bundy isn't paying and needs to be arrested and have his cattle seized than why doesn't BLM work with the local law enforcement to do this? Or bring in federal marshals or the FBI if necessary Why do they need their own armed force?

Same goes with the post office, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, etc.

Good question. In the case of large rural counties, locals are are barely equipped enough to handle their own issues. In this case, I believe it was Clark County which includes Vegas, but I'm still guessing they don't count on having to shift a massive amount of resources out of the high crime urban areas. Besides, this is federal land and while the case for using federal marshals and the FBI makes a bit of sense, there's also something to be said for the BLM being more familiar with the land they manage. Also keep in mind that each of these agencies by necessity have a law enforcement wing due to real threats to agents in the field. Some of them have been murdered in the past. Then, there's also the militarization desires of every law enforcement agency. They all want to be top cop and have the fancy gadgets.

[Chizzang]

The question that should be asked from all of this is why does BLM and many other federal agencies have what are essentially SWAT teams? If Bundy isn't paying and needs to be arrested and have his cattle seized than why doesn't BLM work with the local law enforcement to do this? Or bring in federal marshals or the FBI if necessary Why do they need their own armed force?

Same goes with the post office, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, etc.

That is a great question and it falls along the lines of so many questions I have like..

WHY:
Do we have hundreds of Bombers sitting in Hangars never to be used that cost Billions of dollars
WHY:
Did the TSA spend over 100 billion on equipment they were never going to use...
WHY:
Do all of our Federal Agencies only get larger every year - how could that be possible or necessary..?

Why indeed...

[travelinman67]

[Klam]Good question. In the case of large rural counties, locals are are barely equipped enough to handle their own issues. In this case, I believe it was Clark County which includes Vegas, but I'm still guessing they don't count on having to shift a massive amount of resources out of the high crime urban areas. Besides, this is federal land and while the case for using federal marshals and the FBI makes a bit of sense, there's also something to be said for the BLM being more familiar with the land they manage. Also keep in mind that each of these agencies by necessity have a law enforcement wing due to real threats to agents in the field. Some of them have been murdered in the past. Then, there's also the militarization desires of every law enforcement agency. They all want to be top cop and have the fancy gadgets.[/quote]

You sound like a teen operative Organizing for America.

There is no "necessity" that agencies have an enforcement staff of paramilitary agents.: That's why we have mutual aid policies. I.e., leave it to the professionals.


Furthermore, your assertion of "murdered" agents is unsupported hyperbole

[houndawg]

[Klam]Good question. In the case of large rural counties, locals are are barely equipped enough to handle their own issues. In this case, I believe it was Clark County which includes Vegas, but I'm still guessing they don't count on having to shift a massive amount of resources out of the high crime urban areas. Besides, this is federal land and while the case for using federal marshals and the FBI makes a bit of sense, there's also something to be said for the BLM being more familiar with the land they manage. Also keep in mind that each of these agencies by necessity have a law enforcement wing due to real threats to agents in the field. Some of them have been murdered in the past. Then, there's also the militarization desires of every law enforcement agency. They all want to be top cop and have the fancy gadgets.

You sound like a teen operative Organizing for America.

There is no "necessity" that agencies have an enforcement staff of paramilitary agents.: That's why we have mutual aid policies. I.e., leave it to the professionals.


Furthermore, your assertion of "murdered" agents is unsupported hyperbole

Stupid conk fvck.


Wounded Knee? Leonard Peltier?

[Baldy]

We are a nation of laws T. You and I are both in business and understand there's a process involved with disputing government fines and restrictions. I've actually one a few of these by following the process and fighting within the rules, and not a single shot was fired!

We are nation of laws. Bundy violated the laws, took advantage of the people's land, and is a criminal.

Why do you hate the constitution?

We are a nation of laws, but I have yet to see, hear or follow one that states that a government agency has the right to collect deficient taxes or fees at the point of a gun.

Fine, Bundy violated the law and is a criminal. Issue the liens and levy his property. I've done it a hundred times and haven't had to use helicopters, tazers, snipers, or paramilitary police.

[Chizzang]

We are a nation of laws T. You and I are both in business and understand there's a process involved with disputing government fines and restrictions. I've actually one a few of these by following the process and fighting within the rules, and not a single shot was fired!

We are nation of laws. Bundy violated the laws, took advantage of the people's land, and is a criminal.

Why do you hate the constitution?

We are a nation of laws, but I have yet to see, hear or follow one that states that a government agency has the right to collect deficient taxes or fees at the point of a gun.

Fine, Bundy violated the law and is a criminal. Issue the liens and levy his property. I've done it a hundred times and haven't had to use helicopters, tazers, snipers, or paramilitary police.

Yeah but that takes all the fun out of it...
Waco set the new standard for government intervention - we can't fall short of that