Armed Fed Agents and Snipers in Nevada Battle with Local Rancher

rockflier
reply to post by Olivine

 

And armed protesters continue to arrive.
Armed protesters continue to arrive.

It should be titled armed witless protestors continue to arrive. So these people sit on their ass and do nothing when banks foreclose on homes where they don't own the mortgage and have armed thugs remove the residents but they can show to help some deadbeat who thinks he should be able to break the law and has been breaking the law for 20 years now. Yeah that makes sense.

aLLeKs
Everytime I see something like this, I ask myself why you Americans still believe that you are the land of the free....
Everytime I look at the news, I think to myself: "USA? Land of the free? Freedom looks different."

America still is the land of the free. It is just not the land of the free for those like Bundy who think they are above the law. The idiot hasn't figured out yet that you have to be elected into office before you are above the law.

buster2010
The idiot hasn't figured out yet that you have to be elected into office before you are above the law.

Now that is funny right there, I don't care who you are.

govmule

gariac
reply to post by trig_grl

 

"Endangered tortoises" is merely the government cover story for confiscating land to turn it over to fracking companies for millions of dollars in energy leases.

The government doesn't have to confiscate the land. Why? Because they already own it.

That was good for a chuckle. A website with writing that stupid should stick to peddling pills.

The government doesn't own anything, we the people do, we pay for it with tax money. They are only paid to make sure our constitutional rights are not violated and our nation is safe from foreign invasion. They are handling this entire situation like the Gestapo.

edit on 10-4-2014 by govmule because: (no reason given)

It is land owned by the government and managed for public use. You do realize thousands of ranchers use BLM land without incident.

If the Gestapo were in charge, this wanker would already be well perforated.

reply to post by buster2010


Yeah I'm not understanding how/why he's garnered so much support. I see some people saying it's not the governments land, it's OUR land. Well, why do you think it's OK to have someone trampling up your land and not paying pasture fees like everyone else? If this were a corporation people would be furious that they weren't paying their dues and getting away with breaking the law, but when some yahoo does it suddenly it's fine.

I actually wanted to be on this guy's side at first (Grandpa owned a large cattle ranch) but he's taking advantage of public land and essentially stealing from the state (and that means stealing from YOU). Why would anyone be on his side?

If they were taking HIS land I would be pissed. Not exactly thrilled at the escalation, but highly doubt it would have happened if he had just complied (I know ATS thinks that's a bad word) with the law. Was irritated about the free speech zones and glad to see they've gone away.

reply to post by rockflier


Yeah that was pretty good. Good enough for a snort laugh from me.

aLLeKs
Everytime I see something like this, I ask myself why you Americans still believe that you are the land of the free....
Everytime I look at the news, I think to myself: "USA? Land of the free? Freedom looks different."

Freedom in the U.S. is a fallacy these days. The U.S. is the most "regulated" freedom anywhere.

Read about "3 felonies a day". Meaning, there are sooooo many "laws" and "regulations" that the average person violates at least 3 of them every single day going about their normal, seemingly innocent, routine in the land of freedom.

3 felonies a day

rockflier
reply to post by Olivine

 

And armed protesters continue to arrive.
Armed protesters continue to arrive.

So, for those of you that question "why" this is such a big deal here is a little story:

The Boston Massacre, known as the Incident on King Street by the British, was an incident on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers killed five male civilians and injured six others. British troops had been stationed in Boston, capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, since 1768 in order to protect and support crown-appointed colonial officials attempting to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation

This doesn't appear to be so dissimilar. The "troops" are "stationed" there to "protect and support the crown" and "attempting to enforce unpopular...legislation."

What could happen?

Amid ongoing tense relations between the population and the soldiers, a mob formed around a British sentry, who was subjected to verbal abuse and harassment. He was eventually supported by eight additional soldiers, who were subjected to verbal threats and thrown objects. They fired into the crowd, without orders, instantly killing three people and wounding others. Two more people died later of wounds sustained in the incident.

Boston Massacre

This is what could happen.

Let me quote you another document:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
... too long to fit in the post

edit on 10-4-2014 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)

Domo1
I see some people saying it's not the governments land, it's OUR land.

I actually wanted to be on this guy's side at first (Grandpa owned a large cattle ranch) but he's taking advantage of public land and essentially stealing from the state (and that means stealing from YOU). Why would anyone be on his side?

If they were taking HIS land I would be pissed. Not exactly thrilled at the escalation, but highly doubt it would have happened if he had just complied (I know ATS thinks that's a bad word) with the law. Was irritated about the free speech zones and glad to see they've gone away.

The oddity of these comments is that it is acceptable that this land, or any land, be annexed by the federal government at all. This is a Republic and each State is intended to be sovereign. Meaning that if anyone has any right to annex the land it is the State, not the Feds. The Feds are not intended to have this power to begin with. As for law, many of the laws of the federal government weren't intended to be authorized anyhow; the Constitution specifically delegates the responsibility of these types of laws to the sovereign States themselves. We seem to have lost sight of that.

reply to post by Domo1


a 67-year old rancher stands against 200 some heavily armed feds who have now taken to shooting some of the cattle rather then bother to round them up, cost of this is estimated at 3million to the tax payers.... tell me, whose over the top, off the charts, out of control here?

buster2010

rockflier
reply to post by Olivine

 

And armed protesters continue to arrive.
Armed protesters continue to arrive.

It should be titled armed witless protestors continue to arrive. So these people sit on their ass and do nothing when banks foreclose on homes where they don't own the mortgage and have armed thugs remove the residents but they can show to help some deadbeat who thinks he should be able to break the law and has been breaking the law for 20 years now. Yeah that makes sense.

The difference is that people have hit a tipping point, and are seeing the government as a corrupt organization. Sure, this guy is breaking Federal law, but they don't see it that way. They see it as a rallying point from which to show the government that they're tired of the constant infringement on rights (real or perceived).

Yes, sticking up for the neighbors when banks illegally foreclosed on homes would have been a better fight, but people were still "blind" then.

Bakatono

Domo1
I see some people saying it's not the governments land, it's OUR land.

I actually wanted to be on this guy's side at first (Grandpa owned a large cattle ranch) but he's taking advantage of public land and essentially stealing from the state (and that means stealing from YOU). Why would anyone be on his side?

If they were taking HIS land I would be pissed. Not exactly thrilled at the escalation, but highly doubt it would have happened if he had just complied (I know ATS thinks that's a bad word) with the law. Was irritated about the free speech zones and glad to see they've gone away.

The oddity of these comments is that it is acceptable that this land, or any land, be annexed by the federal government at all. This is a Republic and each State is intended to be sovereign. Meaning that if anyone has any right to annex the land it is the State, not the Feds. The Feds are not intended to have this power to begin with. As for law, many of the laws of the federal government weren't intended to be authorized anyhow; the Constitution specifically delegates the responsibility of these types of laws to the sovereign States themselves. We seem to have lost sight of that.

Exactly, it's not just this one issue. The problem is the constant barrage of infringements (real or perceived). This is just their focal point; a place they can channel all their pent up anger.

LadySkadi
reply to post by Domo1

 

a 67-year old rancher stands against 200 some heavily armed feds who have now taken to shooting some of the cattle rather then bother to round them up, cost of this is estimated at 3million to the tax payers.... tell me, whose over the top, off the charts, out of control here?

My question is this: If all they wanted to do was get him off federal lands, why didn't they just observe him breaking the law and then arrest him?

It seems weird that they'd spend all this money on something that's so polarizing, when this could have been handled with a "simple" arrest.

reply to post by Bakatono

Meaning that if anyone has any right to annex the land it is the State, not the Feds.

Source that it's illegal? No smartassery.

So if the local government said it was illegal would that be OK?

Domo1
reply to post by Bakatono

 

Meaning that if anyone has any right to annex the land it is the State, not the Feds.

Source that it's illegal? No smartassery.

So if the local government said it was illegal would that be OK?

Source that it's legal? The federal government was established with limited powers. If this isn't a power specifically enumerated in the constitution or it's amendments, it's illegal.

reply to post by LadySkadi

a 67-year old rancher stands against 200 some heavily armed feds who have now taken to shooting some of the cattle rather then bother to round them up, cost of this is estimated at 3million to the tax payers.... tell me, whose over the top, off the charts, out of control here?

The rancher. It may cost the gubment a ton of money to capture a murderer, try a scam artist, but just letting them get away with it isn't OK. The guy has been breaking the law for 21 years.

If I catch a guy stealing something from me, should he be allowed to because it costs more in the long run to arrest him and prosecute him? At what point is the dollar amount enforceable? Only if the cops make a profit? So steal my bike, I can't report it or have action taken because it would cost too much?

Don't use the age thing. This started 20 years ago. He was 47. If anything he should know better.

I think the guy should be liable for the 3 Million it's going to cost in addition to the fines/fees he's already facing. Why should the public have to pay for his BS? He's a scofflaw and you are supporting him and his stealing.

Why do you support him? Just tell me that. Why would you support a man that's using public land and not paying for it? Because he's old? Again, he wasn't when this started. What about this makes you side with the guy?

reply to post by Card0

My question is this: If all they wanted to do was get him off federal lands, why didn't they just observe him breaking the law and then arrest him?

I think that is a fantastic question. I have no idea. It seems like an obvious solution right? That can go either way, they may not have a case or they're trying very hard to be kind. Considering the rancher lost 2x in court I'd say it's the latter.

reply to post by Card0

Source that it's legal? The federal government was established with limited powers. If this isn't a power specifically enumerated in the constitution or it's amendments, it's illegal.

Source?

reply to post by Domo1


You can be on BLM property. I do it all the time. You can be in one spot for two weeks. No big deal. Setting up a ranch on federal land is another story.

I really hope people who are posting here have a clue about how to behave on BLM property and are not posting out of ignorance. The BLM wants you to use their land. If some jerk chains the road, the BLM will come with bolt cutters and cut the chain. You want to hike some land and have a question, you go to the BLM office and get some help if you aren't sure where you can go. Been there, done that. Bought the maps, know the rules.

The BLM is not the enemy, well unless you are a horse. ;-) At times you may be questioned by the ranger, but I never had an issue with him. Also FIsh and Game, who checks to see if you are hunting out of season. No big deal. Even the camo dudes are not a problem, well at least after Glenn Campbell softened them up.

Domo1
reply to post by Card0

 

Source that it's legal? The federal government was established with limited powers. If this isn't a power specifically enumerated in the constitution or it's amendments, it's illegal.

Source?

The OP is reading the constitution literally. This has long eroded by SCOTUS decisions.

Remember, if you are a strict constructionist, you can't have an air force, since it wasn't mentioned in the constitution.