A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


The sheriff has been trying to reason with this guy for 20 years. Even now he has been trying to calm down the situation.. the feds showed up to move the cattle because of a court order, after giving Bundy plenty of time to do so after loosing his second case.

The fact is, he is standing his ground saying he is not moving the cattle - ever - off the public land. Apparently no one can reason with this man. It's a matter of him getting his way regardless of court cases or court order. He recognizes the courts enough to take up his case in court, but then refuses to recognize their decision after all the evidence was presented... twice... in front of two different judges.

But what I had said, is that for sake of this man's property, he should have moved them, and kept taking his case to court... all the way to the supreme court if need be. He could get a junction to stay the removal of the cattle if he had done that.

I don't believe that the government is trying to run this man out of business, I believe that the government is not that competent. Hell they cannot even manage to round up some cattle for god's sake let alone plot to put this man out of business. If he wants to fight, then he should fight right.... not just be an asshole.

And he should fight for everyone concerning public right to federal land and what that entails, but he isn't. He doesn't give a flying # about anyone else - and he is willing to lie to people in order to get his way instead of being honest and straightforward.

projectvxn

OpinionatedB
reply to post by projectvxn

 

How do we know this really... are we taking the word of a man who is breaking the law...?

I don't know who escalated what first! But i'm not sure I can trust this man Bundy with the truth.

We know this from the various reports leading up to the BLM showing up with snipers on overwatch to execute the cattle round up.

All this man is doing illegally is a trespassing cattle drive. Not only that the man is claiming ancestral rights. He's not exactly a career criminal dude.

Let try to get some perspective shall we?

Correct , From what ive have Read . MR Bundy has said His Family Ran the Ranch since the mid 1800's and the government just recently ( within the decade ) was charging him grazing rights ? Well if the Government Knew about this that this family been doing this Why within the Last Decade ? instead from the Start. They Claim the Cattle Has Ruined some Garden? , and Protecting Turtle's around the Area? , The Same Turtles that the FEDS Euthanized for NO Apparent Reason ? and Whats UP with the Backhoes! Were they planning Dig some Graves to Execute Some Cattle or something more more ? well they were not planning to use the Backhoes to does some landscaping were they ? I didn't see any Fencing being put up on State Land. Cell/Com. Towers being Disabled Sure . except they forgot Blue Tooth. and Most Video Cameras Still Function without Service on Cell Phones. Record and send to the next service Function Tower , Hell you don't need the phone after its been saved on a Mini SD Card. U can Hide that baby anywhere. but for a No Fly Zone , that just another Ballgame , that Means Bombs Drones or Worse , Compound Setups etc.

I can Say this, that # was Tried Before were Im From and We Won !

Tho it was in another Country Canada

OKA



Oka Crisis
en.wikipedia.org...

The Oka Crisis was a land dispute between a group of Mohawk people and the town of Oka, Quebec, Canada which began on July 11, 1990 and lasted until September 26, 1990. One person died as a result. The dispute was the first well-publicized violent conflict between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century. The crisis developed from a local dispute between the town of Oka and the Mohawk community of Kanesatake. The town of Oka was developing plans to expand a golf course and residential development onto land which had traditionally been used by the Mohawk. It included pineland and a burial ground, marked by standing tombstones of their ancestors. The Mohawks had filed a land claim for the sacred grove and burial ground near Kanesatake, but their claim had been rejected in 1986.

The Oka Crisis lasted 78 days, and gunfire early in the crisis killed SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay. The golf course expansion which had originally triggered the crisis was cancelled by the mayor of Oka. The Oka Crisis galvanized, throughout Canada, a subsequent process of developing an First Nations Policing Policy to try to prevent future such events.

yeah I know a Little Different Situation.

but Come on over Decades The Goverment did NOT have a Problem with the Bundy Family using the land for Grazing for over 100 years till the last decade, All Because the Goverment wanted some money for a Grazing Fee! ? then Something about Endangering a Turtle ? LOL Thank God The Bison are not in great Numbers like they were back in the Mid 1800s Ravaging ( Grazing the Land ) Antelope and other Cloven Beast, Wild Horses too!. Well the Case is Should the Bundy be grandfathered in with the land ? as the Family been there before these laws came into existence

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

Yep. Isn't it funny how the British are so hell-bent on taking our guns too? Strange(not really). More and more brits on American news medias.

Many of the militias are armed as good as local law enforcement and could probably hold their own against military. Militias are the only real answer to fighting off government tyranny. Hopefully, this incident has caused even more militias to form and train. It's only a matter of time before the Gov. labels them as "terrorists" and start attacking them and their headquarters with drones.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Once a law goes into effect, it doesn't matter if you were alive before that law went into effect... you still have to follow that law. Whether its about grazing your cattle on public land, or whether its if you need a license in order to drive a car. Eventually, new laws enacted by elected officials, will come to bear on us all - regardless of who we are.

They purchased their land in the 1870's... back then we had the BLM... just a different name for it then.

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

Now, At the time the Bundy's made the purchase of their 150 acre farm their was a shift in policy change concerning federal land:

The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.

However, in 1934 the Taylor grazing act meant that ranchers could still obtain permits to graze on these federal lands:

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.

So now the BLM was two offices, one for settlement and one for public use. Which changed in 1946 when they merged two federal departments into one which was called the BLM.

In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior.

Today, you have two main groups who dispute about the main priorities of what the BLM should be and do... and split loyalties concerning what the BLM should be being used for. Those two main groups are the republicans and the democrats.

Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism

And with a democrat as our sitting president, it's little wonder that now the BLM is preserving turtles instead of assisting with grazing rights. But... really... that's the democrats for you.. and Kali in this thread has proven.

Nevertheless, it isn't feds encroaching on anyone's rights... its the damn liberals, and since they are part of this country too, I suppose they have the same right to speak and vote as me... even if it's them wanting to preserve a damn turtle who is not endangered.

Whenever we vote - whenever we speak out or for something with a political voice, this IS what we do... we decide whether some guy someday is going to be able to graze his herd on public land or not.

And this year... its not. The democrats win round 1. That said.. we all have to respect the opinions of eachother.. we are all living together after all. We don't have to agree... we do have to make sure our asses our protected against idiocy though.. this point should be well taken all the way around.

Don't let your livelihood revolve around something that's not legally yours that you have no legal say over.

As for the truth behind the Bundy story... this is an article that looks at it as a whole, and debunks a couple of the biggest lies circulating. They are also a very good group: The Free Patriot:

Solid article concerning the Bundy ordeal

Allegations also circulated about a connection between Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Bundy ranchers, and a Chinese company planning to build solar power plants. While certainly interesting, this appears to be only a rumor. In actuality, the planned location for the solar power project is on the other side of Nevada, and there is no proven link between the Bundy standoff and Senator Reid.

reply to post by Wolfenz

and Whats UP with the Backhoes! Were they planning Dig some Graves to Execute Some Cattle or something more more ? well they were not planning to use the Backhoes to does some landscaping were they ?

The machinery was used for destroying and removing wells 100 years old. Rancher rights to the land are tied to the water rights.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Once a law goes into effect, it doesn't matter if you were alive before that law went into effect... you still have to follow that law. Whether its about grazing your cattle on public land, or whether its if you need a license in order to drive a car. Eventually, new laws enacted by elected officials, will come to bear on us all - regardless of who we are.

They purchased their land in the 1870's... back then we had the BLM... just a different name for it then.

The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

Now, At the time the Bundy's made the purchase of their 150 acre farm their was a shift in policy change concerning federal land:

The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.

However, in 1934 the Taylor grazing act meant that ranchers could still obtain permits to graze on these federal lands:

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.

So now the BLM was two offices, one for settlement and one for public use. Which changed in 1946 when they merged two federal departments into one which was called the BLM.

In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior.

Today, you have two main groups who dispute about the main priorities of what the BLM should be and do... and split loyalties concerning what the BLM should be being used for. Those two main groups are the republicans and the democrats.

Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism

And with a democrat as our sitting president, it's little wonder that now the BLM is preserving turtles instead of assisting with grazing rights. But... really... that's the democrats for you.. and Kali in this thread has proven.

Nevertheless, it isn't feds encroaching on anyone's rights... its the damn liberals, and since they are part of this country too, I suppose they have the same right to speak and vote as me... even if it's them wanting to preserve a damn turtle who is not endangered.

Whenever we vote - whenever we speak out or for something with a political voice, this IS what we do... we decide whether some guy someday is going to be able to graze his herd on public land or not.

And this year... its not. The democrats win round 1. That said.. we all have to respect the opinions of eachother.. we are all living together after all. We don't have to agree... we do have to make sure our asses our protected against idiocy though.. this point should be well taken all the way around.

Don't let your livelihood revolve around something that's not legally yours that you have no legal say over.

As for the truth behind the Bundy story... this is an article that looks at it as a whole, and debunks a couple of the biggest lies circulating. They are also a very good group: The Free Patriot:

Solid article concerning the Bundy ordeal

Allegations also circulated about a connection between Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Bundy ranchers, and a Chinese company planning to build solar power plants. While certainly interesting, this appears to be only a rumor. In actuality, the planned location for the solar power project is on the other side of Nevada, and there is no proven link between the Bundy standoff and Senator Reid.

edit on 13-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Sir white knight of the government we simple peasant folk are deeply sorry for causing such a ruckus, from the bottom of my heart please let us apologize for wanting to have a say in the running of the country. It is our fault, we believed we lived in a democracy, silly us... We will keep our mouths shut in future and let the government open fire. Thank you for helping us realize that we are maggots on the end of the governments boots.

DP

DP

reply to post by sosobad


excuse the hell out of me for thinking the truth is very important. No one has been able to prove the government did anything wrong...rumor and wild speculation is not proof.

I am no white knight for the government... you just don't know me at all...

what I do believe in is fact and truth. It was the biggest reason and that I joined this site... truth mattered here.

reply to post by sosobad


I spent my whole life watching people jump up and down screaming for new law this and new law that... the whole time going WTF?

I watched after 9/11 people in this country willingly hand over every right they had because they were afraid of "terrorists".. the whole time going WTF?

Now.. people got exactly what they want. If I have to live with what you all did to this country... then so should you.

You can change it whenever you please... but don't change it for what is wrong... change it for what is right.

No, I do not support this man's actions. He is just another rich, religious, tax dodger. That was not his land. If I lived in Nevada I would go homestead now since the land does not belong to anyone, if Mr Bundy won. As far as I know, the homestead act was never repealed. You just gotta make your stake for over two weeks. Ever wonder why you can't camp in the same spot for more than two weeks?

reply to post by projectvxn


As a society should we be concerned about the militarization of police forces and the police state. Is this the case that should be the model for that concern? I don't think so and this is why. This man has had his case heard in court twice spanning the better part of two decades and he lost. He has every right to disagree with the courts opinion. He has the right to petition the Government to get the law changed. He does not however have the right to ignore the ruling and continue to do as he pleases. The reason the courts exist is to resolve these things, if he had won he would have with every right expected the Government to abide by it and pay his legal fees possibly followed by civil action on his part.

I do not see where those enforcing the court order had any choice but to expect armed resistance and plan accordingly. This situation isn't Ruby Ridge or Waco. Mr. Bundy had his day in court and lost, he does not have the right to keep his cattle on public lands. It is him and his supporters that have escalated this and pushed it to a boiling point. All he has ever had to do is remove the cattle in question or allow law enforcement to do it for him.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Well I guess you're one step ahead of most people since apparently you, and only you, know the exact and %100 truth of this entire situation, and for some strange reason no matter how many times you attempt to spell it out for us nobody seems to listen to you. You know why this is? Because you are WRONG! Get a clue.

Someone else mentioned everything Hitler he did was done by the book (german book, lol) leading up to ww2. I see what he meant and I understand it totally.

Law isn't always right. Law is created by people, people aren't always right. Don't be so willing to get behind something some suit wearing schmuck pulled out of his ass in order to # people around.

You talk about people getting behind this guy and not james boyd (think that's the name) the homeless guy who got shot. Are you nuts? Tons of people did, they actually protested over it.

I don't even know why im talking to you.. Women *rolls eyes*

DJW001
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Once again, Bundy was the one stealing land: your land.

From what I understand, his family had free grazing rights for eternity by contract with the state, when it was state land. Then one day the Fed came and said "It's Federal land now, pay us taxes for it" and he said eat my butt, righteously.

Correct me if I'm wrong but right now this is my understanding of it.

Maybe this from last year is why the Feds showed up armed:

www.lasvegassun.com...

In it even the local sheriff was afraid to enforce a court order because of the danger from the Bundy family:

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie visited the rancher last year but has resisted enforcing federal deadlines, declining to put his deputies in danger over a herd of cattle. Gillespie called Bundy in September with the names of a few lawyers to contact.

And maybe it wasn't so much they feared Cliven but rather the mother and son:

"“I’ve got a shotgun,” she said. “It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion.”

Grabbing another fistful of bacon, Arden said he wants to be part of any coming battle. His mother smiled.

“Arden doesn’t know life any other way,” she said. “We’ve been fighting this war before he was born.”

I know if I was a law enforcement officer and read this article I would definitely have shown up armed.


It looks like the Bundy's were talking about "war" before the Feds showed up.

reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace


"Granted they got the guys who did it"

NO, THEY DID NOT!!!

It wasn't until AFTER their show of force, intimidation, and field test of police state tyranny, when people went back to their lives that an ordinary everyday citizen found him hiding.

A trampling of rights without producing a single thing that was used to justify it.

I can not believe most of you!
you say if they lose in court they bend over and take it.

only problem is that they are making
new laws to take Ever think you have.

Obama has the powers to Kill ANY of you with out question.

reply to post by DJW001


They'll be back in greater numbers, ready to break heads, and kill some people if they think they can get away with. They won't back down. They serve the established, order and won't countenance a loss of face. There will be blood.

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

You got it wrong. There are no 'Second Amendment' rights. Those rights are implicit and granted to every U.S. citizen (while in the U.S.). Read the Second Amendment again, think about what you just read for about a half second, and you will realise that what the Second Amendment provide is not any rights for you as a citizen (you already have those right anyway, amendment or not), but instead limits the Government's ability to inhibit those rights.

E.g. it is a limitation clause that limits the power of the Government, not a clause that gives you any rights.

Biigs
The UK is usually X years behind the states with most things, i really hope this one doesnt catch on. Every time i go to the states i feel nervous around cops, ive got a perfectly clean record and im not into anything bad, im just scared around them. Which is not really the "approachable" police force you want. I asked a customs cop to borrow a pen so i could fill in a visa waver (the plane ran out, AA suck), he said no. I was stunned. Welcome to america bitch.

The UK generally looks in two directions for inspiration for new things for the Government to do. They look at the US for police state stuff (although the UK is presently having the lead in terms of CCTV surveillance, a network to which even speed cameras are now connected), and they look at primarily Sweden for things to do to the public at large to inhibit their freedoms, give more powers to outfits such as HMRC (guess which country have already given their 'HMRC' the same rights as Osborne now want to give the HMRC?) and in general making ordinary people become more like cattle and think alike. Oh, and Sweden's FRA has also been a great inspiration for GCHQ.

But back to the topic. Like you, I never ever feel safe when I visit the USA anymore, and it's not because of some guys living in sandy hills and dressed in what looks like bedsheets in a country far, far away. America, the land of the free police state.