What's new
By:
Filters

Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

Sounds pretty gnarly!

Oh, and don't think I havent put two and two together...

PKM said:
That I know of, there were armed and organized militia from GA, TX, UT, NV, AZ, NH, TN, KY, and FL.
Click to expand...

quputa2u.jpg



£¥£
 
PKM said:
Yesterday was one of the most incredible things I have ever witnessed. Please let's keep the negative rhetoric to a minimum.. especially for those that haven't actually done something with a purpose in their lives. Tia.

That I know of, there were armed and organized militia from GA, TX, UT, NV, AZ, NH, TN, KY, and FL.
They became well organized as a unit and had a plan.. to the surprise of the federal agents.

As they approached the fed's compound and the confiscated cattle on horseback and most everyone with sidearms, the feds warned to disperse or they would chemical spray. The protesters refused to back down and kept coming fwd, but with hands up (mostly). They lulled the feds to sleep with their passive aggression... the feds kept coming closer as well...

It was then the feds found they had been flanked and their were armed malitia hiding in the k-bars of the overpasses and then the long guns (mostly AR's) emerged from the overpasses above and were trained on the feds.

The feds retreated and the cattle were taken back.

I have incredible footage of all this that has been uploading for 12 hours now (wtf).

I know it isn't over, obviously. But I loved watching Americans stick together and fight for a belief (whether they're right or wrong). These were good people and not a single one came off as some trigger-happy knuckledragging hero looking to make a name for himself.

It was a TENSE time, I will admit, but I never felt like someone was going to lose their cool.
Click to expand...

That's some **** dude. Has the whitehouse commented yet?
 
PKM said:
Thanks. Could you please reference the stated clauses? I mean this sincerely when I say you obviously know more in this than I do and I am a fact/context guy.. not one that twists words to fit an agenda, so I really am being sincere.

How does what your citing above reflect/line up with the Enclave clause? SECTION 1, ARTICLE 8, CLAUSE 17.
Click to expand...

Property clause:
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

The enclave clause govens a very small subset of federal land like military bases. It does not conflict with the property clause. It also includes land that states voluntarily cede to the feds (courthouses, post offices etc)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The majority of this is my footage.. it's a bit of a montage though. I have other crazy video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bD61YFxUga4
 
Interesting. What was the original reason that the feds wanted the cattle off of the public lands?
 
Scat said:
Interesting. What was the original reason that the feds wanted the cattle off of the public lands?
Click to expand...

There's a 14 page thread on this just below this one, but here's the gist;

Feds - Bundy is using federal lands for grazing cattle and is subject to lease payments. Bundy hasn't paid them.

I don't have the energy to fully explain both sides again, but my personal main issue was with the feds bringing in military-style operations to take down one rancher (prior to any real support, for the rancher, being there).
 
There are a lot of people who need to be rounded up and thrown in prison for insurrection. This is a loss for our democratic process. Too bad Obama didn't prepare for these anarchists like General George Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellions.
 
franklin said:
There are a lot of people who need to be rounded up and thrown in prison for insurrection. This is a loss for our democratic process. Too bad Obama didn't prepare for these anarchists like General George Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellions.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right. But I was at least glad to see a united group that had more national pride than I have seen in 30 years.
This country's pride is gone. Everything is "I hate the President, I hate the left, I hate the right, over-spending, get out of Iraq... blah, blah, blah....
I am sincerely glad that I witnessed it, even if the protesters are wrong. I'd rather go out with pride and brothership with fellow Americans than an armchair politician that lacks the intestinal fortitude to question the decision-making of other men ... and spare me the whole non-voters bs.

Google "Harry Reid infowars Bundy" and give me your thoughts, please.
 
JAZZGASM said:
You are wrong on so many levels. Over 60% of Utah land is owned by the federal government, and it is a similar ratio in most of the West. Grazing rights may be gained on private real property by a prescriptive easement or by adverse possession. It does not apply to government owned land (federal, state, municipal...). If Bundy was allowed to graze on federal land, it was because it was allowed (gov't chose to not stop it). Much of this land was acquired early in the history of the United States as a result of purchases, wars, or treaties made with foreign countries. The federal government used this land to encourage growth, settlement, and economic development.

The sheer fact that grazing rights were never codified for many years caused a plethora of range wars to start in the West. However, in 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act formally set out the federal government's powers and policy on grazing federal lands by establishing the Division of Grazing and procedures for issuing permits to graze federal lands for a fixed period of time. The Division of Grazing was renamed the US Grazing Service in 1939 and then merged in 1946 with the General Land Office to become the Bureau of Land Management, which along with the United States Forest Service oversees public lands grazing in 16 western states today. Some grazing land was homesteaded, but not much in the West. Today, the federal government employs principles of land use planning and environmental protection to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty found on public land. The land in question is unequivocally owned by the federal government. Permits have been issued here before the BLM existed. And yes, it sucks if they aren't improving the land as they said they would, but it is public land, and I would HOPE the government charges a business to use it.

In regards to principles of ex post facto laws, you are wrong as well. Laws can always change, but they apply prospectively. Here is a hypothetical: lets say grazing on federal lands was legal for 50 years but illegalized today. If you kept grazing tomorrow, you would be breaking the law and subject to penalty. The fact is, the law was never codified before the Taylor act, but when it was first grazed by Bundy's family it was a federal territory, subject to their control. And permanent grazing rights were never established, that is a large part in what allowed two district courts to rule the cattle could be removed.

Basic constitution courses should be taught to everyone somewhere between middle and high school. It is so sad what so many people incorrectly believe regarding basic constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


So basically, Bundy's forefathers used our lands free of charge for decades and now want to tell us it's their land because we gave them charity? It's like me saying my family has hunted or trapped on a certain piece of land for a century so I own it and the Fed Commies need to give it to me. Where's my Gordon Damned Texas flag to wave?
 
So, slightly off topic.

Who does 'public lands' belong to?
Who ultimately has say as to what those lands are used for?
Would it bother you if these public lands are utilized by politicians lining their pockets (and those of their cronies) and being persuaded by SIG's?

I'm not being argumentative.
 
PKM said:
Maybe you're right. But I was at least glad to see a united group that had more national pride than I have seen in 30 years.
This country's pride is gone. Everything is "I hate the President, I hate the left, I hate the right, over-spending, get out of Iraq... blah, blah, blah....
I am sincerely glad that I witnessed it, even if the protesters are wrong. I'd rather go out with pride and brothership with fellow Americans than an armchair politician that lacks the intestinal fortitude to question the decision-making of other men ... and spare me the whole non-voters bs.

Google "Harry Reid infowars Bundy" and give me your thoughts, please.
Click to expand...

There's national pride like an Iraqi Shi'ite has, and there's national pride for the higher ideals of Western democracy. These people have Shi'ite type national pride, and just pissed and **** on the US Constitution.

This post was brought to you out of national pride.
 
PKM said:
So, slightly off topic.

Who does 'public lands' belong to?
Who ultimately has say as to what those lands are used for?
Would it bother you if these public lands are utilized by politicians lining their pockets (and those of their cronies) and being persuaded by SIG's?

I'm not being argumentative.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a broad question, as public land can be federally owned, state owned, etc. Federal land is owned by the goverment and the people collectively. We entrust our elected officials (who in turn give power to agencies, etc. to make land use decisions...). The govt decides development, use, and environmental/presevation principles over such land. If we dont like what is going on, we need to vote people into place that will better represent our interests.
 
franklin said:
There's national pride like an Iraqi Shi'ite has, and there's national pride for the higher ideals of Western democracy. These people have Shi'ite type national pride, and just pissed and **** on the US Constitution.

This post was brought to you out of national pride.
Click to expand...

You don't know these people. Awfully intellectually elitist of you to assume you do.

I'll say this. WHEN **** goes down, I would rather have these people as friends than those with their 'higher ideals.'
 
JAZZGASM said:
Well, that is a broad question, as public land can be federally owned, state owned, etc. Federal land is owned by the goverment and the people collectively. We entrust our elected officials (who in turn give power to agencies, etc. to make land use decisions...). The govt decides development, use, and environmental/presevation principles over such land. If we dont like what is going on, we need to vote people into place that will better represent our interests.
Click to expand...

That's where I have the problem. I think it is too often that those in control are persuaded (even innocently) to make decisions based on the good of a few select rather than the interest of the greater good.

Funny I'm even saying any of this. I've long been one of the most right-wing, free enterprise, capitalists I've ever known... maybe I'm getting weak as I get older.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top