Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
That's ********. That is partially true, yes.. but there are also some VERY good people with strong beliefs that are simply exercising their 'rights.'
I'm not convinced this is true. Their family goes back to 1887, pre BLM. They can make a homesteading plea under the homestead act of 1862.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_of_1862
They've certainly improved the land, and they can prove that. And there has to be something filed with the county from back in the day declaring it Bundy property... right? It doesn't say how they have to file an application, or what form that application needs be in, just proof of their existence there.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of good people with strong beliefs that do stupid things.
All of these militia people coming out aren't helping the Bundy's. Hell, they probably don't care about the Bundy's. They just want an opportunity to stand against the government, which is fine…but if they actually cared about the Bundy's, there are far more effective ways to help than what they're doing. They're just making it worse.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
If they would have filed, I'm sure there would be an application somewhere. I'm positive Bundy knows that, but yet he still hasn't talked about it at all. All he ever says is that he's been there for a long time. No papers filed, no land.
He's just mad that he had to start paying fees in the early '90's…and rightfully so. I would have been mad too. At some point you have to cut your losses and either relocate, or just go with it. Do I feel bad for a guy who has been grazing a place for free? Hell no. Especially not when essentially all of the ranchers that graze land, pay a fee for it. You don't see them bitching about it. Again, if he had a leg to stand on legally, it would have been presented in court, and obviously, he didn't have anything.
By no means am I excusing the way the BLM has acted this last week, but that doesn't excuse Bundy from breaking the law and essentially stealing resources.
Well, the Bundys HAVE lost in court a couple times. But this is morphing far beyond a dispute over this mans cattle and grazing rights. This is turning into a resistance against the government. All the grievences, real or imagined, are being fought thru this issue. I have heard the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendments being brought up.
At least I proved my point... that there IS more to be said.
The rules changed and he decided to disagree with the changes. I can see both sides of this argument. I'm NOT convinced that the grazing fees were entirely and patently constitutional and, at worst, it's debatable. What if the government suddenly decided to designate YOUR land as only able to graze cattle.. that potatoes were bad for the environment? You may obey, you may go broke.. but either the case, I would feel bad for you.
I get that I am in the vast minority on this issue, but I am not trying to convince anyone to any line of thinking, I'm just having conversation.
Besides, for me, this is less about the Bundy's and much more about why the feds are treating this like it's Iraq or something... BEFORE anyone began showing up and it escalating. They brought in hundreds of armed agents prior to any protests at all. They CREATED the conflict, intentionally or not. <---- Would love to know the answer to that one.
Besides, for me, this is less about the Bundy's and much more about why the feds are treating this like it's Iraq or something... BEFORE anyone began showing up and it escalating. They brought in hundreds of armed agents prior to any protests at all. They CREATED the conflict, intentionally or not. <---- Would love to know the answer to that one.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
First off, what a horrible argument. Just horrible. Lets stick to the fact, ok? No need for anything else. If you can't use the facts to make you sound right, then maybe there's a reason for that. Also, we own our land. Have papers and everything, like any other normal person who farms. The land that we lease from the state, we realize that if we don't do what they want, they can take it from us, even though we've been farming it for decades. Does it suck? Absolutely, but those are the rules and we follow them. If they tried to take the land that we owned, they would have to pay us. If they took the land that we leased, well…it's already theirs. They don't owe us ****. This isn't complicated.
- Bundy's grazing ground that he does not own, got turned into BLM land.
- If he owned it, it would have been a case of eminent domain, and he would have gotten paid for it. He did not, and he's been in courtrooms for 20 years, thus signifying that he did not own the land, and he knows it.
- Bundy hasn't paid his grazing fees for 20 years, thus owing $1.1 million.
- Bundy got warned his cattle would be taken if he didn't move, so he didn't move.
- Bundy's cattle got taken away in a reprehensible way, and the BLM overstepped their boundaries.
- If Bundy would have listened, he could have paid $55,000 a year, which is a lot of money, but he could have easily paid for it. Or he could have relocated.
- If Bundy listened, he would still be ranching, and we wouldn't be having this stupid debate.
- Essentially, if Bundy would have just forked out the money (and I'm sure his legal costs were higher than the leasing costs), then he could still be ranching, still be with his family, and we wouldn't be having these problems. Bundy was greedy and didn't want to pay for the land, I don't feel bad for him.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Actually, Bundy created the conflict by not obeying the law, the BLM escalated it.
No defense for the BLM in that regard, and like I said earlier, it is frightening.
That doesn't mean that we need to have the militia out there trying to rile up a fight. It's not helping anybody, especially the Bundy's.
Eh, I see them as 50/50 partners in creating this situation. Bundy could have done things differently but that holds true for the BLM as well.
But I see not point in arguing who is at fault foor this fiasco as that is now the minor story here. This is now about a group of people resisting what they view as a tyrannical gov.