BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[boedicca]

Care to prove that the Bundy family mixed their sweat with anything on the public lands??

The fact that they've been using that land, along with other ranchers who also have a property right in the land, for generations is proof enough. Care to prove that the federal government mixed their labor with the land?

They do not have a property right above and beyond a permit which is generally good for ten years.

That's only because the federal government seized land that should have remained in private hands in the first place.

The ranchers do have property rights regarding their cattle, which the Feds have stolen.

 

[Serioususername]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you have more, feel free to post them.

I listed the facts that have brought us to the point that feds have to provide protection for contractors removing Bundy's cattle from public lands.

Oh, and yeah I know you want the lands to be Bundy's. But current laws concerning property do not see it that way. I have no problem with you changing the laws. But until those laws are changed, I'll stick with the reality of who owns the land in question.

I've listed, along with several others, relevant facts several times over in this thread. You're simply ignoring them.

Ok Kevin, you've posted a lot of your opinions about what you think property law OUGHT to be. But what FACTS have you posted that are in conflict with WinterBorn's ?

I haven't seen one and I've been following your posts.

I made a list of facts as one of my first posts in the thread, and I also pointed out the fact that by any traditional definition of the term the ranchers had clearly homesteaded this land prior to the government claiming ownership of it. Now you can say that they legally changed what homestead means, but the fact is that this meets any criteria of homesteading that has existed prior to. Now opinions come into play when we say that we should be going by one or the other definition of homesteading.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's remove the ranchers from the equation for a second, and discuss where the federal government got its claim to the land. I don't think we've adequately explained where their supposed right to this land comes from. We can obviously rule out the idea that the U.S. government homesteaded the land.

Some people have mentioned the Mexican War, which rests on the assumption that the U.S. government owns this land because it violently took this land from the Mexican government and paid them a pittance for it, but this fails any kind of logical test. I'll go back to my computer, if I had simply walked into the store, punched the sales person in the nose, given them a $10 bill and walked out with the computer would I have a right to this computer? Obviously not. So how does force create a legitimate claim in one scenario, but not in another? Furthermore, it's not clear that the Mexican government had any legitimate claim to the land in the first place, because chances are they simply used force to take it as well.

However, if we accept that force is a legitimate means to acquire property, then what exactly is the problem with what's going on with the ranchers now? The Bundys have rounded up a posse and are attempting to take that land by force from the federal government. If we accept that force is legitimate, then the only logical position to take from there is that we have to wait and see which side wins the fight before we can say that they do or do not have a legitimate claim to the land.

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

 

[nodoginnafight]

why is it the Feds are suddenly so concerned about some cattle grazing on public lands....especially during a drought when feed is scarce.....but they barely lift a finger against millions of illegals illegally grazing upon our public welfare.....?

it's weird...

I brought that up a while back, with milk and beef shooting through the roof, the timing of this is very suspicious.

Except the legal battles over this guy's non-payment have been going on for more than a decade

 

[bendog]

No, because in theory we have evolved in concepts of how societies and people may acquire property.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's remove the ranchers from the equation for a second, and discuss where the federal government got its claim to the land. I don't think we've adequately explained where their supposed right to this land comes from. We can obviously rule out the idea that the U.S. government homesteaded the land.

Some people have mentioned the Mexican War, which rests on the assumption that the U.S. government owns this land because it violently took this land from the Mexican government and paid them a pittance for it, but this fails any kind of logical test. I'll go back to my computer, if I had simply walked into the store, punched the sales person in the nose, given them a $10 bill and walked out with the computer would I have a right to this computer? Obviously not. So how does force create a legitimate claim in one scenario, but not in another? Furthermore, it's not clear that the Mexican government had any legitimate claim to the land in the first place, because chances are they simply used force to take it as well.

However, if we accept that force is a legitimate means to acquire property, then what exactly is the problem with what's going on with the ranchers now? The Bundys have rounded up a posse and are attempting to take that land by force from the federal government. If we accept that force is legitimate, then the only logical position to take from there is that we have to wait and see which side wins the fight before we can say that they do or do not have a legitimate claim to the land.

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

Sure. I think the discussion of property rights is very much worthy of discussion.

My only contention is that it has no bearing here.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I guess it's a secret because HE just found out about it

SHE. .....and it hasn't been on any news station today or yesterday - how did they miss such a huge story? I'll google these fox videos WB says were on television. We'll see. I'll be back! ( God willing )

 

[bendog]

We get back to green energy vs the environment and green energy has big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and the government is selling out the desert.

Ok. And since the gov't owns the land in question, which would be a better use for that public land?

And as long as it is public land, the gov't gets to determine the uses for that land.

They aren't determining the use of the land - they seized his private property (cattle) and are selling it off. The value is multiple $M.

That is THEFT.

it's not theft if a judge has determined the BLM has a judgment for money damages against him, and if the judge has authorized seizure of the cattle to satisfy the judgment. And I think that's what happened.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let's remove the ranchers from the equation for a second, and discuss where the federal government got its claim to the land. I don't think we've adequately explained where their supposed right to this land comes from. We can obviously rule out the idea that the U.S. government homesteaded the land.

Some people have mentioned the Mexican War, which rests on the assumption that the U.S. government owns this land because it violently took this land from the Mexican government and paid them a pittance for it, but this fails any kind of logical test. I'll go back to my computer, if I had simply walked into the store, punched the sales person in the nose, given them a $10 bill and walked out with the computer would I have a right to this computer? Obviously not. So how does force create a legitimate claim in one scenario, but not in another? Furthermore, it's not clear that the Mexican government had any legitimate claim to the land in the first place, because chances are they simply used force to take it as well.

However, if we accept that force is a legitimate means to acquire property, then what exactly is the problem with what's going on with the ranchers now? The Bundys have rounded up a posse and are attempting to take that land by force from the federal government. If we accept that force is legitimate, then the only logical position to take from there is that we have to wait and see which side wins the fight before we can say that they do or do not have a legitimate claim to the land.

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

Kevin, the fact that we paid the Mexican government anything for the land makes it a lot better than how nations have acquired land historically - which is they take it by force. "The right of conquest."

By your logic, whichever organism climbed from the ocean first "owns" the land.

What is so illogical about the evolution of property law to you?

 

[WinterBorn]

I guess it's a secret because HE just found out about it

SHE. .....and it hasn't been on any news station today or yesterday - how did they miss such a huge story? I'll google these fox videos WB says were on television. We'll see. I'll be back! ( God willing )

You are a she and go by Jeremiah? ok.

 

[boedicca]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

 

[tinydancer]

Just for those that haven't realized this has nothing to do with the tortoise here's a link that will show how so many conservationists are worried about the development of the desert.

As we all should be. We seem to **** up everything we get hands on as humans.

Ivanpah has a huge solar facility now that's frying birds in the air. But check it out. The feds let them use the land despite the endangered desert tortoise.

Within the Mojave, the Ivanpah Valley has been identified as a critical link between conservation areas for one of the region’s most endangered inhabitants, the desert tortoise.

At the same time, the Ivanpah Valley is also under mounting pressure from development of many kinds, including such land use impacts as multiple high-acreage renewable energy projects, electricity and gas transmission lines, a wastewater treatment project, airport and a high-speed rail line.

Ivanpah Valley Solar Projects Adding Up to Trouble - Defenders Blog

 

[Katzndogz]

The land was open range. The government declared it government land. They didn't pay for it. They didn't do anything that Bundy didn't do. Except the Bundys had cattle on that land for 140 years.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Thank goodness. When it comes time to square off with crazy murdering cultists - I'm don't think we should rely on choir boys.

Who exactly did the Davidians murder, sploogy? Remember, a federal court ruled that the gun fight between the Davidians and the BAFT was NOT murder. So post a link of this alleged murder.

We wonder how the holocaust happened, but need only look to those like you who cheer as jack booted thugs shoot their neighbors down.

Oh please - say your hyperbole and name-calling. It adds NOTHING to any conversation or debate.
The davidians murdered agents who came to their compound to serve a legal warrant. You can try to re-write history all you want. You can even believe your fictions if you choose. But don't get all pissy, when others choose to stick with the facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.

Do you have a link for that? The news stories have talked about contractors transporting the cattle.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's remove the ranchers from the equation for a second, and discuss where the federal government got its claim to the land. I don't think we've adequately explained where their supposed right to this land comes from. We can obviously rule out the idea that the U.S. government homesteaded the land.

Some people have mentioned the Mexican War, which rests on the assumption that the U.S. government owns this land because it violently took this land from the Mexican government and paid them a pittance for it, but this fails any kind of logical test. I'll go back to my computer, if I had simply walked into the store, punched the sales person in the nose, given them a $10 bill and walked out with the computer would I have a right to this computer? Obviously not. So how does force create a legitimate claim in one scenario, but not in another? Furthermore, it's not clear that the Mexican government had any legitimate claim to the land in the first place, because chances are they simply used force to take it as well.

However, if we accept that force is a legitimate means to acquire property, then what exactly is the problem with what's going on with the ranchers now? The Bundys have rounded up a posse and are attempting to take that land by force from the federal government. If we accept that force is legitimate, then the only logical position to take from there is that we have to wait and see which side wins the fight before we can say that they do or do not have a legitimate claim to the land.

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

Sure. I think the discussion of property rights is very much worthy of discussion.

My only contention is that it has no bearing here.

How can the government's claim to this property have no bearing here? It's foundational to this issue.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.

bullshit

 

[WinterBorn]

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

Sure. I think the discussion of property rights is very much worthy of discussion.

My only contention is that it has no bearing here.

How can the government's claim to this property have no bearing here? It's foundational to this issue.

Bundy had no issue with the gov't owning the land prior to 1993. He paid the grazing fees and did not argue. He has also stated that the land is public land.