But are we not a nation of laws? If one man and his small group of supporters challenges that law with the threat of deadly force, the government must prevail; otherwise a dangerous precedent is set.
The only viable course for Bundy is through the courts. Should he lose, however, he should abandon any thoughts of violence and pay the fees owed. Perhaps if he had paid them in the first place the “turtle” issue may never have materialized.
[quote}He paid the fees right up to the point they tried to force him out of business by limiting his herd to 150 head.
He stopped paying his fees in 1993 and has expanded the range of his cows onto adjacent federal properties not contracted by him or his family. The feds did not follow up so the poor tortoise, ostensibly the protected species, must have been completely eradicated by now! I wanna know…what happened to the turtles?
There were no indications that there were any turtles where bundy's cows are grazing. Rather there was a goal to consider migrating turtles from the Chinese solar farm to mitigate the damage being done there. Greenies willing to trade the sin of using tax dollars to fun china solar production and harming turtles with throwing ranchers off some piece of land. Ugly RICO shit.
I don’t think your analogy is applicable here. Owing 1 million in back grazing fees is not the same as owing 35 dollars for a parking ticket. Disregarding court orders is a crime
Analogy is correct, amount of the ticket is moot. If it's a crime why isn't he in jail? Where's the warrant for his arrest?
ON the contrary,, the FEDS have exercised remarkable restraint.
Bull shit. They tazered his son. They killed his prize bulls. They shot holes in his water tanks. They killed his cows. They already admitted to these things, so your deflection is an absolute lie, purposeful or not.
Some of his cattle were initially confiscated, but have since been returned to Bundy. None of my sources indicate that cattle were killed and buried.
Then your sources are lying to you.
But who is to determine what laws are just or unjust.
Free country right?
Should every disgruntled group be the self-appointed arbiter of just or unjust laws?
Yes, why not? Why would you blindly follow unjust laws?
If that were ever to become the case, anarchy would surely follow as none would advocate any laws but those favorable to themselves.
Typical Authoritarian Rhetoric. If we don't let the government control every aspect of our lives, even running us out of business, everyone will be running around raping and murdering people.
After 20 years, I doubt if the turtle habitat is anything more than a faded memory. That being said, with their extinction upon Bundy’s head, the turtles’ fate may have some bearing on any court proceeding or judgment arising from all of this. My take? Probably not!
Or the BLM really does want to run all the ranchers out of business, just as they were convicted of doing already in the RICO case against them.
My conservative side tells me the rule of law must be paramount.
Paramount to what? Liberty?
The arena for this battle is the courtroom.
The feds are the ones that brought 200 hired guns to Bundy's ranch.
Therein, all evidence can be brought forth to settle this matter civilly. Consider though, that even the highest court in the land is comprised of “unelected” Jurists whose interpretations of the Constitution are mostly partisan (5 to 4).
Which is it, we should follow the orders of a partisan court or fight them?
Again, I have seen no evidence to support your premise here.
Why am I not surprised that an Authoritarian such as yourself is blind to liberty being stolen from the citizenry.
Nevertheless, even if it were true, the feds own the land
Bull shit, the land is the people's, the feds are merely our employees. They don't own our land. WTH?
and have every right, ostensibly, to call the shots.
Bull shit they do what we tell them to do or we fire them.
Bundy, it seems, wants to usurp the government’s
management duties not authorityauthority with a pre-emptive option based on the notion that since his family was granted access to the land before the BLM existed he has more of a right to be there than the BLM does.
WTH are you talking about? The BLM isn't "there." They are simply showing up every once in a while to make sure NO ONE IS USING THE LAND FOR A GOOD PURPOSE. WTH???
The Federal government owns the land NOT the BLM.
The BLM is the Federal Government. Federal Bureau of Land Management.
But yes eventually nonviolent protesters can turn into angry mobs, esp. when they feel they are being abused and are in the right.
We have seen that before: during the revolutionary war and the civil war. But since most ranchers in the USA appear to be in compliance with the provisions of their contracts and are paying appropriate fees accordingly, there seems to be no imminent threat of an open rebellion among ranchers.
Show me another location where the BLM is in control of all of the grazing land and forcing the ranchers to limit their maximum herd size to 150.
The feds have been pushing to hard. To hard on our health care. To hard on our livelihood. To hard on our privacy. To hard on just about every aspect of our lives. The dam just might break soon. Free people don't like it when tyrants come to push them around. The liberal attempt to make us all compliant may have worked in some areas, but not where we value liberty.
I suppose from some perspectives your assessments seem to be true. From my perspective, I already see a quiet revolution taking place. The majority of the voting USA populace has become progressive in their ideology and political thinking; largely due to changing demographics but more importantly due to white women voting for their own best interests. They too were tired of “tyrants pushing them around” by voter suppression, debunking women’s rights and corporate infallibility. Liberty for all seems far better a choice than liberty for a few!
