http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XqdQjTflc
My question is who would really take orders to shoot the protesters?
There are protesters and there are armed protesters. Bundy had the latter kind.
Frankly, people should give the current administration some credit for opting to not turn it into a bloodbath. It wouldn't have paid anyway. No sense taking a millionaire who refuses to pay his bills and turning him into a martyr.
I live in Utah so i know first hand how the BLM and the whole concept of federal land in the west is a sore spot and a bone of contention in our view of national politics. The state of Utah was raped by the feds in return for statehood.
The BLM was supposed to determine which lands were rightfully owned by the federal government (e.g. not demonstrably owned by private citizens) and sell it. Instead they lease it out.
Aside from that, the entire concept that the management of public lands should be for the benefit of ranchers is repugnant.
The federal government should not have claim to more than about 1% of the land in nevada and utah that they lay claim to. But Cliven Bundy is still a douche, and his cadre of gun-toting supporters . . . I don't even know where to start. I guess they got bored with guarding the southern border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWNJ3TX-SIM
I don't know Cliven Bundy or his followers personally, so I cannot agree or disagree if he or they are douches or not. What I can say is that no matter if they are, the fed has no business doing what they did. I don't see in any instance where money (supposedly owed or not) that the fed didn't collect should be a lethal force scenario. The "1st amendment area" was an interesting twist...you can have all the freedom the 1st amendment grants you as long as you don't leave this spot. It would be laughable if it didn't actually happen in the USA. Same with the 2nd amendment, protesters are just target practice without arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
The BLM was executing a court order. One of many that Bundy has ignored over the last 20 years.
Bundy was the one who escalated the confrontation to a potential shooting situation by warning that if federal agents were to try to legally execute the court order he would respond with deadly force.
So, lets say you are a landlord and you have a tenant who hasn't paid rent in 20 years and you finally have a legal eviction order and the sheriff's department is going to deliver it for you.
Lets say that the tenant makes it known that if anyone tries to evict them, they will be shot at.
Is the sheriff going to just say, oh, well, in that case, never mind?
Is the sheriff going to show up in just a shirt and badge?
What do you think the appropriate response is?
The federal government shouldn't own that land. But that doesn't mean that cliven bundy should be able to do with it as he sees fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tY15BZKNZI
The BLM was executing a court order. One of many that Bundy has ignored over the last 20 years.
Bundy was the one who escalated the confrontation to a potential shooting situation by warning that if federal agents were to try to legally execute the court order he would respond with deadly force.
So, lets say you are a landlord and you have a tenant who hasn't paid rent in 20 years and you finally have a legal eviction order and the sheriff's department is going to deliver it for you.
Lets say that the tenant makes it known that if anyone tries to evict them, they will be shot at.
Is the sheriff going to just say, oh, well, in that case, never mind?
Is the sheriff going to show up in just a shirt and badge?
What do you think the appropriate response is?
The federal government shouldn't own that land. But that doesn't mean that cliven bundy should be able to do with it as he sees fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tY15BZKNZI
that's how i feel about it, i really wanted to take bundys side, but once i actually read what was going on he was clearly the one being an ***, at some point the hammer had to come down, they left his bull *** slide for 20 years, he lost in court for 20 years, and all his excuses that he had ancestral claims to the land were pretty lame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7FcHGsDJVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-vj6BhQa5w&list=PL4We4XGulWzBjyRnqq0-j73pxnzQzxbhiI see it differently. He paid for it many times over. When the fed illegally said give us more, he said no...for 20 years.
I think of it more like when Hitler said it was legal to murder millions of Jewish people. Just because it was legal in his country doesn't make it correct. When the BLM says you owe us that because we staked a claim to the land in the last 25 years that you and your family have had a claim on for over 100 years before that...but our(BLM) claim is better??? If it was the eviction example you gave, and it was California, I hear they pay people to leave if they have been there less than 40 days or something. If they don't leave the state protects the tenant after a certain time period and the land lord gets nothing.
I would think the appropriate response is, BLM now realizes we should not have owned this land and return all proceeds back to all who paid to use it. The land will divided among the people*not only Cliven* using it and if no one is the state of Nevada can annex the rest for a national grassland park...or something similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-vj6BhQa5w&list=PL4We4XGulWzBjyRnqq0-j73pxnzQzxbhi
I see it differently. He paid for it many times over. When the fed illegally said give us more, he said no...for 20 years.
I think of it more like when Hitler said it was legal to murder millions of Jewish people. Just because it was legal in his country doesn't make it correct. When the BLM says you owe us that because we staked a claim to the land in the last 25 years that you and your family have had a claim on for over 100 years before that...but our(BLM) claim is better??? If it was the eviction example you gave, and it was California, I hear they pay people to leave if they have been there less than 40 days or something. If they don't leave the state protects the tenant after a certain time period and the land lord gets nothing.
I would think the appropriate response is, BLM now realizes we should not have owned this land and return all proceeds back to all who paid to use it. The land will divided among the people*not only Cliven* using it and if no one is the state of Nevada can annex the rest for a national grassland park...or something similar.
Yeah except that prior to the establishment of the BLM, that land belonged to the General Land Office.
20 years of court judgements have found that the Bundy family never had any claim of ownership, even prior to Nevada statehood.
Again i agree that the BLM shouldn't own that land. But we have to live in the world that exists rather than the one we would prefer.
The BLM does own that land, and it will take an act of congress to change that.
Legally speaking, Bundy's lease terms changed, so he stopped paying. That's not generally a strong position in court.
Morally speaking, I'd argue that he is abusing the land regardless. I wish i could think that the state of Nevada would have a greater sense of balance between land use and sustainable ecology, but i don't. I hate to say it but in this specific instance the BLM seems to be the lesser of several evils. I've seen what overgrazing does to deserts - typically (but not always) at the hands of BLM lessees.
There's no god given or ancestral right for cliven bundy to graze his cattle in a desert. He had a gravy train and it soured.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQs1ttAMc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-vj6BhQa5w&list=PL4We4XGulWzBjyRnqq0-j73pxnzQzxbhi
I see it differently. He paid for it many times over. When the fed illegally said give us more, he said no...for 20 years.
I think of it more like when Hitler said it was legal to murder millions of Jewish people. Just because it was legal in his country doesn't make it correct. When the BLM says you owe us that because we staked a claim to the land in the last 25 years that you and your family have had a claim on for over 100 years before that...but our(BLM) claim is better??? If it was the eviction example you gave, and it was California, I hear they pay people to leave if they have been there less than 40 days or something. If they don't leave the state protects the tenant after a certain time period and the land lord gets nothing.
I would think the appropriate response is, BLM now realizes we should not have owned this land and return all proceeds back to all who paid to use it. The land will divided among the people*not only Cliven* using it and if no one is the state of Nevada can annex the rest for a national grassland park...or something similar.
Yeah except that prior to the establishment of the BLM, that land belonged to the General Land Office.
20 years of court judgements have found that the Bundy family never had any claim of ownership, even prior to Nevada statehood.
Again i agree that the BLM shouldn't own that land. But we have to live in the world that exists rather than the one we would prefer.
The BLM does own that land, and it will take an act of congress to change that.
Legally speaking, Bundy's lease terms changed, so he stopped paying. That's not generally a strong position in court.
Morally speaking, I'd argue that he is abusing the land regardless. I wish i could think that the state of Nevada would have a greater sense of balance between land use and sustainable ecology, but i don't. I hate to say it but in this specific instance the BLM seems to be the lesser of several evils. I've seen what overgrazing does to deserts - typically (but not always) at the hands of BLM lessees.
There's no god given or ancestral right for cliven bundy to graze his cattle in a desert. He had a gravy train and it soured.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQs1ttAMc8
exactly, that land has been under federal control since it was acquired from mexico over 150 years ago. its like i said, i'd really like to agree with bundy(and lucas) but bundy is wrong, bundy was the one breaking the law, he was the one disobeying 20 years of court orders, and he is the one that made it into an armed conflict.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAT858Q8Vm0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MghiBW3r65MAs I stated I don't know him personally, but from what I read he did pay way back in the day and he had some claim to the land. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil, that is why I think the libertarian platform has something right now. Sometimes the only way to change bad laws is to ignore them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agT2GVNQjaoLooks like even in the Wikipedia he had a case and the courts basically said, I don't care that you have legal means of using this. We want the money. Also, he is accurate in his claims that Nevada should be the one in control, not the fed. Also, nothing mentioned of the poor turtles...that was the reason the "news" media reported he had to leave.
Again, I don't know him personally, all I see is a guy that is standing up to a corrupt agency and I think sometimes you have break the law to do that, when they don't listen. Like I said earlier, Hitler made it legal to kill people, but that doesn't make it right.
