Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JD said:
The Federal Government doesn't own land. The People own the land, and the Federal Government holds it in something like a trust.
Click to expand...

In my state, title is held in the name of the trustee, and one can't always tell who the beneficial owner is. So, even if the trustee role of the federal control were valid, we are still left to ask for whose benefit the land is held.

I distrust detached references to "The People" in political rhetoric. It hasn't sufficient meaning to stand for anything other than an accusation that one's opponent is of "The People", and has a sort of Madame DeFarge ring to my ear.
 
What does the cost of dealing with the past weeks circumstances have to do with the decision of the BLM to enforce the laws of the United States?
Click to expand...

If the argument is the loss of public funds, then all loss of public funds should be considered. If collection of $1million costs $2million, the public losses. That is the point. It may have cost the People more than we had to gain for the BLM to make it's point!

At least it didn't cost us an American life!
 
I distrust detached references to "The People" in political rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't political rhetoric, and I thought about that after I submitted it. In this case, I was using it to refer to the citizenry. My afterthought was more along the lines of I'm not sure how "The People" has been interpreted since, and may or may not include non-citizens- for example The People in the second amendment may have been as non-citizens do appear to have the right. For accuracy, I have no issues with reading The People in my post as The Citizenry Of The United States.

I guess what bothers me more than anything has nothing to do with Bundy being right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, after seeing what our government is capable of I will tell you times have not changed and we have what we the people deserve at this point. At this point I am scared of my own government and as a retired LEO have seen it from the inside and can tell you it wasn't always like this.
Click to expand...

Really? As a retired LEO it doesn't bother you that Bundy, at some level, may have stolen acres and acres of land?

As a retired LEO it doesn't bother you that after learning he may be forcibly evicted from the land, and his offending property seized through the due process of law via a legal court order he made what many have determined was or may reasonably inferred to have been, a threat of violence?

Drawing on your experience as a retired LEO, had you been tasked with carrying out these court orders- rounding up somewhere around 1000 head of cattle (which don't herd very well) over hundreds of acres, how many people would you bring? How many helicopters? Given the number of total whackjobs out there today, if someone made a statement drawing your and your subordinates safety into question, how many would you bring just for security?

If some guy drug a cot, and a mini-fridge into the local courthouse, and said he was going to live there now, and he'd do "whatever it takes" to keep LEO's from evicting him from the premises, what would you have done?

Edit to Add:
If the argument is the loss of public funds, then all loss of public funds should be considered. If collection of $1million costs $2million, the public losses. That is the point. It may have cost the People more than we had to gain for the BLM to make it's point!
Click to expand...

You're assuming the loss of this guy's grazing fees were the only thing we'd lose. One guy gets to graze on these lands without paying, and EVERY guy gets to graze on public lands without paying. I don't know how much the BLM gets a year(doing some quick research, it's about 10 million), but I'd bet that eventually they get more than 3 million in grazing fees before the Feds quit offering grazing land.
 
Last edited:
Drawing on your experience as a retired LEO, had you been tasked with carrying out these court orders- rounding up somewhere around 1000 head of cattle (which don't herd very well) over hundreds of acres, how many people would you bring? How many helicopters? Given the number of total whackjobs out there today, if someone made a statement drawing your and your subordinates safety into question, how many would you bring just for security?

If some guy drug a cot, and a mini-fridge into the local courthouse, and said he was going to live there now, and he'd do "whatever it takes" to keep LEO's from evicting him from the premises, what would you have done?
Click to expand...

I believe the argument is based on the Feds response to this issue. I don’t know how many personnel it takes to round up cattle but needing most of them armed to perform the task is not required. If Mr Bundy threatened violence, then why was he not arrested? The Feds typical heavy handed response made a bad situation worse. Creating these so called “free speech” zones, really? Their actions invite the whackjobs you mentioned and all it would take is a wrong move from either side and we would have a disaster on our hands. Also, Sen Reid’s comments does nothing but to fan the flames on this situation which, as for now, appears to be calming.
 
If Mr Bundy threatened violence, then why was he not arrested?
Click to expand...

Because the standard making protective measures prudent is far less than the standard for an arrest, let alone a conviction.

If I tell you I'm going to stop you no matter what, you'd have a pretty tough time justifying shooting me in self defense. But you'd have a pretty easy time justifying your concealed carry license (at least in most places.).

Edit to add. Rounding up cattle sucks. My grandfather had a dairy farm. If even one cow got out it took multiple people on multiple sides significant time to herd that thing back into the yard. Given the size of the land, if even half the 200 were there to round up the cattle on horseback with a helicopter vectoring them in on the cattle while the other hundred set up the corral and "guarded" the trucks etc. it still would have been pretty labor intensive. I think in the time they were working, they got less than 200, but I'm not sure.
 
You're assuming the loss of this guy's grazing fees were the only thing we'd lose.
Click to expand...

I don't assume anything.

I may speculate that we are losing access to and freedoms on our public lands, based on personal experience. But I don't assume anything.

Just discussing the ins and outs.

A previous post argued that the loss of $1million owed by Bundy was the justification for the standoff. I present, if we spend $2 million to collect $1million, we need to re-think the collection procedures. Simple.
 
Quote:
If Mr Bundy threatened violence, then why was he not arrested?
Click to expand...

Because the standard making protective measures prudent is far less than the standard for an arrest, let alone a conviction.

If I tell you I'm going to stop you no matter what, you'd have a pretty tough time justifying shooting me in self defense. But you'd have a pretty easy time justifying your concealed carry license (at least in most places.).
Click to expand...

If Bundy truely threated to harm the BLM personnel, you would assume he would have been arressted. Did BLM not taser someone over filming or being outside of the "free speech" zone? As stated earlier, BLM's actions just made a small situation into a much larger one.

Edit: Can someone explain how the turtles came into play with this?
 
Price of beef on the hoof appears to be about 80 cents a pound. Average weight is about 1500 pounds. That makes this herd somewhere around a million bucks.

Costs are estimated at about 3 million to round them up. So we're paying 3 million to maintain the 10 million dollar income from BLM grazing permits, seize 1 million worth of beef to auction off and recoup the 1 million in back fees owed by Mr Bundy.

A one off cost of 2 million to continue earning 10 million a year seems steep but certainly worth doing rather than throwing away the 10 million a year.

Edit to Add:
Did BLM not taser someone over filming or being outside of the "free speech" zone?
Click to expand...
The video shows officers (from somewhere I know not where- Maybe BLM, maybe Park Rangers, maybe locals drafted to help regardless they're unidentified in the video) ordering the guy to get back. He advances on them rather than following their orders. One of the police dogs reacts to his body language and actions and lunges. He kicks the dog and gets tasered. Martin Luther King this guy is not.
 
Last edited:
A one off cost of 2 million to continue earning 10 million a year seems steep but certainly worth doing rather than throwing away the 10 million a year.
Click to expand...
...

Requires the ASSUMPTION that every other grazing lease holder in the U.S. will default on their yearly payments. If this were true, the Government would then need to spend how much to round up every other trespassing herd? Circle Logic!
 
Last edited:
Requires the ASSUMPTION that every other grazing lease holder in the U.S. will default on their yearly payments.
Click to expand...

Actually it posits that losing about a million bucks of beef will be a deterrence to further theft.
 
From where I sit from afar, it looks like Mr. Bundy is flat out in the wrong. It also appears the federal government initally over-reacted. In addition to attaching bank accounts, a lien on the cattle would have effectively shut Bundy down. If he sold any cattle subject to the lien, the government could have seized the cattle or required the buyer to pay the government for the cost of the cattle. It wouldn't take long for Mr. Bundy to be forced to come to the table or go out of business. Of course, there also seems to be lingering in the background the right to even graze some of the land due to some endangered wildlife. I'm not sure how you resolve that.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed just in time. I keep thinking of the mistakes at Waco --- if ATF had not been so hot to make a point, a tragedy could have easily been prevented. If they absolutely had to pursue the illegal weapons charge (barrel short about a 1/4 inch, IRRC), they could have waited for Koresh to come into town and arrested him without a raid of the type they conducted.
 
KyJim, I agree. Though, as with Waco, it seems that the Feds had something to prove , then the miltia showed up...Either way, this could have ended very badly for both parties. Let’s just hope smarter heads prevail.

Edit: Hopefully this is the end of it but then again maybe not. As Sen Reid said “It’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” Maybe they will try to take his land, home, etc.
 
Last edited:
This is just ugly.

And while it is certainly possible that the presence of "milita" groups protesting, armed, or not, wackjobs, or not, could turn a bad situation into a worse one, it is also possible that they would keep a bad situation from getting worse.

Maybe the reason it didn't become a Ruby Ridge, or worse, Waco, was because of the possibility of an armed conflict.

One thing for sure, these days, with all the cameras/phones and the Internet, its much tougher for the Govt to present only their side of what happens...
 
The short barrel shot gun was one of the factors in the Ruby Ridge incident at Waco there was dummy grenades and possible converted semi auto's . But there is no excuse for the Federal hadeling of either . I have no doubt that if there had not been a visible reaction from citizens this would have been another massacre to show the sheep what happens if you fell to bow when your leaders say bow . But Bundy didn't handel this right neither but with all the resorces of the Federal Government they do not need to be in the bussiness of deploying Snipers or any armed troops when they have the upper hand in the waiting game . I don't remember them surounding the Wal Street ocupiers when they were disrupting others lives and commiting crimes was the norm public intoxacation , drugs , theft just to name a few .
 
The reason no one arrested Mr. Bundy is because he made no threats against anyone. He simply stated he would protect his property. I have been watching this situation for a while now and from what sources I have gleaned info from, Mr. Bundy actually behaved in a very restrained manner. He was the one who asked the protesters not to wear camo and to keep any weapons, if brought, out of sight. His assertion is that the land belongs to the state of Nevada, and not the US Gov. It would take more time than I wish to devote to the subject to research the matter thoroughly, but the US gov. has a long history of ignoring treaties and such when the situation suits them; just ask the Native Americans.
I really think the comments calling the protesters wackos and crazies is a little too much. Those who have commented such would probably enjoy reading Soros' Media Matters comments on the subject. But, you should also keep in mind that each and every one of us on this forum is called that by many; just because we own guns of one type or another. The protesters were everyday people just like you and I willing to stand on the line so that a tragedy such as Waco could be avoided. That was their stated purpose for being there. They succeeded in their endeavour.
Another thing at the heart of the confrontation that has yet to be addressed is the proliferation of alphabet agencies, such as the BLM,EPA, etc. that write regulations that have no standing under the Constitution. They are not laws unless they have passed through the legislative process, and as such have no weight of law behind them. In the strictest legal sense they cannot be enforced, yet we see it every day. It is true that we have a gov. that has grown too large and has reach a point that it is, in many respects, self serving to the exclusion of legality.
All I will say in closing is Americans had better wake up before it's too late. When posters such as the prior retired LEO make comments such as he made, I think we would do well to listen attentively.
 
His assertion is that the land belongs to the state of Nevada, and not the US Gov. It would take more time than I wish to devote to the subject to research the matter thoroughly, but the US gov. has a long history of ignoring treaties and such when the situation suits them; just ask the Native Americans.
Click to expand...
The place for him to make those assertions would be in court, through proper channels. He has done that several times, and his argument has been found to be invalid.
 
The reason that Clive Bundy was not arrested was that he never quite threatened an immediate assault. The reason the one son was tasered was that he threatened immediate violence on BLM rangers.

All of his claims have been tested in the courts and founded wanting.

At what point may the United States prevent the taking of our resources by law breakers?

I am amazed that anyone would argue that Bundy did a good thing by inviting supporters to show up wearing concealed weapons.

There is a reason that many fear militia types and call them crazy. That the timing of the Bundy event with the three murders by the Ex KKK Grand Dragon isn't going to help the militia's public image. (Rightfully or wrongfully, some believe that many militia members are white supremacists.)
 
Free speech zones have been upheld in court more than once.

I first became aware of them during the Bush administration when they were used against anti-war protesters.
While I understand the arguments for them, public order and safety, I think in practice they have been used improperly.
I don't know the particulars of their use in Nevada.

All militias are under civil authority. It would be interesting to find who the "militias" involved in this protest report to. afaik it should be the state governor and ultimately the president.

Don't have time to type more.
 
Unfortunately, to this point I haven't followed this event closely enough to have an informed opinion on who's right or wrong.

That said, from the clips I've seen, the feds seem to have over-reacted across the board, for what reason I'm not sure yet.

What I will say is that after watching some of these clips and reading some of the stories from the local paper, I had two thoughts:

1984 and Animal Farm

For now, all I'll say is that this situation bears watching by all Americans.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top