Is It Time To Take Up Arms?

SmilinJack said:
That is just your opinion....you are entitled to it but it is not enough. How the BLM was in violation of the law.>>>>

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-rep-accuses-obama-s-blm-of-acting-illegally-bundy-ranch-case
Click to expand...


This entire article is premised upon the idea that the BLM has conducted a "paramilitary raid". In fact the BLM never set foot on the Bundy property. The BLM simply entered its own land and rounded up cattle that was there illegally. The BLM got Court approval before doing so, and took the action the court told it to take.

Yes the agents were armed, they have a right to be armed, especially on property they are charged with operating, especially within the laws of the state of Nevada. Especially after the threats that have been made against them.

Bundy and his people were armed, and trespassing. (In Florida that combination is a Felony)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so AZ, CA, NV, NM, TX, UT, and Western Colorado are just territories of the federal government and not really US States?
Click to expand...

No, they are States with a LOT of Federal Land that is administered, by agreement, by the Federal Government. The Federal Government has given or sold portions of those lands to the State, to Cities and to Private owners, but not all of it, not even a majority of it.
 
Have the Federalis acquired land illegally?

It is good to see that finally some real truth is coming out in regards to this matter...and obviously the truth debunks the knee jerk reactions of liberals regarding their 'perception' that Clive Bundy is nothing more than a free loader....the more that is revealed on this case the more visible it becomes....the Federalis have overeached their authority, engaged in abusive practices and need to be reigned in.

http://www.citizensalliance.org/links/pages/articles/Wheres%20the%20Authority%20to%20Acquire%20Land.htm
 
SmarterthanYou said:
does the fed own alaska? or does alaska own alaska?
Click to expand...

Some of the property in Alaska, like all states, is owned by the State, some by the Federal Government and some by individuals, some is even owned by Corporations and foreign nations.
 
Jarod said:
Some of the property in Alaska, like all states, is owned by the State, some by the Federal Government and some by individuals, some is even owned by Corporations and foreign nations.
Click to expand...

Now look here dumbass>>>>the controversy is about 'public lands' geeeze. Try and keep up.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what authority does the federal government have to collect rent on state owned property?
Click to expand...

Are you calling it State owned property, as in owned by the State of Nevada, or are you calling it state owned property, as in property owned by the state.(government)

The Feds have authority over land owned by the Feds, much like you have authority over land you own.
 
Jarod said:
This entire article is premised upon the idea that the BLM has conducted a "paramilitary raid". In fact the BLM never set foot on the Bundy property. The BLM simply entered its own land and rounded up cattle that was there illegally. The BLM got Court approval before doing so, and took the action the court told it to take.

Yes the agents were armed, they have a right to be armed, especially on property they are charged with operating, especially within the laws of the state of Nevada. Especially after the threats that have been made against them.

Bundy and his people were armed, and trespassing. (In Florida that combination is a Felony)
Click to expand...

Bullshit>>>>>>>>from the following link: "The second problem that the siege against Cliven Bundy illustrates is the unconstitutional police powers assumed by federal agencies such as the BLM. Originally, the only federal agency that was lawfully allowed to make arrests on behalf of the U.S. government was the U.S. Marshals Service, which was created back in 1789--the year that the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Today, there are scores of alphabet agencies of the federal government who carry a badge and a gun and are allowed to enforce law at bayonet point. And the vast majority of these agencies are acting on assumed authority--authority not granted them constitutionally. Among these, there is no greater culprit than the BLM."




http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin802.htm
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
then aren't the borders of alaska wrong? it should be divided between what alaska really owns and what the federal territory is, IF the feds can actually own any property. which they can't.


it's against federal law, and if there is no clear border between what alaska owns and what the feds own........
Click to expand...

Why cant the Fed own property?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then aren't the borders of alaska wrong? it should be divided between what alaska really owns and what the federal territory is, IF the feds can actually own any property. which they can't.


it's against federal law, and if there is no clear border between what alaska owns and what the feds own........
Click to expand...

You are completely off the reservation here, Alaska is a State, that does not mean they own all of the land in that State. Some of it is owned by the Federal Government... meaning to be used for the good of ALL AMERICANS. If its owned only by Alaska, it can be used for the Good of only Alaskans.

States don't necessary own all of the land in the state.
 
Sardonic said:
I bet he collects SS and is covered by Medicare, too! These guys are just nuts!
Click to expand...

He takes full advantage of a land protected by the armed forces of the United States of America.

This man is shameful. The Republicans are wishing they had not stepped into this one.

Maybe next time some racist American hating wannabe terrorist starts shit, they will think twice before jumping in to support him.
 
The liberals unable to mount any cogent response are now resorting to the old,old problem on so many boards....attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message.
 
SmilinJack said:
The liberals unable to mount any cogent response are now resorting to the old,old problem on so many boards....attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message.
Click to expand...

You keep posting the same ignorance in different opinion pieces. Jarod has already addressed these and debunked them.

I did not attack him, I asked who he was and why I should care about his opinion.
 
Rune said:
Sorry, when Nevada was created in 1864, the constitution of Nevada contained a clause in which all land federally owned at that time would remain federally owned until ceded to the state by Congress (which has never happened.)

Congress had the right to make this contract legally because of this constitutional clause;

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….”
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution

See for yourself;


http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html
Click to expand...

i just went through this NV state constitution and found no such clause. If you can point it out to me, I can concede you the point.
 
Sardonic said:
You keep posting the same ignorance in different opinion pieces. Jarod has already addressed these and debunked them.

I did not attack him, I asked who he was and why I should care about his opinion.
Click to expand...

Stupid response...simply read the link and try and understand what is being said.

Trying to cover for Jarod does not help your case either.
 
Jarod said:
He takes full advantage of a land protected by the armed forces of the United States of America.

This man is shameful. The Republicans are wishing they had not stepped into this one.

Maybe next time some racist American hating wannabe terrorist starts shit, they will think twice before jumping in to support him.
Click to expand...

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa like to spin eh? heh heh da libtards are the ones coming out on the short end of the stick in regards to this controversy and it is plain to see.

aka....anytime someone starts playing the race card....accusing their opponent of racism they have ceded the field as in admitting defeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top