Is It Time To Take Up Arms?

ZappasGuitar said:
If the man and his family hadn't IGNORED 20+ years worth of court orders and paid the taxes he agreed to pay when he signed the agreement with the BLM, then none of this would be happening.

Unfortunately you think it's acceptable for an American to just IGNORE any law he doesn't like.
Click to expand...

You are spreading dis-information....Clive Bundy paid his taxes>>>>

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/16/clive-bundy-speaks-to-tpnn-we-the-people-are-tired-of-the-federal-government-ruling-with-an-army/
 
HANNITY: The feds don’t even own the land Bundy’s cattle have been grazing on, it’s STATE PROPERTY

This is getting ridiculous. Hannity reported on Greta tonight that the land the BLM has taken over to capture Bundy’s cattle is STATE property, not federal property, and that BLM is using the Endangered Species Act to control it. He also says there’s no eminent domain at work here and this land where Bundy’s cattle are grazing isn’t going to be used by anybody for anything:
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Just what we need...ANOTHER lover of word games.

Bundy owes for TWO DECADES of unpaid fees to the BLM.

Your obfuscatory nonsense serves to highlight your refusal to facts you don't like.
Click to expand...

First you claimed he had not paid his taxes....now you say he did not pay BLM fees...well you finally got it right. Do not worry...you can always count on me to correct your mistakes.

Bottom Line: The BLM is using a fable of 'we are here to protect the tortoises' to seize a man's cattle.
 
SmilinJack said:
HANNITY: The feds don’t even own the land Bundy’s cattle have been grazing on, it’s STATE PROPERTY

This is getting ridiculous. Hannity reported on Greta tonight that the land the BLM has taken over to capture Bundy’s cattle is STATE property, not federal property, and that BLM is using the Endangered Species Act to control it. He also says there’s no eminent domain at work here and this land where Bundy’s cattle are grazing isn’t going to be used by anybody for anything:
Click to expand...

Hannity was mistaken or simply lying.
 
SmilinJack said:
First you claimed he had not paid his taxes....now you say he did not pay BLM fees...well you finally got it right. Do not worry...you can always count on me to correct your mistakes.

Bottom Line: The BLM is using a fable of 'we are here to protect the tortoises' to seize a man's cattle.
Click to expand...


Different people at different times have used a variety of different terms to describe the fees Bundy has not paid, that you resort to petty word parsing games showcases how desperate you are to keep people from discussing the actual facts of the case.

And the bottom line is the BLM was seizing that man's cattle for non-payment of the FEES he owed the State of Nevada.
 
Sardonic said:
Lying, it is an easy enough fact to check.
Click to expand...

I was trying to give him the bene of the doubt.

The ownership of that land is clear and is traced back to before the State of Nevada was formed. The USA bought it from Mexico. In the documents that created Nevada, it was determined that the land would remain the property of the USA.
 
"Beginning about 1954, Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM."
 
Jarod said:
The United States v. Bundy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835

Wherein the Court illustrated that the Federal Government owned the land since before the foundation of the State of Nevada.
Click to expand...

Bullshite....you lack knowledge of the controversy surrounding this matter....here is something that should enlighten you>>>>http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/04/23/does-the-federal-government-own-nevada


Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management.
 
Last edited:
SmilinJack said:
Bullshite....you lack knowledge of the controversy surrounding this matter....here is something that should enlighten you>>>>http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/04/23/does-the-federal-government-own-nevada


Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management.
Click to expand...

Opinion not supported by the courts, sorry, the State of Nevada needs to pursue the matter in court, just as Alaska has done. We are a country of laws.
 
SmilinJack said:
Bullshite....you lack knowledge of the controversy surrounding this matter....here is something that should enlighten you>>>>http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/04/23/does-the-federal-government-own-nevada


Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management.
Click to expand...

This guy backs up his opinion with facts.

http://thenevadaview.com/4567/cliven-bundy-doesnt-get-the-constitution/
 
Sardonic said:
Opinion not supported by the courts, sorry, the State of Nevada needs to pursue the matter in court, just as Alaska has done. We are a country of laws.
Click to expand...

Whilst who owns the land is one arena of this BLM controversy it goes much deeper than that.....The BLM is a perfect example of an abusive federal government over-reaching its authority....you would have thought they would have learned something from Ruby Ridge and Waco....obviously not.

It also reveals the corruption of Harry Reid ...what a coincidence that just as soon as one of his cronies becomes the head of the BLM...they decided to take Bundy's cattle.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-federal-lands-states.html.csp
 
SmilinJack said:
Whilst who owns the land is one arena of this BLM controversy it goes much deeper than that.....The BLM is a perfect example of an abusive federal government over-reaching its authority....you would have thought they would have learned something from Ruby Ridge and Waco....obviously not.

It also reveals the corruption of Harry Reid ...what a coincidence that just as soon as one of his cronies becomes the head of the BLM...they decided to take Bundy's cattle.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-federal-lands-states.html.csp
Click to expand...

There is no controversy. The land was federal, Bundy was in the wrong, several court cases confirmed it. They were not over reaching, they had confiscated other ranchers cattle for the same reason with no need for armed agents, but Bundy's group threatened violence and so armed snipers came to protect the agents. When armed supporters of Bundy showed up the BLM decided to defuse the situation and take other cation besides rounding up the cattle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top