Bloomberg to start an anti-NRA organization

[sportrunner2001]

All kidding and freedom boners aside...

-why is it every time this happens some tacticool jackass has to show up with an "assault rifle" and point it at the Feds,

I don't get the logic behind peoples minds when they say "hey theres a 'standoff', might as well grab all my MOLLE gear and guns and head down there!" I watched one of the comedy central "news" shows the other day and there was (for a brief second) a guy who looked like he bought all the Navy Seal issued equipment and threw it on and thought he was helping the cause by having a gun there and most likely though he was a total bad@ss American. To me it seems like all the wannabe-para-military-civilians are so jacked for shtuff to hit the fan that they might actually be the cause if it someday happening.

Theres so many things wrong on both sides of the story that hopefully it can get ironed out eventually

The Bundy situation reminds me of Gordy Kahl from the 80's up here in ND only with more coverage and no shooting. look it up if you like.

 

[bofa]

I imagine most people that showed up, did so solely based on principle.


Regardless the backstory, I'm still impressed the situation was de-escalated instead of turning into another Waco.

 

[nevada]

I imagine most people that showed up, did so solely based on principle.


Regardless the backstory, I'm still impressed the situation was de-escalated instead of turning into another Waco.

I think if the feds had a legit case, they wouldn't have waited 10 years to do something about it.

 

[CXS]

I imagine most people that showed up, did so solely based on principle.

What exactly would that "principle" be? Not recognizing the government? That he should be able to graze his herd on public land w/o paying the fees for 20 years? I'm just not clear on what some see as "principle" in this case.

 

[bofa]

What exactly would that "principle" be? Not recognizing the government? That he should be able to graze his herd on public land w/o paying the fees for 20 years? I'm just not clear on what some see as "principle" in this case.

Read post 58 and then 63. And also consider that most leftist media outlets buried this issue for the duration of the conflict.

 

[CXS]

Read post 58 and then 63. And also consider that most leftist media outlets buried this issue for the duration of the conflict.

I read them again and still don't see what this "principle" is you refer to.

The photovoltaic farm that's under construction is near Moapa Indian Reservation which is not land Bundy uses. He's using public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville where he once had a grazing permit that he lost it when he stopped paying rent.

The Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers) are all about Bundy's "cause." Sen. Reid and the Koch brothers have been at each other's throats for years. The Koch Brothers have already spent millions of dollars in attack ads this year trying to win a Republican senate majority this fall and they're not done. They don't worry about little things like ethics or honesty and they have money to burn. Hell, they make Bloomberg look poor.

I can only guess the "principle" here is that we should stop paying rent and should be allowed to use whatever we want. Bundy's been a freeloader for 20+ years. Try that with your new house and see if you're let slide for 20 years as Bundy was.

 

[sportrunner2001]

[MENTION=60018]CXS[/MENTION] in regard to your last two sentences in the previous post, I read an article that ASMDSS posted to fbook about a soldier that recently came off of a two year deployment and had squatters that changed his locks and the authorities wouldn't move them out because it was a "civil matter" since, apparently, there was some verbal agreement about them staying there between a third party. Now because of all the support for our veteran they are moving out.

It seems like with enough support from the public, things can be swayed. especially with elections coming up again, thats why the politicians in favor of gun control haven't been as active the past few months because they would like to remain in office.

I understand this principle to be that some citizens when hearing anything about potential government overreach, they spring into support for the little guy and don't bother to get all the facts first and want to be part of something

 

[bofa]

I read them again and still don't see what this "principle" is you refer to.

The photovoltaic farm that's under construction is near Moapa Indian Reservation which is not land Bundy uses. He's using public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville where he once had a grazing permit that he lost it when he stopped paying rent.

The Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers) are all about Bundy's "cause." Sen. Reid and the Koch brothers have been at each other's throats for years. The Koch Brothers have already spent millions of dollars in attack ads this year trying to win a Republican senate majority this fall and they're not done. They don't worry about little things like ethics or honesty and they have money to burn. Hell, they make Bloomberg look poor.

I can only guess the "principle" here is that we should stop paying rent and should be allowed to use whatever we want. Bundy's been a freeloader for 20+ years. Try that with your new house and see if you're let slide for 20 years as Bundy was.

I think the principle was surrounding unmanaged government land that was not available for purchase but previously available for lease to ranchers. In '93 they changed the laws (and without public support might I add) to be much more restrictive and Bundy claims it reduced the capacity for his herd by roughly 90%. It was at that time he began a legal battle which has been bumped around many times (and usually ended up with him losing). Finally the government decided it was time to take action and tried to confiscate the animals and ended up putting a couple down as well, including a bull, which is a pretty big deal to ranchers.

So long story short, I think the principle is about the Federal government railroading it's citizens with little ability to fight back. Was a militia response needed? Probably not. Was it impressive that it worked? I think so.

 

[bofa]

[MENTION=60018]CXS[/MENTION] in regard to your last two sentences in the previous post, I read an article that ASMDSS posted to fbook about a soldier that recently came off of a two year deployment and had squatters that changed his locks and the authorities wouldn't move them out because it was a "civil matter" since, apparently, there was some verbal agreement about them staying there between a third party. Now because of all the support for our veteran they are moving out.

It seems like with enough support from the public, things can be swayed. especially with elections coming up again, thats why the politicians in favor of gun control haven't been as active the past few months because they would like to remain in office.

I understand this principle to be that some citizens when hearing anything about potential government overreach, they spring into support for the little guy and don't bother to get all the facts first and want to be part of something

I believe the conflict is a bit deeper than that. Otherwise, you'd see militia uprisings pop op any time there was a dispute with Federal overreach... and let's face it, we've been marching toward that for decades. Bundy had specific connections to the groups involved, which is why they arrived. There may have been a few glory-seeking stragglers. You should really read up on the history of the situation though. This didn't just pop up overnight.

 

[SV_Dude]

What exactly would that "principle" be? Not recognizing the government? That he should be able to graze his herd on public land w/o paying the fees for 20 years? I'm just not clear on what some see as "principle" in this case.

Why should he have to pay a fee in the first place? What does it cost the government for the cattle to graze on that land? It doesn't cost them anything, the land is there not being used for anything. This is another example of the gov trying to make a buck for nothing. Who cares if his family has been there for 150 years or 60 years, I'm not seeing how that is relevant to this story at all.

As far as him being racist or anything of the sort... you need to take this with a grain of salt. At this point the media will attack anyone or say anything to make a buck and sell stories. Who knows what's real these days in the media.

 

[sportrunner2001]

I don't think what he said identifies him as racist but the way he said it came off that way. He was comparing to how African Americans used to be in difficult times and how they are still at a difficult point because of the way they can be treated. Of course this doesn't only apply to African Americans or all African Americans but thats how Bundy contexted it, and it inevitably came off as racist.

bofa, I've been looking up and reading a lot more since my last post. Now Bundy seems to be a little off kilter to me but determined to fight for what he thinks is right, and hopefully not with violence.

 

[RichmanA2]

I think if the feds had a legit case, they wouldn't have waited 10 years to do something about it.

The case is rock solid. This Bundy character is delusional, I think that is pretty evident when he managed to scare off Hannity. I've never seen Hannity back away as quickly as he has with Bundy. Needless to say, I think he learned a lesson here. And his producers need to be fired, they can't seem to screen anyone they have on that show.

Sean Hannity Learns A Valuable Lesson About Supporting Nutjobs Like Cliven Bundy | The Daily Banter

 

[RichmanA2]

Why should he have to pay a fee in the first place?

You should look to Ronald Reagan for the answer to that question, seeing as how he instituted the fee to begin with, through Executive Order :jaw:

 

[ndcent]

Why should he have to pay a fee in the first place? What does it cost the government for the cattle to graze on that land? It doesn't cost them anything, the land is there not being used for anything. This is another example of the gov trying to make a buck for nothing. Who cares if his family has been there for 150 years or 60 years, I'm not seeing how that is relevant to this story at all.

As far as him being racist or anything of the sort... you need to take this with a grain of salt. At this point the media will attack anyone or say anything to make a buck and sell stories. Who knows what's real these days in the media.

Re: Why a fee?

"Most cattle use on public lands occurs during the hot season when cattle seek cooler areas while foraging, such as riparian wetlands. Therefore, riparian wetland sedges and other riparian wetland vegetation frequently become over grazed. Reduced height of sedges and other species comprising riparian wetlands not only reduces replenishment rates for organic material, but it has other adverse effects as well. Wildlife frequently suffers when riparian wetlands are over grazed, e.g., reduced cover for sage hen chicks and less food for wildlife."

Re: Racist?

He said, quote:

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I'm not sure how you can twist this another way, but it'd be funny to try. Even Rand Paul said "His remarks on race are offensive, and I wholeheartedly disagree with him."

 

[RunninInGA]

Re: Why a fee?

"Most cattle use on public lands occurs during the hot season when cattle seek cooler areas while foraging, such as riparian wetlands. Therefore, riparian wetland sedges and other riparian wetland vegetation frequently become over grazed. Reduced height of sedges and other species comprising riparian wetlands not only reduces replenishment rates for organic material, but it has other adverse effects as well. Wildlife frequently suffers when riparian wetlands are over grazed, e.g., reduced cover for sage hen chicks and less food for wildlife."

So, why the fee again? Not that I'm disagreeing with you in principle, but your response above is silent with regards to why a fee exists.

 

[nevada]

So, why the fee again? Not that I'm disagreeing with you in principle, but your response above is silent with regards to why a fee exists.

initially the fee was used to manage the land. maintenance and upkeep basically. apparently it was used for this purpose for quite some time, then they stopped.
in order for him to continue running his cattle, he had to take on that upkeep himself, which he had been doing prior to BLM's involvement. it was at that point he stopped paying. because honestly who is going to continue to pay for services they aren't getting?


and to whoever said the case was solid? not a chance. they wouldn't have waited 10 years to do something.
also, if the feds thought they were 100% legit, they wouldn't have backed down to a couple 100 "militia".

 

[bofa]

bofa, I've been looking up and reading a lot more since my last post. Now Bundy seems to be a little off kilter to me but determined to fight for what he thinks is right, and hopefully not with violence.

He does seem a few noodles short of a bowl of spaghetti. I still don't think a call to arms was necessary in this scenario. I'd rather save that for more important things.

Re: Why a fee?

"Most cattle use on public lands occurs during the hot season when cattle seek cooler areas while foraging, such as riparian wetlands. Therefore, riparian wetland sedges and other riparian wetland vegetation frequently become over grazed. Reduced height of sedges and other species comprising riparian wetlands not only reduces replenishment rates for organic material, but it has other adverse effects as well. Wildlife frequently suffers when riparian wetlands are over grazed, e.g., reduced cover for sage hen chicks and less food for wildlife."

Re: Racist?

He said, quote:

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I'm not sure how you can twist this another way, but it'd be funny to try. Even Rand Paul said "His remarks on race are offensive, and I wholeheartedly disagree with him."

Eh... the wetlands have been grazed naturally for years, by millions of buffalo and cattle, way before this guy had a few hundred cattle with the munchies. There is no control for wild grazing. And I guess it's okay if he pays the fee right?

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a level-headed person to agree with his other thoughts.

 

[ndcent]

So, why the fee again? Not that I'm disagreeing with you in principle, but your response above is silent with regards to why a fee exists.

I'm sorry I thought it was apparent.

He's taking resources from land he doesn't own or pay for the use of, so in short...theft.

 

[nevada]

who owns that land?

 

[RichmanA2]

who owns that land?

It is government property.