Not sure I understand the question... 'Was the standoff Wright?' like Orville and Wilbur Wright??
This is being discussed everywhere on the internet, radio, and television and not gun related. You are addressing a generally well informed and thoughtful group of folks here. Why initiate a discussion on a gun forum, or any forum for that matter, with insults?
I have zero doubt that everyone active in this site was, is, has been paying attention to the Bundy BS.
We, unlike you have more than 18 posts, thank you for your vast amount of information on the matter, I'm gonna go back to talking care of my Oath Keeper duties.
Jackass
So the more info that comes out on this, the more Bundy starts looking like a nut job, not a "patriot". He's been quoted as saying he doesn't recognize the United States federal government as even existing at all. Apparently he feels the state of Arizona is a sovereign nation unto itself, so that's the only authority he recognizes.
Good luck with that, skippy. :tard:
Good luck with that, skippy. :tard:
I don't know enough to say wether he is right or not, but the more I read, it seems he might not have a case.
But setting that aside, I do like what has happened with the BLM getting scared and running away. This guy with a questionable cause was able to draw enough support to send the feds running. Granted, it was only the BLM, but it is a start.
The problem I see though is that they will learn from this, and next time not give time or warning, just black bag whoever they want, and send them to Guantanamo. If there is no time to drum up media and support, there is no controversy. We will see.
But setting that aside, I do like what has happened with the BLM getting scared and running away. This guy with a questionable cause was able to draw enough support to send the feds running. Granted, it was only the BLM, but it is a start.
The problem I see though is that they will learn from this, and next time not give time or warning, just black bag whoever they want, and send them to Guantanamo. If there is no time to drum up media and support, there is no controversy. We will see.
"My family has been here since before the BLM existed, so **** you" seems to be the cornerstone of Bundy's defense.
Again, good luck with that. It would seem one way or or another, he's duped a lot of people to support his cause, but more and more it's sounding like he's the one in the wrong here, and has been all along. Just another crotchety old '**** the gubmint!' geezer that thinks its still the wild wild west from 130 years ago. It's not, get over it.
Again, good luck with that. It would seem one way or or another, he's duped a lot of people to support his cause, but more and more it's sounding like he's the one in the wrong here, and has been all along. Just another crotchety old '**** the gubmint!' geezer that thinks its still the wild wild west from 130 years ago. It's not, get over it.
I have read or seen NO Constitutional Lawyer have any negative remarks about this.
But I have read a few things and this sums it up.
It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.
In order to make certain the federal government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the Legislature of the State” were added.
Despite the desire of the founders and the originating principles of the nation, conceived as a constitutional republic, the federal government has repeatedly and habitually exacted dictatorial authority in Nevada and throughout much of the West.
“The United States government owns and has broad authority to regulate federal lands in Nevada,” the BLM arrogantly insists. “In response to challenges of federal ownership of the lands in Nevada, the 9th circuit held that the federal government owned all federal lands in Nevada, and that those lands did not pass to the state upon statehood.”
This is in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
I would like someone from the federal government to produce the documents and proof that they purchased, with the consent of the Legislature of the States in the West, all of the land they claim they “own”, and where exactly are the “forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings” which they are authorized to construct under the Enclave Clause?
There should be no BLM agency, and the land that the federal government claims it “owns” is actually owned by the states wherein that land lies
Yes, this is another YouTube Video, Yes its another view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ
But I have read a few things and this sums it up.
It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.
In order to make certain the federal government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the Legislature of the State” were added.
Despite the desire of the founders and the originating principles of the nation, conceived as a constitutional republic, the federal government has repeatedly and habitually exacted dictatorial authority in Nevada and throughout much of the West.
“The United States government owns and has broad authority to regulate federal lands in Nevada,” the BLM arrogantly insists. “In response to challenges of federal ownership of the lands in Nevada, the 9th circuit held that the federal government owned all federal lands in Nevada, and that those lands did not pass to the state upon statehood.”
This is in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
I would like someone from the federal government to produce the documents and proof that they purchased, with the consent of the Legislature of the States in the West, all of the land they claim they “own”, and where exactly are the “forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings” which they are authorized to construct under the Enclave Clause?
There should be no BLM agency, and the land that the federal government claims it “owns” is actually owned by the states wherein that land lies
Yes, this is another YouTube Video, Yes its another view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ
Yeah Bundy's not innocent in this whole mess....
However I'm enjoying the fact that the depth of scandal involved is being exposed... on all sides. I'm sure all fed agencies are paying very close attention to how the protests went down (maybe that's why USPS is buying guns & ammo).
However I'm enjoying the fact that the depth of scandal involved is being exposed... on all sides. I'm sure all fed agencies are paying very close attention to how the protests went down (maybe that's why USPS is buying guns & ammo).
And perhaps unearthing some others... the rumors that it was about a deal with Harry Reid and some Chinese company for land for a solar power project were false. However, that deal may have nothing to do with Bundy, but it looks all kinds of shady. Like the fact that Reid/Nevada sold that land for $4 million, despite two independent appraisals valued it at around $30 million. Can't imagine Reid is too happy about that being brought up again. *snicker*
This is what it is ultimately about. I cannot believe any of you are ok with this map.
This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/04/16/showdown-nevada/
No matter how you spin it this is just WRONG !
Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%
.
This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/04/16/showdown-nevada/
No matter how you spin it this is just WRONG !
Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%
.
Some states turning the tables and taking their states land back.
Western lawmakers discuss taking land from feds, http://fxn.ws/1iz3VxC
Western lawmakers discuss taking land from feds, http://fxn.ws/1iz3VxC
Except that 16 years before the Bundy family started ranching in that area all Nevada land which was not under State or Private title was given by the Nevada Constitution when the state was formed to the US government.
So all that stuff Shelbyguy wrote has no effect on this.
So all that stuff Shelbyguy wrote has no effect on this.
I'm definitely not ok with that map, but I have to admit prior to this incident, I had no idea. How much of Nevada is owned by the feds quickly came to light, but the rest of the west? Again, I had no idea... pretty shocking actually. :angry:
Yeah I think at this point it's pretty clear that legally, Bundy doesn't have a leg to stand on. His rants of not recognizing the federal government even exists might get some militia types to wet their panties, but it's childish thinking. The fed DOES exist, whether you like it or not, this isn't the 1880s, no matter how much you wish it were.
And the irony... this guy is basically a freeloader and mooch off the federal govt, a 'welfare queen' if you will, yet the tea baggers idolize him. Hypocrites.
What'd be interesting is if he's technically a squatter and gets to keep the land he's been using all these years...
