Oathkeepers

[jtyner]

He raised all those arguments in court and lost four times in a row.

The federal courts decided in favor of the federal government? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

[Barang]

Send federal agents, police, snipers, dogs, taser .... to collect money you owe blm. Your freedom of speech reduced to a designated area only! and then, you are called domestic terorist. WOW!

[boanerges]

The federal courts decided in favor of the federal government? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

The courts frequently rule against the federal government. In this case they ruled against Bundy because his claims were laughable. Evidently you believe that if there is a court decision you don't like, you don't have to follow it. That is called anarchy.

Send federal agents, police, snipers, dogs, taser .... to collect money you owe blm. Your freedom of speech reduced to a designated area only! and then, you are called domestic terorist. WOW!

No, they sent armed men because Bundy told them on more than one occasion that he had guns and threatened violence if they tried to enforce the court's order. Try calling your local police department, telling them you have guns and threaten them. See if they send a friendly officer ringing your doorbell or a SWAT team.

[morfeeis]

He raised all those arguments in court and lost four times in a row.

He does not like the court decisions so he is taking the law into his own hands.

He is an armed insurrectionist and a common criminal. I suppose you would like to canonize Jesse James, too.

please explain how the public good is served by what the BLM is doing.

[ChrisC]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Only one problem with this statement, when it was written, it was not for everyone. It was for the chosen few only. And if you honestly know history, you will know that I am 100% right and will admit it. Or stay ignorant and argue.

[Rickrock1]

Support and join the Oathkeepers of America .....

Thank you

[boanerges]

please explain how the public good is served by what the BLM is doing.

The United States owns land, primarily in the Western states. That land has value. Some of it contains valuable timber. Some oil and gas deposits and some is valuable for other reasons like grazing or aquaculture. The government holds that land in trust for all the people and as such should get fair value for those who choose to use it for their own individual or corporate purposes. So it leases these lands. It does not receive fair market value, however. For grazing leases it only gets about 10% of what a private landowner would charge. Mr. Bundy refuses to pay and continues to graze his cattle. Just like when you don't pay your taxes, the government has a right to collect. It has tried to do that through the courts, but Mr. Bundy continues to disobey court orders. Seems fairly simple to me.

[WnP]

Damn radicals.

Wasghinton was willing to crush the whiskey rebellion by force.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[boanerges]

Wasghinton was willing to crush the whiskey rebellion by force.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Quit bringing facts and reality into this!

[Doheny]

They're a bunch of nut jobs. They bugged out of the Bundy Ranch when they caught wind they'd be on the receiving end of a drone strike.



.

[jtyner]

Evidently you believe that if there is a court decision you don't like, you don't have to follow it.

A much more reasonable inference would be that I believe that the federal courts have a conflict of interest when it comes to deciding matters involving the federal government.

[bwiese]

I appreciate the general idea of Oathkeepers, esp in the context where .mil people will not participate against civilians.

However, O.K.s as a group appear to have neither legal nor political acumen - i.e, "no skill or focus".

The Bundy situation was a clusterfluck. We had an incompetent man asserting all sorts of nonsense that had no legal
basis of support (at least not from real lawyers). The Feds did not back off his situation, they merely backed off a
confrontation. There will be other ways of dealing with Bundy with less drama. [If Bundy were even remotely correct
in his assertions his issues would have been solved, at leat partially, back in 1993.] In fact, the BLM was kinda nice
to him... given his cattle were on BLM land, if I were a manager and checked w legal authority I'd've just hauled off
the cattle to slaughterhouse to recoup costs. (Landlords are allowed to liquidate property, within guidelines, to
recover damages, back rent, and the costs of eliminating offending items from their property.)

Yes, Federal land use is a huge question and why the FedGov still owns so much land is something that needs to be
addressed - politically. Not Bundy's way with all his BS.

Even despite Bundy's very questionable legal issues, he was still getting some poltiical traction - until he opened his
fat mouth with statements no sitting politician could remotely be associated with.... which is why he was dropped like
a hot potato.

In the meantime a whole buncha folks got all gunned up and risked imprisonment for armed threatening of Federal officers
over a situation that wasn't worth getting "that worked up over". [Contrast Bundy's situation, with, say, something like
an eminent domain/seizure situation or a truly illegal seizure etc. Also please show me where Bundy ever had competent
legal representation.]

The Oathkeepers proved their incompetency - they marched to the wrong battle.

[desrt2]

There may be a plus side to the Federal government owning land; people with an excrement-load of money ... uhm like bloomberg - could use a significant amount to buy up land and, of course, take away additional access for people to shoot.

Ted Turner owns 2 million acres spread across 12 states. And this is the guy who stated that "it good that soldiers commit suicide." Must be a member of Westboro Baptist.

[Steve_In_29]

Ive been approached by them many times. They appear to have a good cause but in the end they are just a radical group on the right wing. Im weary of radical groups no matter what side of the spectrum they are on.

.......He is an armed insurrectionist and a common criminal.

Spoken like true lapdog minions.

[morfeeis]

The United States owns land, primarily in the Western states. That land has value. Some of it contains valuable timber. Some oil and gas deposits and some is valuable for other reasons like grazing or aquaculture. The government holds that land in trust for all the people and as such should get fair value for those who choose to use it for their own individual or corporate purposes. So it leases these lands. It does not receive fair market value, however. For grazing leases it only gets about 10% of what a private landowner would charge. Mr. Bundy refuses to pay and continues to graze his cattle. Just like when you don't pay your taxes, the government has a right to collect. It has tried to do that through the courts, but Mr. Bundy continues to disobey court orders. Seems fairly simple to me.

In the case of Bundy you're going to want to relook over where he was willing to pay and then they said we will only allow 1/6 of the cattle you need to graze on said land. This would have put him out of business, so if they were so concerned with bringing in income off of said land why would they try and bankrupt him? Also if they wanted to bring in revenue off of the land why is it that they created an environment that put 52 of 53 ranches in the area out of business?

and if it is truly unused public that he as a tax payer already pays for, why is there an extra tax because he is making use of it? Bet you agree with the adventure pass too?

Or could you explain how the public good is served in controlling this private property?

Or this