Oathkeepers

[boanerges]

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?

You are aware that there is an appeal process within the BLM to challenge the decisions it makes and after you have exhausted all your appeals within the BLM, you can go to court. Did Bundy do any of this?

What you are saying is that if I am renting some property from you and at the end of the lease you reduce the amount of property I can rent, then I should just ignore what you say, continue to use your property and stop paying rent?

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?

Great! I'll get my chainsaw and begin clear cutting redwoods in the National Forests because it is my land. And the oil companies will be happy too, because they won't have to pay royalties for the oil they extract from US government owned land.

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

Or this

Just because some idiots don't like what the government is doing does not necessarily make the government wrong. You are aware that we have always had land use conflicts especially in the West. For example, there was the problem of hydraulic mining in California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_mining and then there were the sheep wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_Wars

Responses in bold.

[greg36f]

Responses in bold.

OMG, seriously...........you are going the reasonable route.......

Good luck with that crazy tactic....

They have seen the enemy and nothing will dissuade them….

[morfeeis]

You are aware that there is an appeal process within the BLM to challenge the decisions it makes and after you have exhausted all your appeals within the BLM, you can go to court. Did Bundy do any of this?

So you're saying that 52 ranchers went through all of the appeals and court cases and still lost? So not one of them should have been able to keep their land and that the BLM did not create a hostel environment for ranchers?

What you are saying is that if I am renting some property from you and at the end of the lease you reduce the amount of property I can rent, then I should just ignore what you say, continue to use your property and stop paying rent?

Private property vs public property, there is a huge difference between the two. a better and more truthful analogy would be more like being told after paying your taxes for years that you can only drive down some streets now. why? because dot said so, that's why. all this because you didn't pay the extra suv tax.

Or we could pull at the heart strings and use the kids. It would be like cutting the high school years out of public school and adding a 5K fee per year per child.

Great! I'll get my chainsaw and begin clear cutting redwoods in the National Forests because it is my land. And the oil companies will be happy too, because they won't have to pay royalties for the oil they extract from US government owned land.

and thus the Hitler argument starts, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being genuine. Both of the things you listed are strictly a consumption of those resources and and do not provide for the public good with out some sort of commerce. While Bundy's cows do eat from the land they graze on, they also fertilized the land at the same time. Bundy also enriched the land he used.

Still waiting on your views on the adventure pass. is it right to be charged to use land you have already paid for via taxes?

Just because some idiots don't like what the government is doing does not necessarily make the government wrong. You are aware that we have always had land use conflicts especially in the West. For example, there was the problem of hydraulic mining in California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_mining and then there were the sheep wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_Wars

The Sheep Wars,[1][2] or the Sheep and Cattle Wars,[3][4] refers to a series of armed conflicts in the western United States which were fought between sheepmen and cattlemen over grazing rights.

So citizens fought other citizens over land rights. please tell me how that has anything to do with the BLM attempting to control private lands?

As for fracking, that proves my point on overreaching.

And by some idiots you mean rand Paul ted cruiz, Ron Paul, TX AG, private land owners, calgun members and a host of other Americans.... those idiots?

I didn't ask you about feeling or emotions, i asked you to provide me some proof of public good that comes from what is being done by the BLM.

[jrock]

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.

Careful, before you know it you'll be voting for a jeb Bush and/or another Rove agent....is it radical to be pro-liberty/constitution.
Liberty vs tyranny

[Barang]

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.

It doesn't add up! The gov't claimed they're protecting endangered turtles, then Bundy's cow's shot in the head, then limiting Bundys and supporters for their free speech, then snipers were deployed. If all these weren't done, then I'd have believed the gov't story.

[boanerges]

So you're saying that 52 ranchers went through all of the appeals and court cases and still lost? So not one of them should have been able to keep their land and that the BLM did not create a hostel environment for ranchers?

I have no idea whether 52 ranchers went out of business or why. That is your assertion; an assertion without proof I might add. What I asked you was whether Cliven Bundy pursued an appeal with the BLM or with the courts. I am still waiting for an answer. It is a simple question.

Private property vs public property, there is a huge difference between the two. a better and more truthful analogy would be more like being told after paying your taxes for years that you can only drive down some streets now. why? because dot said so, that's why. all this because you didn't pay the extra suv tax.

Nope, you are wrong. Evidently you do not understand how grazing rights work. Once the permit is issued the holder of the permit has the exclusive right to graze on the land. Public streets can be used by all.

Or we could pull at the heart strings and use the kids. It would be like cutting the high school years out of public school and adding a 5K fee per year per child.

This is simply too ridiculous for comment.

and thus the Hitler argument starts, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being genuine. Both of the things you listed are strictly a consumption of those resources and and do not provide for the public good with out some sort of commerce. While Bundy's cows do eat from the land they graze on, they also fertilized the land at the same time. Bundy also enriched the land he used.

Wrong again. Trees grow and are a renewable resource like grass provided the land is not overgrazed. Overgrazing can destroy the usefulness of the land forever.

Still waiting on your views on the adventure pass. is it right to be charged to use land you have already paid for via taxes?

How is that any different from a fishing license or a hunting license? Do you think those should not be required?

So citizens fought other citizens over land rights. please tell me how that has anything to do with the BLM attempting to control private lands?

As for fracking, that proves my point on overreaching.

What you posted was nothing but a couple of people ranting about the government trying to control them. It sounds like there is a lot of emotion and no reason. It also sounds like a land use conflict. Is turtle habitat a better use than grazing. Those are difficult questions.

Who said anything about fracking?

And by some idiots you mean rand Paul ted cruiz, Ron Paul, TX AG, private land owners, calgun members and a host of other Americans.... those idiots?

Well at least you got one right. But all the politicos are running as fast as they can in the opposite direction once they found out what a whacko Bundy is.

I didn't ask you about feeling or emotions, i asked you to provide me some proof of public good that comes from what is being done by the BLM.

I gave it to you. You either can't or won't see it.

Now I see what greg36f meant.

[boanerges]

It doesn't add up! The gov't claimed they're protecting endangered turtles, then Bundy's cow's shot in the head, then limiting Bundys and supporters for their free speech, then snipers were deployed. If all these weren't done, then I'd have believed the gov't story.

Evidently you are unaware that there is a history of violence against the Forest Service, the BLM and environmental groups:

Threats of violence are de rigeur and actual violence too common in the modern sagebrush rebellion: pipe bombs planted on wilderness trails, sent to environmental groups, exploded in US Forest Service and BLM offices.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/19/cliven-bundy-nevada-blm-libertarian

[Barang]

Evidently you are unaware that there is a history of violence against the Forest Service, the BLM and environmental groups

I go back to "the gov't claimed they're protecting endangered turtles, then Bundy's cow's shot in the head, then limiting Bundys and supporters for their free speech" minus deploying snipers. If all these weren't done, then I'd have believed the gov't story.

[morfeeis]

Now I see what greg36f meant.

You miss very simple concepts and our ways of thinking are vastly different.

Nope, you are wrong. Evidently you do not understand how grazing rights work. Once the permit is issued the holder of the permit has the exclusive right to graze on the land. Public streets can be used by all.

I read you entire post and did give it thought; but if i am honest this is where i knew nothing would come of this. rather then an exchange of ideas and thoughts you appear to want to prove a point. if you chose not to see how that analogy was better suited to the situation then one of us shouldn't be involved in this conversation (farmer/pig/singing).

you win, you're right.

[10-22]

In my opinion, too many people just repeat talking points that they have heard, and do not have any depth of understanding regarding their opinions. With that said, I want to ask if you will state any facts that would justify characterizing them as a radical group. Can you name any acts that they have done that are radical. Can you identify any of their policies that are radical.

I'd say pointing weapons at federal agents qualifies them as a radical group. I'd have called in drone strikes and killed every last one of those domestic terrorists.

[Jasonaspears]

I'd say pointing weapons at federal agents qualifies them as a radical group. I'd have called in drone strikes and killed every last one of those domestic terrorists.

Seriously??

[10-22]

Seriously??

Seriously. If I point a gun at a cop, they have every right to kill me. The BLM people were enforcing the law, AND a court order. The "oathkeepers," (a laughable name at best) pointed guns at the BLM people executing a lawful court order. Why should they get off the hook?

[RandyD]

I'd say pointing weapons at federal agents qualifies them as a radical group. I'd have called in drone strikes and killed every last one of those domestic terrorists.

Your post is the most alarming post I have read on this site.

I am not aware of any citizen pointing weapons at government employees. If you have some proof of this, I would be interested in reviewing it. It is my understanding that citizens in support of Mr. Bundy were armed, but they did nothing more than bear arms. I have seen the photo of a man armed with a rifle laying prone on the highway, pointing a weapon through an opening, but the photo does not reflect that the rifle was pointed at a government employee. Lets also put this event into context, most of the citizen protestors appeared after government employees roughed up a 50 year old lady by throwing her to the ground, pointing stun guns at and letting dogs attack the other citizens present. The only violence, at the Bundy incident, was perpetrated by government employees, and it was against American citizens.

The following comment made by you is irrational, irresponsible, and advocates murder, and it illustrates that you are emotionally unstable, "I'd have called in drone strikes and killed every last one of those domestic terrorists." America should be thankful that you were not in charge, and I hope you are not employed by any government entity in any capacity. I further hope that you do not own any firearms.

Your assertion that you would kill all of those American citizens, is a serious concern, especially since it was made well after the event, and made with the knowledge that not one government employee was threatened, assaulted or battered, and no arrests were made.

[Jasonaspears]

Your post is the most alarming post I have read on this site.

I am not aware of any citizen pointing weapons at government employees. If you have some proof of this, I would be interested in reviewing it. It is my understanding that citizens in support of Mr. Bundy were armed, but they did nothing more than bear arms. I have seen the photo of a man armed with a rifle laying prone on the highway, pointing a weapon through an opening, but the photo does not reflect that the rifle was pointed at a government employee. Lets also put this event into context, most of the citizen protestors appeared after government employees roughed up a 50 year old lady by throwing her to the ground, pointing stun guns at and letting dogs attack the other citizens present. The only violence, at the Bundy incident, was perpetrated by government employees, and it was against American citizens.

The following comment made by you is irrational, irresponsible, and advocates murder, and it illustrates that you are emotionally unstable, "I'd have called in drone strikes and killed every last one of those domestic terrorists." America should be thankful that you were not in charge, and I hope you are not employed by any government entity in any capacity. I further hope that you do not own any firearms.

Your assertion that you would kill all of those American citizens, is a serious concern, especially since it was made well after the event, and made with the knowledge that not one government employee was threatened, assaulted or battered, and no arrests were made.

Agreed.

[Jasonaspears]

Seriously. If I point a gun at a cop, they have every right to kill me. The BLM people were enforcing the law, AND a court order. The "oathkeepers," (a laughable name at best) pointed guns at the BLM people executing a lawful court order. Why should they get off the hook?

I never heard about anyone pointing weapons at law enforcement. Where'd you get this info? Even if true, you'd want them all killed via drone? Very scary proposition