BLM vs Bundy

Fat Dad wrote:Ben Dover = Thaddeus= troll.

I'm no more of a troll than you are.

Now this is a troll........

trollenor

jeff walz wrote:I'm talking about all the ill-informed citizens in both parties who cry Constitutional infringement every time their patriotic paranoia kicks in.

So because someone claims Constitutional infringement, they're automatically ill-informed? It sounds like you're the paranoid one dude.

Funny how once the BLM backed off all you Statists got real quiet.

Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie most likely intervened on behalf of Bundy, as once he arrived on scene and met with Bundy, the BLM issued its announcement that it was withdrawing. At first, there were many references on the web that Gillespie demanded the Feds back off; but now most of those postings have been eradicated.

The Sheriff did what he was supposed to do, and that was to uphold States rights over unconstitutional encroachment.

Whatever happened to youth always questioning authority?

pussies

Why do you simply accept every increase in Fed power over the states and your own soverieginty?

nullify

How is it that you don't see what you have become?

statists

SinRopa wrote: C'mon, no need to lump everyone together. You do recognize valid arguments on both sides right?

Valid arguments on what sides? On the side of the deadbeat Bundys? No, not really. On the side of "constitutionalists" that believe only in those portions of the constitution they like (and never in the Supremacy clause), not really. But if you'd like to point some out I'd be happy to tell you what I think.

SinRopa wrote: I've never said anything about the Bundys, I'm talking about BLM establishing the "free speech" zones. You don't see how some might view that as unconstitutional?

I've never said anything about free speech zones. Sounds like you weren't addressing me even though you quoted me.

The issue of "free speech zones" is complicated. When your 1stAM activity interferes with my 1stAm activity, the police need to find a way to resolve that dispute. Smae when your 1stAm activity creates a risk of injury or death. Providing a controlled environment where large groups of people can do their thing without creating dangerous conditions and without interfering with others' rights. that said, of course cops will be overzealous with a new tool, when are they not? If you care about such things, please send a donation to the ACLU (www.aclu.org), they do more real work to keep law enforcement in line than any group of yahoo "tea partiers" have ever done.

SinRopa wrote: Exactly, but you said that when someone says "constitution," all they really mean is "what I want." I don't think it's that simple. It's a complicated issue, thus, many different viewpoints, none of which deserve to be invalidated simply because someone claims constitutional infringement.

Tell you what, when you shut down an interstate freeway because you're having a fit over your view of the constitution, you deserve to be "invalidated."

Now, did you send that donation to the ACLU, or are you just an internet constitutionalist?

SinRopa wrote:each month a portion of my paycheck is donated to the Access Fund, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.

You belong to the ACLU and the NRA? That's gotta be a first.

It seems like every internet site eventually morphs into either political rants or porn. The two P's of the internet if you will. I was really hoping that mp would go the other direction...

jeff walz wrote:If/when you migrate West for the climbing, open space, weather, and romanticized freedoms, you're sure to get perspective.

I grew up in Albuquerque, and lived out West until quite recently. Dismissing my views based on where I currently reside is as ignorant as assuming that the basis of every Constitutional infringement claim is, as you called it, "patriotic paranoia."

The fucking government ran the Indians off the land in the first place, battle of wounded knee anyone?

Nee

Then they claimed it as theirs under divine right from God, whatever the FUCK that even means. So now they hold that shit hostage so that senator Harry Reid can get his solar farm.

infowars.com/breaking-sen-h…

Infowars....great..

jeff walz wrote:...I don't know you personally, so this isn't personal (same to Ropeless)...In my experience, most people popping off about the violation of their Constitutional rights have never read and reflected on the Constitution...

We're going around in circles, so I'll end my participation in this discussion with the observation that your experience with "people popping off about the violation of their Constitutional rights" is likely as limited as your fluency in Spanish.

"Sin ropa" does not mean "ropeless," it means "without clothing." Here's wishing your experience in both areas continues to grow.

-Matt

Looks like it was a bluff, BLM still after bundy family.

Here is a 2nd hand quote I boosted off of FB; so take that for what it's worth:

"Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch (1,000 to 150). Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?"

So my question to the pro-Fed posters here is this:
Do you want a Federal Government that is so powerful that established property rights are of no importance? Do you understand the nature of property rights to a free society?
not trolling here. Seriously looking to understand mindsets.

In this day and age it seems we never have the whole side to any story. There is a spin to everything. People seem to choose their media sources not to educate themselves but rather to validate their preconceived opinions. I personally think its a sign of emotional neediness. People must get a little jolt of endorphins or something when the man on the tv or the internet tells them that they are right and the other side is wrong.

If you wait a month or so maybe the Economist will run a well researched article about the whole endeavour which I might be inclined to believe. Until then I think my (admittedly very limited) energies will be directed elsewhere. I have personally found that being open minded and patient is a much more rewarding state of mind compared to rushing to judgement over every mainstream topic of the week. Except posting 'I don't know' on Facebook or Twitter apparently isn't nearly as satisfying as arguing about a poorly researched subject for hours on end.

jeff lebowski wrote:In this day and age it seems we never have the whole side to any story. There is a spin to everything. People seem to choose their media sources not to educate themselves but rather to validate their preconceived opinions. I personally think its a sign of emotional neediness. People must get a little jolt of endorphins or something when the man on the tv or the internet tells them that they are right and the other side is wrong. If you wait a month or so maybe the Economist will run a well researched article about the whole endeavour which I might be inclined to believe. Until then I think my (admittedly very limited) energies will be directed elsewhere. I have personally found that being open minded and patient is a much more rewarding state of mind compared to rushing to judgement over every mainstream topic of the week. Except posting 'I don't know' on Facebook or Twitter apparently isn't nearly as satisfying as arguing about a poorly researched subject for hours on end.

Well said, I agree.

Bundy should have bought the land, but he didn't. Just like I didn't buy that cheap beach house that my friend wanted to get rid of back in '89. I don't get to go back now and insist that it should be mine for the 1989 price just because I rented it a few times, and always left it cleaner than I found it. I also don't get to claim that I own my favorite campsite along my favorite river, just because I've made some minor improvements by clearing some brush, and encouraging some other brush, and cleaning up litter, and improving the fire ring.

Ranchers in the west think that if they rent someone else's land long enough, it becomes theirs. Then when they are informed that you actually ahve to buy something in order to own it, they claim that ain't the "conservative" way.

PS - And Lebowski's right.

^^^
Good point, but please don't feed the troll.

jeff lebowski wrote:In this day and age it seems we never have the whole side to any story. There is a spin to everything. People seem to choose their media sources not to educate themselves but rather to validate their preconceived opinions. I personally think its a sign of emotional neediness. People must get a little jolt of endorphins or something when the man on the tv or the internet tells them that they are right and the other side is wrong. If you wait a month or so maybe the Economist will run a well researched article about the whole endeavour which I might be inclined to believe. Until then I think my (admittedly very limited) energies will be directed elsewhere. I have personally found that being open minded and patient is a much more rewarding state of mind compared to rushing to judgement over every mainstream topic of the week. Except posting 'I don't know' on Facebook or Twitter apparently isn't nearly as satisfying as arguing about a poorly researched subject for hours on end.

Thanks for making a very sensible and much needed comment in this discussion. Especially "to validate their preconceived opinions". Wow, is that relevant in this day and age of politics.

I WAS THERE.

Full disclosure: I'm not really a rock climber. My brother is though, and after seeing this thread, and knowing that I was present near Bunkerville NV from April 8-12, recommended that I create an account to share what first hand knowledge I have. I created this account today, and this will be my only post, but you can PM me with serious inquiries for further info, and I will email you back.

I live in Las Vegas, and after seeing local news coverage of the developing situation, 2 friends and I drove to Bunkerville to show our support for the Bundys. This was my thinking on the situation when I agreed to travel there: While I agree that Cliven Bundy owes grazing fees to the government, my support stemms from my belief that the government has taken a civil/administrative matter and has reacted with intimidation and heavy handed tatics. To paraphrase a common analogy shared among the protestors, imagine that you were in the midst of a dispute with your credit card company. You dispute that you owe the charges; they insist that you do. Normally this would be settled with bill collectors, or perhaps a court order garnishing your wages. However, if the credit card company sent representatives to your house to help themselves to enough of your belongings to cover the debt, most would agree that these actions, while somewhat justified because of the debt, would be improper and cause for outrage.

When we arrived at the site of the protests early on the morning of the 8th, we found that the BLM and local law enforcement had designated "First Amendment areas." We were told that these were for our "safety and protection", and that any assembly outside of these areas would be considered a crime and ground for arrest. There was no counter-protest group, so it didn't make sense to me what we were being protected from. My friends and I stayed inside the barricades, but witnessed 2 individuals arrested/detained when they left the fenced in area to relieve themselves, and additional arrests of individuals who began protesting outside of the barricades.

Later that day, NV Gov. Brian Sandoval gave a statement to the media where he called for the removal of the "offensive First Amendment restrictions." Embolded by that news, large groups of protesters left the barricades, and after initially being threated with arrest, were told that "non-disruptive expressions" would be permitted anywhere.

over the next day, my friends and I talked with local law enforcement, who expressed their apprecition for the civility of our group. BLM Rangers refused to interact with us and would not engage us in conversation. Long story short, April 9th passed without incident.

On April 10, a BLM convoy of dump trucks arrived at the site. A rumor spread that the trucks contained the bodies of euthanized cattle, and some protestors blocked the route of the trucks. At this time, two Bundy family members arrived (Cliven's son and his sister). The son drove an ATV in front of one of the trucks, blocking it in. It attempted to maneuver around him, and ended up hitting the parked ATV. This lead to a confrontation between the driver, the son, and 2 local law enforcement officers. Local law enforcement demanded that the ATV be moved, while the son demanded that the driver be charged for hitting him with the truck. The conversation, while heated, was not physically threatening on either side, until a third officer pushed the sister to the ground as she attempted to approach the son. At this point, the son confronted the third officer, and was repeatedly Tasered.

At this point there was a large commotion and I didn't see what ended up happening with the son, but I witnessed police officers taser other protesters who were not involved with the scuffle, and I saw a pregnant lady knocked over by BLM rangers running to confront people climbing on the dump trucks. These events were captured on video by news crews, and by protesters recording the event on their phones. I personally witnessed a BLM ranger tell a KTNV reporter to turn his camera off, and threaten him with a baton when the reporter declined.

Over the next day, the number of protestors grew dramatically, with some armed militia members arriving as well. This didn't sit well with many of us, because we thought it could lead to a misunderstanding where Kent State scenario could occur.

On the morning of April 12, the BLM announced that they were suspending the cattle roundup. Some protestors moved towards a dry creek bed under an I-15 overpass, where the cattle that had been rounded up were corralled. Initally, no protesters blocked the highway, but as police and BLM repositioned vehicles to the rear of the protest group, other protesters moved onto the highway to prevent them from moving down into the creek bed.

At this point, a large group of protestors on foot and on horseback started moving toward the corral. BLM rangers using bullhorns and loudspeakers shouted that they were prepared to use deadly force to prevent us from reaching the corral. At one point, an officer (who I believe was BLM) repeated shouted "One more step and you're dead." We continued to move forward with our hands in the air. This dance, with us moving forward slowly, and the police pointing rifles at us and threatening to shoot, continued for about 20 minutes. The entire process was filmed by news crews, and is on Youtube. As we reached the corral, the BLM rangers and police got the order to stand down, and eventually withdrew and other BLM personnel released the cattle. Within a few hours, the protesting crowd had largely disappated, and after talking with several news crews, we left as well.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Obviously some protestors acted in ways that are hard to defend. Blocking the highway likely only made enemies of everyone that was passing through. However, the actions of police and BLM rangers threatening to shoot unarmed protesters is equally hard to defend. I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed and that this situation will play out in a court, where it should have been handled all along. I honestly believe that one itchy trigger finger on either side would have resulted in dozens of innocent people dead. As much as I fault the protesters who showed up armed, I hold the government to a higher standard, and allowing this situation to escalate like it did reinforces my belief that too often, the government resorts to intimidation and heavy handed tactics instead of behaving rationally.