Guns, Guns Guns

SMR we are actually in agreement regarding race not being a factor and I never said or meant to imply you were racist, sorry if you got that impression.
If I lived in Mexico I too would be armed, and am glad that I don't have to be where I live.
I do worry that many good people in the developed USA seem to believe that their society is such that they need to be armed.

Um Smr, you're the one who brought up race.

Mostly this has been a discussion of culture. Of the rights of the many outweighing the rights pf the one vs the rights of the one outweighing the rights of the many.
Things like that.

Daryl, apology accepted and I offer an apology for thinking that you were trying to infer racism. It's too bad that police did a piss poor job when the hotel was robbed. Maybe, that other hotel clerk would not died if their response time had been quicker and the investigation much more through.

Why it's important for individual members to be armed. The people with the power are the people with the pens and the guns! When a society can not fight, this invites tyranny.

Take the Al Bundy case. A rancher that has grazing the land for over a hundred years. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had decided a turtle was endangered even though the previous year the BLM was killing the turtles (Too many). These turtles eat the dung of the cattle. What was happening was the BLM was illegally raising the grazing fees to non-substainable levels for political purposes. Henry Reid (The Senate Majority Leader: Democrat) working with his son, the head of BLM, and the local sheriff (all members of the same political party), and a Chinese solar company. They were forcing out the local ranchers by making uneconomical to ranch in the county. Also, they demonized him for owing money that was mostly fines, accumulated compound interest, and the lawyer fees (from outside Washington Lawyers not the BLM lawyers).

Why was all this happening? Henry Reid, his backers, and political allies needed the ranchers to begone to allow the Chinese solar company to use the land at rock bottom prices. The BLM and the sheriff decided that seize the cattle by importing 200 armed BLM personal from other states because the local BLM personal and local deputies refused to go along with the plan of the Sheriff and the BLM. So, this became a political fight against Henry Reid and his allies in the media. What happened is most the local residents and other people believing in state rights over federal rights decided to stop the seizure of the cattle. The BLM with the Sheriff threatened to fire on group of men, women, and children that walked together to stop the seizure of the cattle. As a result, the Bundy family was arrested and tasered even though they offered no resistance to the arrest. Next, Henry Reid went to floor of the Senate and proclaimed these people Domestic Terrorists. It took the Republicans, some Democrats, and some Tea party activists to stop Henry Reid and his allies. This type of incident demonstrates clearly why the regular average citizen should be able to own a gun. When a 100 million citizens ban together to fight the government, the government has a choice to kill them or change the policies that are causing the insurrection. Only a armed force can change the government's mind...look at what happened to Germany. Hitler comes to power then they seized the guns and then they decided to burn down their version of the Congressional building. My ex-wife was German and I never forgot what her grandfather said, "They seized the guns and then Hitler and the Nazis's started to show their true colors. We could not stop them without disappearing." Now the BLM is trying to seize 50,000 acres along the the Red River for pennies on the
dollar. Texas has elected to fight this seizure in Federal court!


This is why it important for every citizen to armed and aware of a person's rights. A silent group of citizens are nothing but lambs being led to slaughter! Most people withing the government are good and honest people but their are people that will lie, cheat, and steal when given the chance.

Annachie wrote:Um Smr, you're the one who brought up race.

Mostly this has been a discussion of culture. Of the rights of the many outweighing the rights pf the one vs the rights of the one outweighing the rights of the many.
Things like that.

Try facts. They can be amazing things.
Try actual quotes from reputable sources. They can help your arguements.

Annachie wrote:Try facts. They can be amazing things.
Try actual quotes from reputable sources. They can help your arguements.

SMR's referrence to Al Bundy is incorrect. The rancher in question is named Cliven Bundy.

That said, SMR is quite correct in that Harry Reid and his family has vested interests in gaining use of BLM managed land for his family's benefit. SMR is also right in that the Bureau of Land Management has over reached its authority in claiming land it asserts control over. The US Surpeme Court ruling on Shoshone land granted to the tribe through a treaty is a bit troubling. The court decided that BLM held the land in trust for the tribe and could then withhold grazing priviledges to members of the tribe unless they paid fees to BLM. Seems like legal theft to me.

Lastly, BLM actually tasered a protester and assaulted another. Had the protesters not been armed, would those BLM agents have stopped there? I am not sure. That the BLM has returned all the confiscated cattle to Mr. Bundy suggests that the BLM did over step their authority.

The facts behind SMR's post are largely what he summarized in his post.

Chinese use of land connected to Harry Reid.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bundy-ranch-rory-reid-harry-reid/2014/04/13/id/565328/

BLM uses tasers
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/04/10/mgk-range-war-blm-agents-protesters-clash-ranchers-son-hit-with-stun-gun/

Federal government over reach in Shoshone tribal lands
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/22/nevada-rancher-former-indian-chief-range-war-with-blm-predates-cliven-bundy/

Hi Peter.

Please don't assume I'm stupid. I know who he meant.

Please don't try and use a series of 2010+ events to justify actions from 20 years ago. Not unless you have a time machine of course.

I'm curious how Harry Reid has a vested interest, or how it's for his families benefit.

How has the BLM overreached it's authority. The federal government purchased the land 160 years ago, and the BLM manage it.
Um, no. The courts ruled that the Shoshone lost their rights to the land years ago, not that the BLM held them in trust. (Unless you want to provide a specific reference to the contrary.) It's a lot like theft, but then again us whites (yes, here in Oz too) turned out to be pretty good at that. Or is that conquest?

Um, anyone who tries to kicks dog deserves to be tasered. Try to kick my dog and I'd taser you.

It's not the first time that the BLF has backed down to threats or fear of violence from Bundy. The first time was 1996 or so.

Now lets try some actual facts.

Take the Al Bundy case. A rancher that has grazing the land for over a hundred years. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had decided a turtle was endangered even though the previous year the BLM was killing the turtles (Too many). These turtles eat the dung of the cattle. What was happening was the BLM was illegally raising the grazing fees to non-substainable levels for political purposes. Henry Reid (The Senate Majority Leader: Democrat) working with his son, the head of BLM, and the local sheriff (all members of the same political party), and a Chinese solar company. They were forcing out the local ranchers by making uneconomical to ranch in the county. Also, they demonized him for owing money that was mostly fines, accumulated compound interest, and the lawyer fees (from outside Washington Lawyers not the BLM lawyers).

There is no record or evidence of the BLF killing turtles. (There is a plan to euthanize sick animals rather than release them into the wild it appears)
Strangely, they don't eat poo.

Actually, it appears that grazing fees have not risen that much being not much higher than 1964

Strangely, when the dispute started, Rory Reid worked for a casino, and the nevada taxi cab authority.
In fact that chinese solar company didn't start investing in solar until 3 years after the dispute started

Do I need to go on? Probably yes.

Why was all this happening? Henry Reid, his backers, and political allies needed the ranchers to begone to allow the Chinese solar company to use the land at rock bottom prices. The BLM and the sheriff decided that seize the cattle by importing 200 armed BLM personal from other states because the local BLM personal and local deputies refused to go along with the plan of the Sheriff and the BLM. So, this became a political fight against Henry Reid and his allies in the media. What happened is most the local residents and other people believing in state rights over federal rights decided to stop the seizure of the cattle. The BLM with the Sheriff threatened to fire on group of men, women, and children that walked together to stop the seizure of the cattle. As a result, the Bundy family was arrested and tasered even though they offered no resistance to the arrest.

Um, no. As said above, the company did not 'exist' at the time.
There's no credible record of the BLM importing 200 armed personal. But given that there had been previous threats of violence, I can't blame them if they did. Clicky,

No, this is still someone, Bundy, flagrantly breaking the law. For 20 years.

Next, Henry Reid went to floor of the Senate and proclaimed these people Domestic Terrorists.

Considering his Soverign Citizens Group leanings, and the numbers of their members there, that would be the FBI who declared that.

This type of incident demonstrates clearly why the regular average citizen should be able to own a gun. When a 100 million citizens ban together to fight the government, the government has a choice to kill them or change the policies that are causing the insurrection.

Your estimate of how many people were there is off by about a hundred million. Or do you think a hundred armed people can change federal law? How about a hundred armed thugs? A hundred armed idiots? Maybe the Muslim population of the USA should take up arms protesting the christianity that is at the heart of the US government.

This is why it important for every citizen to armed and aware of a person's rights. A silent group of citizens are nothing but lambs being led to slaughter! Most people withing the government are good and honest people but their are people that will lie, cheat, and steal when given the chance.

No, it's why every person should be aware of their rights. But trying to claim ones you do not have is wrong.

Since I actually know something about the origins of grazing permits and how they normally function, I should comment.

Grazing on public land is an alternative to privately owned grazing land that was employed in the west to serve multiple purposes.

It allows ranchers to utilize far more land than was allowed to be granted as private property by homestead laws and thus establish an economically viable operation.

It allows the government to allow the economic benefits of grazing on vast tracks of land while retaining the land in the public domain so that it can be simultaneously used for other purposes. This includes timber, mining, wildlife habitat, hunting and recreation.

The grazing rights that are owned by ranchers such as the Bundy's were granted well over a century ago as an alternative to granting actual ownership of the land. Although the rancher does not own the land, they own the right to graze cattle on the land. The fact that this grazing right is a property right is confirmed by the fact that ranchers have to pay estate tax on grazing rights to pass them down to another generation. Grazing rights can be bought, sold and leased. The grazing fees that Bundy was refusing to pay were not rents, they were analogous to property taxes. However; the grazing fees are analogous to rents because historically the fees are paid under agreements that are similar to a lease which requires the government to use much of the fee to maintain and improve the grazing land. This means fence building, cattle guards, water tanks and ponds. This seems odd until you consider the fact that most grazing permits are common rather than private that have multiple ranchers grazing on a tract of land. It makes sense to have one entity that is responsible to maintain the common resource. In practice, the ranchers cooperate to maintain the resource above and beyond what the government does.

The rent analogy does provide insight into the Bundy case. His permit was originally with the State, not the Federal government. The State transferred ownership of the land to the federal government much the same way the owner of a rental home might sell to a new owner. The sale does not invalidate the lease so the renter retains the right to reside in the home. The sale also does not invalidate the landlord's obligation to maintain the property. Bundy was in the position of a home renter whose land lord was refusing to paint the house, reroof the house or repair the furnace and the plumbing. Bundy's response was to not pay the rent so that he could pay for the maintenance that the government refused to do.

The genesis of the stand off predates the involvement of Harry Reid and the Chinese. It is a continuation of a long standing trend to eliminate economically beneficial uses of public lands. The spotted owl hoax that was used as a pretext to ban logging in the Pacific Northwest was another example. Once prosperous Oregon County's are now so destitute that they can't afford basic government functions such as road maintenance and a sheriff. However; the existing dispute escalated when Harry Reid and the Chinese took an interest in the land.

The idea that it was reasonable to deploy 200+, heavily armed federal agents to evict Bundy and his cows raises serious questions about the judgement of thebgovernment and the people who mindlessly support it.

Annachie wrote:Hi Peter.

Please don't assume I'm stupid. I know who he meant.

Please don't try and use a series of 2010+ events to justify actions from 20 years ago. Not unless you have a time machine of course.

I'm curious how Harry Reid has a vested interest, or how it's for his families benefit.

How has the BLM overreached it's authority. The federal government purchased the land 160 years ago, and the BLM manage it.
Um, no. The courts ruled that the Shoshone lost their rights to the land years ago, not that the BLM held them in trust. (Unless you want to provide a specific reference to the contrary.) It's a lot like theft, but then again us whites (yes, here in Oz too) turned out to be pretty good at that. Or is that conquest?

Um, anyone who tries to kicks dog deserves to be tasered. Try to kick my dog and I'd taser you.

It's not the first time that the BLF has backed down to threats or fear of violence from Bundy. The first time was 1996 or so.

Now lets try some actual facts.

Take the Al Bundy case. A rancher that has grazing the land for over a hundred years. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had decided a turtle was endangered even though the previous year the BLM was killing the turtles (Too many). These turtles eat the dung of the cattle. What was happening was the BLM was illegally raising the grazing fees to non-substainable levels for political purposes. Henry Reid (The Senate Majority Leader: Democrat) working with his son, the head of BLM, and the local sheriff (all members of the same political party), and a Chinese solar company. They were forcing out the local ranchers by making uneconomical to ranch in the county. Also, they demonized him for owing money that was mostly fines, accumulated compound interest, and the lawyer fees (from outside Washington Lawyers not the BLM lawyers).

There is no record or evidence of the BLF killing turtles. (There is a plan to euthanize sick animals rather than release them into the wild it appears)
Strangely, they don't eat poo.

Actually, it appears that grazing fees have not risen that much being not much higher than 1964

Strangely, when the dispute started, Rory Reid worked for a casino, and the nevada taxi cab authority.
In fact that chinese solar company didn't start investing in solar until 3 years after the dispute started

Do I need to go on? Probably yes.

Why was all this happening? Henry Reid, his backers, and political allies needed the ranchers to begone to allow the Chinese solar company to use the land at rock bottom prices. The BLM and the sheriff decided that seize the cattle by importing 200 armed BLM personal from other states because the local BLM personal and local deputies refused to go along with the plan of the Sheriff and the BLM. So, this became a political fight against Henry Reid and his allies in the media. What happened is most the local residents and other people believing in state rights over federal rights decided to stop the seizure of the cattle. The BLM with the Sheriff threatened to fire on group of men, women, and children that walked together to stop the seizure of the cattle. As a result, the Bundy family was arrested and tasered even though they offered no resistance to the arrest.

Um, no. As said above, the company did not 'exist' at the time.
There's no credible record of the BLM importing 200 armed personal. But given that there had been previous threats of violence, I can't blame them if they did. Clicky,

No, this is still someone, Bundy, flagrantly breaking the law. For 20 years.

Next, Henry Reid went to floor of the Senate and proclaimed these people Domestic Terrorists.

Considering his Soverign Citizens Group leanings, and the numbers of their members there, that would be the FBI who declared that.

This type of incident demonstrates clearly why the regular average citizen should be able to own a gun. When a 100 million citizens ban together to fight the government, the government has a choice to kill them or change the policies that are causing the insurrection.

Your estimate of how many people were there is off by about a hundred million. Or do you think a hundred armed people can change federal law? How about a hundred armed thugs? A hundred armed idiots? Maybe the Muslim population of the USA should take up arms protesting the christianity that is at the heart of the US government.

This is why it important for every citizen to armed and aware of a person's rights. A silent group of citizens are nothing but lambs being led to slaughter! Most people withing the government are good and honest people but their are people that will lie, cheat, and steal when given the chance.

No, it's why every person should be aware of their rights. But trying to claim ones you do not have is wrong.

If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't have responded to your rather short post. Hard to determine your intent on those short and vague sentences. I assumed that you wanted cites to support the prior posters comments.

Harry Reid's son represents ENN group, the Chinese firm in question. That suggests the more business ENN does in the US, the more renumeration MR. Reid's sone will recieve. That's contained in the link I cited.

Namelessfly is pretty articulate about the grazing rights and the nature of the dispute between BLM and Mr. Bundy. Not nearly a slam dunk and one might want to give the benefit of the doubt to the individual citizen. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As for the Shoshone, that is their land as provided by a treaty between the US government and thir tribe. For the courts to claim that BLM can manage that land in trust for the Shoshone is to assert that the federal government has taken the property rights away from a sovereign nation that it has a treaty with. The nature of the action is the same as what was done to Mr. Bundy except that the Shoshone owned thatland and Mr. Bundy leased it.

Both instances reflect usurpation of property rights.

As for trying to kick a dog. If you bring a barking, sarling dog toe and try to use that dog to move me away from my property or threaten me with it, I won't kick it I'll shoot it. That dog was being used as a weapon just like if the handler had a rifle and pointed it at the protesters.

If the BLM was within its rights, they wouldn't have backed down. The local sherif would have come in and performed an eviction. Instead they asserted authority they did not have and had to back down.

Annachie wrote:Hi Peter.

Please don't assume I'm stupid. I know who he meant.

Please don't try and use a series of 2010+ events to justify actions from 20 years ago. Not unless you have a time machine of course.

I'm curious how Harry Reid has a vested interest, or how it's for his families benefit.

How has the BLM overreached it's authority. The federal government purchased the land 160 years ago, and the BLM manage it.
Um, no. The courts ruled that the Shoshone lost their rights to the land years ago, not that the BLM held them in trust. (Unless you want to provide a specific reference to the contrary.) It's a lot like theft, but then again us whites (yes, here in Oz too) turned out to be pretty good at that. Or is that conquest?

Um, anyone who tries to kicks dog deserves to be tasered. Try to kick my dog and I'd taser you.

It's not the first time that the BLF has backed down to threats or fear of violence from Bundy. The first time was 1996 or so.

Now lets try some actual facts.

This type of incident demonstrates clearly why the regular average citizen should be able to own a gun. When a 100 million citizens ban together to fight the government, the government has a choice to kill them or change the policies that are causing the insurrection.

Actually, forcing the government to make that choice has an even stronger resonance if the citizens are not armed.

I'd argue that the protestors' antics (such as the photo which has been circulated of two of them taking up a spotter/sniper post over the federal agents) probably cost them quite a bit of support.

Eyal wrote:
Actually, forcing the government to make that choice has an even stronger resonance if the citizens are not armed.

I'd argue that the protestors' antics (such as the photo which has been circulated of two of them taking up a spotter/sniper post over the federal agents) probably cost them quite a bit of support.

Mmm, a big bunch of people with guns? That´s a perfect excuse for a government to start bringing out weapons as well. And they have the professionals and the serious weapons.

Curbstomp. Epic fail.