History repeats itself...

[Cooter]

But is now looked at as the aggressor.

by people who would have viewed him as such simply for being there...

[YALE]

Instead of filing a lien against his property as they were supposed to, they sent in armed agents and choppers and snipers. As far as the guy aiming at the feds, if they are aiming at him, fair game. It's best to see your assassin just in case he misses so that you can return fire. Just because someone has you in their sights and fires first, even if they score what can be a mortal hit, doesn't mean you can kill them before you're gone

It's not his property. It's public land, and the BLM didn't just show up without warning. He lost a court case on the matter, then lost an appeal, and was ordered by a court to remove his cattle. He's lucky the judge in question didn't throw him in the can for contempt, and go get his cows while he was locked up.

[Broncojohnny]

I agree with you that no Government and or federal agency should have complete and total totalitarian control. The people have a right and a lawful duty to defend themselves from a tyrannical entity. That being said that individual is engaging law enforcement in an unwarranted and very aggressive behavior. In my humble opinion he is not representing himself and his cause in a correct manner to the American people. The news outlets and media will chastise him as a lunatic, crazy right winger, conspiracy theory black helicopter tin foil hat believer who is not to be taken seriously. But is now looked at as the aggressor.

Incorrect. He isn't engaging anyone in anything. Unless you would like to make the case that law enforcement is also "engaging" citizens. Why do you insist on using different standards for each group?

[Forever_frost]

I agree with you that no Government and or federal agency should have complete and total totalitarian control. The people have a right and a lawful duty to defend themselves from a tyrannical entity. That being said that individual is engaging law enforcement in an unwarranted and very aggressive behavior. In my humble opinion he is not representing himself and his cause in a correct manner to the American people. The news outlets and media will chastise him as a lunatic, crazy right winger, conspiracy theory black helicopter tin foil hat believer who is not to be taken seriously. But is now looked at as the aggressor.

But he is alive to be called those things versus oh, I don't know. Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[Forever_frost]

It's not his property. It's public land, and the BLM didn't just show up without warning. He lost a court case on the matter, then lost an appeal, and was ordered by a court to remove his cattle. He's lucky the judge in question didn't throw him in the can for contempt, and go get his cows while he was locked up.

By your own statement, you agree it's his land. Public land is for public use, he's a taxpayer and an American so he's public therefore A + B =C.

A: Taxpayer
B: American Citizen
C: Member of public.

I'm so glad to hear you don't have an issue with sending armed forces against a rancher. I mean courts ruled against German Americans and Italian Americans and Japanese Americans during WW2 and said it was kosher to take their stuff and put them into camps so that was peachy keen with you right?

[dee]

By your own statement, you agree it's his land. Public land is for public use, he's a taxpayer and an American so he's public therefore A + B =C.

A: Taxpayer
B: American Citizen
C: Member of public.

I'm so glad to hear you don't have an issue with sending armed forces against a rancher. I mean courts ruled against German Americans and Italian Americans and Japanese Americans during WW2 and said it was kosher to take their stuff and put them into camps so that was peachy keen with you right?

If it's public then anyone can use it at any given time correct? Now if it is public then his cattle should have been constantly supervised or they would have been deemed abandoned property.

[talisman]

By your own statement, you agree it's his land. Public land is for public use, he's a taxpayer and an American so he's public therefore A + B =C.

A: Taxpayer
B: American Citizen
C: Member of public.

I'm so glad to hear you don't have an issue with sending armed forces against a rancher. I mean courts ruled against German Americans and Italian Americans and Japanese Americans during WW2 and said it was kosher to take their stuff and put them into camps so that was peachy keen with you right?

lol. You really don't have any idea how ridiculous you come across in these things, do you? I almost wonder if you're just trolling, when you're trying this hard to be obtuse. For fucks sake.

[GhostTX]

[Forever_frost]

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1458613_563450950437996_8151543294523350036_n.jpg

Feds prepaid Rancher $966,000.00 to take Bundys cattle.

[Forever_frost]

If it's public then anyone can use it at any given time correct? Now if it is public then his cattle should have been constantly supervised or they would have been deemed abandoned property.

That is the definition of public correct? Like a public park, anyone may use it. Or are you saying it is federal property like a military base or DC?

[dee]

That is the definition of public correct? Like a public park, anyone may use it. Or are you saying it is federal property like a military base or DC?

It seems to be it is the state's that the BLM supposedly manages yet Mr Bundy is treating it as his own. He was knowingly not paying his lease fee's since 1994 therefore shouldn't have much to stand on. Both parties are in the wrong here and over reacted.

[KBScobravert]

It seems to be it is the state's that the BLM supposedly manages yet Mr Bundy is treating it as his own. He was knowingly not paying his lease fee's since 1994 therefore shouldn't have much to stand on. Both parties are in the wrong here and over reacted.

Several days back I read that he was paying and that the money was supposed to be used by the BLM to maintain the property. BLM stopped the maintenance so he stopped paying the fees and put that money to doing the improvements himself.

[bcoop]

Several days back I read that he was paying and that the money was supposed to be used by the BLM to maintain the property. BLM stopped the maintenance so he stopped paying the fees and put that money to doing the improvements himself.

Why would you put money in to property you don't own? This has stupid all over it, the more details that come out. On all sides.

[Cooter]

Why would you put money in to property you don't own? This has stupid all over it, the more details that come out. On all sides.

because you're utilizing it for your livlihood and have been for generations?

[bcoop]

because you're utilizing it for your livlihood and have been for generations?

Maybe it's just that I'm not fucking retarded, but if I'm using land for my livelihood, it is land I own, not land owned by someone else.