Another thing Sleeve and I probably agree on...

[CorvallisBMW]

Your just pissed off you have seen the the true purpose of the 2ed amendment used successfully and peaceably.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, if there were no arms the govt would have run rough shod over all of them there long ago and the current out come would not be as harmonious as it was too this point ...... A few people with guns of their own forced the armed agents of the state to take pause and reconsider its actions. This is a real life example of why firearms laying in the safes and closets and on the hips of the people are the greatest check on governmental over reach of all, and why the right "shall not be infringed"

I disagree. The "true purpose" of the 2nd amendment is not:

1) to allow people with guns to ignore the law
2) to allow people with guns to freeload off government land
3) to allow people with guns to ignore court orders
4) to allow people with guns to not pay their taxes
5) to allow people with guns to deny the existence or authority of the Federal Government

You imply that the government would have "run rough shod over all of them". I don't know what you call complying with a federal court order in Montana, but here it's not called that. It's called the Law. The government has a DUTY to enforce the law, and a DUTY to enforce court orders pending from said laws. Confiscation of those cattle as payment for his outstanding debts was court-ordered and 100% within the confines of not only the law, but also of the grazing contracts that Mr Bundy himself signed.

If I refused to pay my taxes for 30 years, and one day the IRS showed up at my door to confiscate my house, do you think I'd be allowed to just point a gun in their face and get away with it? HELL NO. The SWAT team would be there in minutes and I'd go to prison for years. Again, why does this cocksucker get to ignore the laws?

[BraveUlysses]

Your just pissed off you have seen the the true purpose of the 2ed amendment used successfully and peaceably.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, if there were no arms the govt would have run rough shod over all of them there long ago and the current out come would not be as harmonious as it was too this point ...... A few people with guns of their own forced the armed agents of the state to take pause and reconsider its actions. This is a real life example of why firearms laying in the safes and closets and on the hips of the people are the greatest check on governmental over reach of all, and why the right "shall not be infringed"

The 2nd amendment was not created so that you can point a gun at federal agents who are enforcing a court order. Fail.

But it's good to know you sympathize with and rationalize for gun owners who break the law and threaten people with their weapons, but its okay for cops to shoot kids with airsoft guns.

^

Like I said Muzzle up or Muzzle down........................................ Just turning around does not make it a threat. But I cant fault the cops for their actions either, this is one of those instances where it SHOULD NOT have gone the way it did, but you cant fault the reaction based on what we know and after seeing the toy....

[z31maniac]

Your just pissed off you have seen the the true purpose of the 2ed amendment used successfully and peaceably.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, if there were no arms the govt would have run rough shod over all of them there long ago and the current out come would not be as harmonious as it was too this point ...... A few people with guns of their own forced the armed agents of the state to take pause and reconsider its actions. This is a real life example of why firearms laying in the safes and closets and on the hips of the people are the greatest check on governmental over reach of all, and why the right "shall not be infringed"

Dude, seriously.

You're so wrapped up in your own agenda you just completely ignore things.

Like somehow you are trying to turn this into a 2nd Amendment issue. I'm honest to god starting to wonder if you are all there.

[frankenbeemer]

The 2nd amendment was not created so that you can point a gun at federal agents who are enforcing a court order. Fail.

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment. He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers.""The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Because legal does not necessarily mean moral or ethical (see Dred Scott decision). I don't know whether the actions of the BLM were ethical or not, and I don't know Cliven Bundy. Charismatic scofflaw or legitimate victim of usurpation? I'm guessing somewhere in between.

[frankenbeemer]

:crickets:

Just what I expected.

The statutes in Nevada may actually favor embattled cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle business in Clark County Nevada,where his ranch is located just Northeast of Las Vegas. The BLM seems to realize this based on an earlier case BLM lost which they have under appeal against a now deceased Nye County,Nevada cattle rancher by the name of Wayne Hage.
Mr. Hage signed his 1993 BLM agreement subject to an amended statement which Hage attached which confirmed his entrenched water and grazing tights under Nevada law. Mr. Bundy did not sign his BLM agreement that same year due to sharply reduced cattle unit grazing rights designed to decimate his cattle business, and stopped paying grazing fees to the government.
Even though continuing to graze since rejecting his 1993 renewal contract permit , Mr. Bundy has never since paid grazing fees which he most likely does not even owe to BLM based of the success of the Hage case against BLM.

I don't know if it's factual, do you have evidence he did sign?

[z31maniac]

that same year due to sharply reduced cattle unit grazing rights designed to decimate his cattle business

Please quote things that leave out conjecture.

[frankenbeemer]

Please quote things that leave out conjecture.

Why? It's not my conjecture, it's not even the point.

[z31maniac]

Why? It's not my conjecture, it's not even the point.

Because it weakens whomever argument it is when there is a clear agenda behind it.

That statement alone shows the bias of the author.

[frankenbeemer]

Because it weakens whomever argument it is when there is a clear agenda behind it.

That statement alone shows the bias of the author.

That's true enough. In this case the authors conjecture is shared by United States District judge Robert C. Jones:

....government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court.....

[BraveUlysses]

The statutes in Nevada may actually favor embattled cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle business in Clark County Nevada,where his ranch is located just Northeast of Las Vegas. The BLM seems to realize this based on an earlier case BLM lost which they have under appeal against a now deceased Nye County,Nevada cattle rancher by the name of Wayne Hage.
Mr. Hage signed his 1993 BLM agreement subject to an amended statement which Hage attached which confirmed his entrenched water and grazing tights under Nevada law. Mr. Bundy did not sign his BLM agreement that same year due to sharply reduced cattle unit grazing rights designed to decimate his cattle business, and stopped paying grazing fees to the government.
Even though continuing to graze since rejecting his 1993 renewal contract permit , Mr. Bundy has never since paid grazing fees which he most likely does not even owe to BLM based of the success of the Hage case against BLM.

I don't know if it's factual, do you have evidence he did sign?

Do you know if it matters, legally, if he signed it or not? You're doing a bang up job playing farbin's role of meaninglessly questioning everything.

Why did he lose his court case in 98?

[BraveUlysses]

PS good job tea party, rand paul, fox news and mr scumbag sleeve. You've hitched your wagon to this racist shithead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=1

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

[frankenbeemer]

Do you know if it matters, legally, if he signed it or not?

My main point was that the BLM is not blameless. The signature question was directed at Corvallis. Why claim he signed it if it doesn't matter?

[BraveUlysses]

My main point was that the BLM is not blameless. The signature question was directed at Corvallis. Why claim he signed it if it doesn't matter?

Why do you keep asking if he signed it as if it matters? educate yourself on this situation and stop using false equivalency fallacies.

[CorvallisBMW]

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment. He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers.""The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Because legal does not necessarily mean moral or ethical (see Dred Scott decision). I don't know whether the actions of the BLM were ethical or not, and I don't know Cliven Bundy. Charismatic scofflaw or legitimate victim of usurpation? I'm guessing somewhere in between.

I'm not sure how quotes from a 300-year-old dead guy are relevant to this in any way. Also, please post a source. Otherwise it's completely useless. AFAIK you could have written that.

The statutes in Nevada may actually favor embattled cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle business in Clark County Nevada,where his ranch is located just Northeast of Las Vegas. The BLM seems to realize this based on an earlier case BLM lost which they have under appeal against a now deceased Nye County,Nevada cattle rancher by the name of Wayne Hage.
Mr. Hage signed his 1993 BLM agreement subject to an amended statement which Hage attached which confirmed his entrenched water and grazing tights under Nevada law. Mr. Bundy did not sign his BLM agreement that same year due to sharply reduced cattle unit grazing rights designed to decimate his cattle business, and stopped paying grazing fees to the government.
Even though continuing to graze since rejecting his 1993 renewal contract permit , Mr. Bundy has never since paid grazing fees which he most likely does not even owe to BLM based of the success of the Hage case against BLM.

I don't know if it's factual, do you have evidence he did sign?

Again, I would like to see a source on the words that you've posted. Without a source it's all just hearsay.

[CorvallisBMW]

Here's a new gem from Mr Bundy:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-on-blacks-are-they-better-off-as-slaves/

Some lawmakers have offered statements supportive of Bundy. One of them, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), quickly distanced himself. A Heller spokeswoman told the Times that the senator "completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.” ...a comment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has also been supportive of Bundy's cause: "His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him."