What would you say if the federal government was using snipers...

He's in a state of prolific idiocy right now my Texas ass ....when is he not ?

You're an idiot.

The Indian beat the STATE because his land rights came from a treaty with the federal government and trumps state law.

But you cannot "predate" a federal law. Federal law is the supreme law of the land and if the federal government prohibits use of federal land for certain purposes, you are out of luck.

If the federal government closes Yosemite to campers, go ahead and claim that your past 30 years of camping "predate" the new federal law and you are grandfathered in for camping rights in Yosemite. See how far that stupid argument gets. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The Indian??? Are you some kind of bigot? The point of the argument was that his treaty predated any organization or rules about controlling grazing land. Without that the government can make any rule at any time and you are stuck with it.

JD supports lawlessness when it supports his agenda.

its disturbing to me, and rightly it should be disturbing to all

the number of government departments that have police power and an armed cadre of enforcers

its not just the FBI, or the secret service, of the ATF, or the Postal Inspectors, or the one section of the IRS called special agents

its the BLM and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the parks department and all manner of these bureaucratic gobbledygooks

small-minded bureaucrats, all with a view to enhancing their power and budget, zealous over their many self-imagined reasons to exist, forgetting that they serve people and not the other way around, we have allowed government to be nothing more than many over-lapping feudal states all ever growing and hiding behind mission statements and labyrinthine budget mysteries and the power to destroy the average American.

the only way liberals can bring us to their view of utopia is to ever expand the force of government and limit freedom. and the sad thing is their views never work and all they ever need is one more law and one more regulation and one more lawyer and one more agency with a gun

I truly believe, these organizations, government agencies at odds with americans, all self-perpetuating and protected by unionism, at some date in the future, don't know how long it may take, but they will be both the proximate and the true underlying cause of either the subjugation of americans or a new American civil war unless we address the size and scope of government soon

JD supports lawlessness when it supports his agenda. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You lying piece of shit. Have you never heard of Ex post facto. For you I'll make the explanation simple; you can't make a law and hold people's earlier actions illegal because of that new law. This is the same thing but this is the insignificant part of the story. Why snipers? When did the Bureau of Land Management get snipers? A "first amendment zone", what the hell is that? The actions of a federal agency are contemptuous of our civil rights and they are acting very aggressively without cause. They also seem to be engaged in a PR war (which you've bought into) to discredit an American citizen prior to.....what exactly. What is their endgame?

You lying piece of shit. Have you never heard of Ex post facto. For you I'll make the explanation simple; you can't make a law and hold people's earlier actions illegal because of that new law. This is the same thing but this is the insignificant part of the story. Why snipers? When did the Bureau of Land Management get snipers? A "first amendment zone", what the hell is that? The actions of a federal agency are contemptuous of our civil rights and they are acting very aggressively without cause. They also seem to be engaged in a PR war (which you've bought into) to discredit an American citizen prior to.....what exactly. What is their endgame? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Totalitarianism & Tyranny

You lying piece of shit. Have you never heard of Ex post facto. For you I'll make the explanation simple; you can't make a law and hold people's earlier actions illegal because of that new law. This is the same thing but this is the insignificant part of the story. Why snipers? When did the Bureau of Land Management get snipers? A "first amendment zone", what the hell is that? The actions of a federal agency are contemptuous of our civil rights and they are acting very aggressively without cause. They also seem to be engaged in a PR war (which you've bought into) to discredit an American citizen prior to.....what exactly. What is their endgame? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh jeez, here we go.....remind us all again where you got your Doctor of Jurisprudence degree? Ex post facto is a little bit more complicated and nuanced than that and guess what? It's not applicable in the circumstances in which your heroic freegrazer finds himself.

Regarding a "first amendment zone".....just google it Admiral and all your wishes will come true. Here's website that explains the concept....which has been around a very very long time. Fucking dunce.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/buffer-zone

http://freebeacon.com/issues/last-man-standing/

Here is a third source. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.

and another http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

how about this conservative rag (LA Times) http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#axzz2yPI0hpro

You know that ABC is one of us http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad...ry?id=23225314

there are dozens more if you want them. I bet I can even find something about it on Pravda.

And here are some facts rather than your bizarre ranting.....

1. Your freegrazer declared a "range war" on the BLM yesterday. Would it be your expectation that the BLM folks would show up with flowers and candy in the face of that sort of rhetoric? Your dimwit rancher has also compared his situation to Ruby Ridge and Waco. The BLM folks would be less than prudent if they failed to be prepared for any eventuality. Regarding your constant references to "snipers", what is the source of that info? The only reference I see to that comes from your psycho. Not that I doubt there are folks with weapons from the BLM that have telescopic sights mounted... again, they would be stupid not to be prepared.

2. The article below makes clear that the freegrazer's legal arguments have been considered and ruled upon by courts of competent jurisdiction multiple times and he lost. He just refuses to accept that fact. Kind of like you. In light of your legal commentary on ex post facto, I am presuming you are familiar with the legal concept entitled "rule of law"? That means that in order to live in a civilized society, you have laws and courts that construe those laws and that issue orders to enforce those laws....and those laws and orders apply to everybody Admiral....including your freeloading grazer who wants to feed his cattle on land that he does not own.

3. The position being taken by the Nevada Cattlemen's Association might be instructive for you Admiral. The quote is in the article but I'll paste it here so you don't get a headache from reading too much:

>>>>So far, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy's protest.

In a statement, the association noted that Bundy's case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA "does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts."

Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, "This has gotten way out of hand."

Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, "absolutely not." <<<<<


The reality is that your freegrazer is just another anti-government nut using morons like you to get some publicity.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad...ry?id=23225314

>>>>A Nevada rancher's threat to wage a "range war" with the federal Bureau of Land Management precipitated a standoff today between supporters of the embattled rancher, Cliven Bundy, and law enforcement officials.

Bundy posted a statement on the Bundy Ranch website on Sunday night saying: "They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow."

He invited supporters to show up this morning on his property, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near Bunkerville, just west of the Utah state line.
Tension growing between ranchers, mustang backers

Bundy's beef with federal land management officials dates back to 1993, according to federal officials, when Bundy's allotment for grazing his cattle on public land was modified to include protections for the desert tortoise. Bundy, who told the Associated Press his family has been ranching this part of Nevada since the 1870s, did not accept the modified terms, and continued to let his cattle graze anyway.

After legal maneuverings on both sides, a Nevada district court judge in 2013 permanently enjoined Bundy's cattle (some 900, by the government's count) from grazing on public property. The judge reiterated that decision in 2013 and authorized the U.S. government to impound the cattle.

Outlaws stealing cattle for meth money
The first phase of that impoundment started Saturday, with 58 head of cattle being removed from BLM land, federal officials said in an online statement. As of Monday afternoon, that number had risen to 134, BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon told ABC News. Removing the rest of the trespassing cattle should take another 21 to 30 days, she said.

Bundy disputes the federal government's authority to take such action. The Nevada Sheriff's Office, he contends, is the only entity empowered to impound his cattle. The Bundy Ranch website calls the federal agents "cattle thieves."

Cattle thieves, says the website, "Should be hung!" It urges supporters to "hang them with words of disapproval."

According to station KSNY MyN
ews in Las Vegas, Bundy compared his situation to citizens' confrontations with the federal government at Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Texas.

The station quoted him as saying, "They are the same agents who killed that kid over at Red Rocks," referring to the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man by two BLM rangers on Feb. 14, near Red Rock Canyon, outside Las Vegas.

Asked by ABC News about that shooting, Cannon said the incident was still under investigation, and that BLM could not comment until the investigation was completed.
Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy, reached by ABC News, said the family and their supporters intended to hold a rally today "to show that we are not standing alone. People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power."
By noon today Nevada time, about 300 supporters had assembled, a Bundy spokesman, Dwayne Magoon, told ABC News. So, too, he said, had local and federal law enforcement officers. He described the federal agents as being heavily armed. He said that on his way driving to the Bundy ranch, he counted 12 law enforcement vehicles in the course of six miles.

The BLM has described Bundy's use of the phrase "range war" inflammatory. "We support everyone's right to exercise their freedom of expression," Cannon said. But when threats are made, she said, federal authorities have an obligation to ensure safety. She estimated the number of Bundy supporters as being closer to 100.
In a teleconference with reporters today, Cannon and a spokesperson for the National Park Service were told that Bundy supporters had reported seeing snipers present near the Ranch. Asked whether snipers indeed were on the scene, they said that law enforcement was in place, as needed, and that they could not comment more specifically.

Magoon described the situation at the Ranch as "very peaceful" -- for now. The protesters, he said, were busy erecting a big sign saying "We, The People" and displaying the flags of Mesquite County, Nev., and the U.S.

On the ranch website, Bundy says his son had been arrested. That was confirmed today by BLM, which said in a published statement that, "On April 6, Dave Bundy, 37, was taken into custody in Bunkerville, Nevada, following failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands." He now has been released, Cannon said.

So far, the Nevada Cattlemen's Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy's protest.

In a statement, the association noted that Bundy's case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA "does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts."

Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, "This has gotten way out of hand."

Grain lower, cattle lower, and pork higher
Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, "absolutely not."

It's true, he said, that many NCA members are disgruntled at having to deal with BLM's bureaucracy. But, he noted, 87 percent of Nevada land is public land, so cattlemen cannot survive on private land alone. "It's important for our permitees to work with the land management agencies. We want to be good stewards of the land -- to protect natural resources."

Of the Bundy affair, he said, "These types of situations have a way of painting the entire industry with controversy."

This is not an ex post facto issue.

You lying piece of shit. Have you never heard of Ex post facto. For you I'll make the explanation simple; you can't make a law and hold people's earlier actions illegal because of that new law. This is the same thing but this is the insignificant part of the story. Why snipers? When did the Bureau of Land Management get snipers? A "first amendment zone", what the hell is that? The actions of a federal agency are contemptuous of our civil rights and they are acting very aggressively without cause. They also seem to be engaged in a PR war (which you've bought into) to discredit an American citizen prior to.....what exactly. What is their endgame? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Looks like your brain has bottomed out JD maybe whiffy will throw you a life line.