Where the hell are you getting this “willing to kill” crap from what I said? I never brought up killing, blood shedding, deadly force or any other juvenile violet fantasy scenario running through your mind. Law enforcement was there because laws were being broken, and law enforcement personnel carry weapons-deal with it, because they aren’t about to drop off their weapons at the station before heading out just to stop hissy fits like yours.
Settle down. It’s not like Bundy’s debts have been forgiven. The BLM will probably begin garnishment proceedings now.
Why not just build a barbed-wire fence along the feds’ side of the property line so his cattle can’t get onto it?
The feds own hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in Nevada. It would be prohibitively expensive to fence off all their potential grazing land (not to mention they don’t mind people grazing their cattle so long as they pay for it.)
No, it sounds like “they have guns and bad attitudes, so we’ll let them get away with taking public property for themselves”.
It’s certainly not worth shooting people over, but by all means, the government should certainly start enforcing the judgment against him financially and begin shooting his trespassing cattle.
No, I won’t, because I know what bad things will and should happen to the members of that “militia” if the issue is forced. If what the feds are doing is illegal, that’s a matter for the courts. Not the police, not the “militia,” but the courts.
I’m wondering why this “It isn’t worth shooting people over” mantra is only being chanted towards the government side of this debate?
My reason for suggesting perhaps shooting the cattle is it’s a way to avoid shooting people. I’d have safety concerns both for Federal agents and the armed yokels if they started trying to move the rounded up cattle off the land by force as it exposes the Federal agents to violence and they would have to respond to violence with violence to defend themselves.
If this was a gang robbing a bank, I’d basically say “you gotta shoot these people.”
But, this is someone doing something that people have done for generations on BLM land. I agree with Reagan instituting the fee regime, as the BLM actually expended resources to help maintain land that was damaged by grazers, timber companies, mining companies and etc. It’s only fair that this mostly unoccupied and otherwise unused land be available for public economic use but it’s also only fair that you pay to help maintain it. That being said, to me it puts Bundy’s actions in a different light than a bank robber. His family had been grazing there for a long time (it seems very questionable if it dates back to 1870 as he claims, but it certainly predates the imposition of the fees), and in the grand scheme of things it isn’t “that big of a deal.”
I agree that we need to establish these fees aren’t optional, and they must be paid or there are consequences (including losing the privilege of grazing on the land.) But I don’t know that doing that is something that makes it worthwhile to get into a pitched gun battle with a crowd of separatist/sovereignist yahoos. In fact I know it isn’t worth that.
JC - how does one ‘rebrand new’ here at the Dope? Change your username, try on a new online personality? Sounds like something borrowed from Madison Avenue.
(Yeah, I know, you meant to say “you’re brand new” but I still couldn’t resist. You know me. :D)
If you shoot his (presumably valuable) cattle, how are you going to collect the judgment against him?
Easy: The government shoots people in my name, and thus I have a desire to see that not happen except where it is absolutely necessary. I don’t support the other side at all, but I have no moral culpability in their actions, they have to abide their own conscience, but them having poor moral compasses doesn’t make me want to shoot them.
That’s how I look at it, if I wouldn’t personally be willing to shoot someone over this, I don’t want the government doing it either. I am personally willing to shoot someone to stop a bank robbery on the other hand, so I’m fine with the government doing the same.
Maybe because, in matters of common sense and morality, we hold the federal government to a higher standard than a bunch of angry yokels?
When a bunch of angry yokels drive across the country to wave their guns around at an existing armed standoff they probably shouldn’t get much of the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, I am pleased (as I noted above) the feds backed down. The last thing we need is another Weaver standoff.
It went a lot like this, actually.
There you are then: NRS 405.230, obstruction or damage to highway.
Is anyone giving them the benefit of the doubt? Bundy’s pretty clearly in the wrong (and showing up to a protest with long guns is wildly inappropriate), it’s just nice to resolve this sort of thing so that a) no one is dead, and b) the government can still enforce the judgment against Bundy, perhaps by collecting the cattle again and hauling them in secret to somewhere distant and defensible, pursuant to putting them up for auction. Or, seizing other assets of Bundy’s.
You just joined this month. Please acquaint yourself with the forum rules; they’re posted in a sticky at the top of every forum.
And that is not how things work here. On the Dope, you only use personal insults in the BBQ Pit, no other forum, and “troll” definitely is an insult by Dope rules.
[junior-Mod hat off]
sigh
I did that on my phone in a crappy Days Inn waiting for a gymnastics meet to begin. Y’all are lucky it was in English.
On the subject, everyone can stop reporting that post. Or at least read a little further to see that I caught it already.
ETA: BrainGlutton, please don’t put that hat on again. The poster’s been spoken to about it and I don’t need another two days of complaints about Junior Modding to deal with.
The OWS weren’t a bunch of armed yahoos just waiting for a chance to use their guns. As far as trespassing, these same yahoos want everyone to have guns so they can “stand their ground” and shoot trespassers.
Not that I want all the dumbass yahoos shot, but I wouldn’t shed a tear if they were. Live by the gun and all that. Shoot 'em in the legs.
Well, my suggestion was to put up a fence so they can’t take public property for themselves.
The “forgive the million dollars” is basically a good will gesture (like pardoning ex-confederates) in order to prevent more government hating militias in the future. But if you want to garnish his income over this, I won’t be too upset. The important part is avoiding bloodshed (and/or a popular uprising) over a minor civil infraction.
The problem with bank robbers is they threaten to kill people unless they get the money. Who did Cliven Bundy threaten to kill?
And not to digress too much, but what is with those “First Amendment Areas”? This mockery of the Constitution probably brought out more armed protesters than any property disagreement did. It was a big mistake that framed this dispute in a “freedom fighter” lens, broadcast a backwater farm spat all over Facebook, and could have easily been avoided.
My point is if the humans in government would have treated these human citizens less like criminal scum and more like… human citizens, this wouldn’t even be a story. But lord knows, we have to “make an example”. Like there aren’t enough atrocities inflicted by this government to make that example to everyone who reads a book or watches the news. Maybe we ought to start “making an example” of government as an institution we can all respect, and that respects the people from which it ultimately derives its power and authority?
How did the government treat the Bundys like “criminal scum”, exactly?