The spawn of Bundy continues the legacy...

[mtangelsfan]

This is why those crazy Bundy's should never have gone to Oregon. Folks will now just focus on them instead of what the real story should be.

Private property rights are what keep us from being serfs. The BLM uses their might to force people to give up their land by taking away the land needed to graze their cattle.

Adam, I know you were kind of joking but your stereotype of ranchers is kind of frustrating dude.

[mtangelsfan]

The fact of the matter is they illegally set fire on BLM land two separate times. A jury of their peers found them guilty and the two were required to serve a 5 year sentence. Not sure how the Government is being douchy in this?

The fact of the matter is they illegally set fire on BLM land two separate times. A jury of their peers found them guilty and the two were required to serve a 5 year sentence. Not sure how the Government is being douchy in this?

Did you just use the "jury of their peers" argument? Because we all know how effective they are. Also, do you honestly believe that the law they convicted them of "terrorism" was what was needed? You don't think the feds were trying to make examples out of them?

[TobiasFunke]

Don't know if the feds are trying to make examples out of them as I'm not a fed. What I do know is arson on federal land is a mandatory 5 year sentence by law. They were found maliciously setting fire on federal land. I'm not going to cry over them getting 5 years for that.

 

If it was an accidental fire on the family's land that bled into the federal land I could see that being one that, but this wasn't the case according to the trial.

[mtangelsfan]

So you don't care about the other issues?

[mtangelsfan]

and "maliciously" is another reason why our justice system sucks. It is a completely subjective word.

[TobiasFunke]

Whatever word you want to call it. The actions that they did regarding the arson is completely reasonable to get the minimum 5 year sentence.

 

 

What other issues are you talking about?

[TobiasFunke]

Sounds like this family are a bunch of douchebags

 

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html

[mtangelsfan]

people assault other people and don't get five years.

However, that really isn't the bigger story. I have already stated what is. I don't feel I need to repeat myself

[TobiasFunke]

Started a fire on Federal land in 1999 and the Feds wagged their finger and said don't do it again or else. The guy of course did it again. The first time he did it, lit the fire to cover up the illegal hunting and then two hours after he lit the fire he called dispatch and asked if it was ok to light the fire.

[TobiasFunke]

We're not talking about people assaulting people and the time they get. We're talking about a law that's on the books and the arson this family did on federal land.

[Blarg]

They paid for the grazing rights... It is still messed up.

So if someone rents your house and then burns it to the ground because they saw ants on the counter you're cool with it?

[Blarg]

So you don't care about the other issues?

The other issues don't apply to their incarceration.

[mtangelsfan]

The other issues don't apply to their incarceration.

 

ok?

[Rico]

These guys set off fires on federal land to cover up other illegal activity.  There are witnesses to this.  It was only until two years ago, well after the convictions, that the government was like we don't want you using our land if this is how you are going to act.

 

I can't blame them.

[mtangelsfan]

A lot of you don't know the decades long background of this case.  This isn't two guys setting fires just to be a-holes.

 

There has been a long term move by the BLM to get rid of all of the ranchers around that refuge (that was bogus when it was started over a hundred years ago).

 

Again, maybe some of you don't care about private property rights.  But for ranchers/farmers, they don't have a life without it.

 

Here is a good article about the background.  It may be slanted but the facts they state are facts.

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

Edited January 4, 2016 by mtangelsfan

[TobiasFunke]

MT, do you care about public property rights?

[mtangelsfan]

Not really.  They feds have all the money and power they need to protect their stuff.

 

I take it you didn't read the article.

[TobiasFunke]

Public property is property that is the country. Ours. I care about that property. Shocked that you don't.

 

I read all the way until point (I) where I cross referenced what I read in other articles showing that this article was biased and misrepresenting the real story. Then I couldn't believe in the article as a whole.

[mtangelsfan]

Oh, and "public property" is one of the biggest lies out there.  The public has little to zero say in what happens there.  A lot of it they have to pay to use.  

 

It is Federal land.

[Spirit]

The public has a say in what happens to it every 2 and 4 years when they vote.  

 

We have the government we deserve. 

[mtangelsfan]

The public has a say in what happens to it every 2 and 4 years when they vote.  

 

We have the government we deserve. 

 

yes and no.  Do you think any candidate in the last 70 years has even considered this issue?  They all take the Fed's ownership of land as good and perfect.

 

The federal government owns 30% of all U.S. land and they continue to get more.  They own 81% of Nevada.

 

Here is a list:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2318/1/Connecticut-From-03-to-811-What-percentage-of-each-state-is-owned-by-the-federal-government.html

 

 

If this were some wal-mart trying to build and getting one last person to sell out in order to build, wal-mart would be the bad guy.

 

There is no bigger "big business" than the U.S. federal government.

[Crampknees]

To me reading the story over time it seems that drought put these folks in the position they were in which caused a lot of this.  And no this is not a global warming lib observation.  We gave you grazing rights but stuff started to dry up.  I don't mind being told I am wrong here. 

[Spirit]

mtangelsfan, on 04 Jan 2016 - 4:44 PM, said:

yes and no. Do you think any candidate in the last 70 years has even considered this issue? They all take the Fed's ownership of land as good and perfect.

The federal government owns 30% of all U.S. land and they continue to get more. They own 81% of Nevada.

Here is a list:

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2318/1/Connecticut-From-03-to-811-What-percentage-of-each-state-is-owned-by-the-federal-government.html

If this were some wal-mart trying to build and getting one last person to sell out in order to build, wal-mart would be the bad guy.

There is no bigger "big business" than the U.S. federal government.

I doubt that any candidate in the last 70 yeas has considered this issue. Primarily because none of their constituents have considered it. Again, we get the government we deserve.

Look, I get that the Federal government screws ranchers over more than we (I) know. But we often talk about making changes to laws or the constitution and there being a mechanism for doing so. This is one of those cases. But it's on us. We the people. If we don't make it an issue for our representatives, they won't do anything about it.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Geoff

[Spirit]

To me reading the story over time it seems that drought put these folks in the position they were in which caused a lot of this.  And no this is not a global warming lib observation.  We gave you grazing rights but stuff started to dry up.  I don't mind being told I am wrong here. 

 

 

I'm going to say you're wrong here.  Not because I have different information, but just because ... well ... it's you. 

[Kevin]

They can keep Nevada.

On a serious note I would love to know what percentage of land the feds own that I want them and no one else to control.

Being a big history guy I love civil war battlefields and it sucks when those types of things are under the threat of development. Same goes with the beautiful national parks like Yosemite, Zion's, etc. Counter that with land that just sits there and has no historical or natural beauty value.