Really? I thought that Polar Bears used them for barbeques.
Posted on 04/09/2014 8:18:46 AM PDT by FBD
LAS VEGAS -- The son of a rural Nevada cattle rancher has been freed from federal custody, a day after his arrest by agents working to remove cattle from disputed grazing areas northeast of Las Vegas.
A U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman in Las Vegas said Monday that 37-year-old Dave Bundy is accused of refusing to disperse and resisting officers.Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, says U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents arrested her son Sunday in a parked car on State Route 170 near Bunkerville.
Pictures obtained by the 8 News NOW I-Team show where David Bundy had parked his car to take pictures of the cattle eviction.
Bundy says he was only exercising his First Amendment rights when federal officers told him to leave the area and when he didn't, they grabbed him."Two officers surround me, third one in front of me. They jumped me and took me to the ground. You can see they scraped up my face," Bundy said.Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, says his cattle are entitled to graze in the Gold Butte area."They steal my cattle, and that is bad enough. But they make my son a political prisoner," Cliven Bundy said.
This weekend wranglers, hired by the federal government, started removing cattle owned by Bundy from a stretch of land near the Virgin River Gorge.
(Excerpt) Read more at 8newsnow.com ...
Wow... It explicitly states “for the erection of”. This isn’t just a prefatory clause that gives an example, this is a subordinate clause that modified the operative clause and establishes exactly the scope of it’s reach.
FEDERAL property cannot be “private”. Your conflation of the two is idiotic. It’s your assertion that the Federal collective has individual Rights is that “Marxist” stance here...
No. He has his point, thinks he’s right, is demonstrably wrong, and is too stupid to know it.
The way I see it is they should have fenced the property and kept Bundy’s livestock off their land then. Nevada is Open Range Land. That means the property owner must fence his property to keep free ranging livestock and wild horses off their land. Case settled IMO.
There are no "private property owners". I provided you with anecdotal evidence, above.
AND FURTHERMORE - in the lower 48, "private property owners" rent their land from the state that "their" land is in. Just refuse to pay the King's Rent for a couple of years, and find out really fast who actually owns "your" property.
It’s a hoot. He’s attempting to smear you with the “collectivist”/”squatter” labels, while ignoring the fact that “private property owners” actually rent “their” land from The King.
I am always - and I mean always - concerned when the federal or a state government uses force against citizens of the United States. However, there are times when force is justified. This may be one of those cases.
At around the 1:00 mark in the video, the officer keeps yelling "Move it, move it now!" to the gesturing and advancing man in the blue plaid shirt. The officer doesn't advance; in fact, he doesn't even keep his ground. He retreats slightly.
The man in the blue plaid shirt keeps advancing, aggressively gesturing and yelling, until he is upon the officers. At that point, he is tasered.
Reasonable minds can differ as to whether user of the taser was justified.
I am always - and I mean always - concerned when the federal or a state government uses force against citizens of the United States. However, there are times when force is justified. This may be one of those cases.
At around the 1:00 mark in the video, the officer keeps yelling "Move it, move it now!" to the gesturing and advancing man in the blue plaid shirt. The officer doesn't advance; in fact, he doesn't even keep his ground. He retreats slightly.
The man in the blue plaid shirt keeps advancing, aggressively gesturing and yelling, until he is upon the officers. At that point, he is tasered.
Reasonable minds can differ as to whether user of the taser was justified.
Once again you are incorrect. The clause in question is a “non-restrictive relative clause”. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/relative-clauses
A relative clause is one that’s connected to the main clause of the sentence by a word such as who, whom, which, that, or whose. For example: ...
The "for" makes it specific.
Nice try though. You may screw up and learn something yet...
“I’m giving you this money, for the purpose of buying bread.”
Vs...
“I’m giving you this money, however penguins live in the Antarctic.”
Starting to catch on yet?
This appears to be more about the BLM getting rid of the “must graze” encumbrances on “their” land.
Yep. Getting rid of property taxes would be a big step forward in securing Liberty.
The BLM is on a long term pogrom to eliminate such encumbrances.
Once again, you are incorrect.
“You can purchase land for building a garage, a house, a store, or other building”
In no way prohibits the use of the land purchased for grazing or growing timber or letting sit fallow. It is descriptive not restrictive.
The land belongs to the US Government and as the owner, they get to decide what happens to that land. I would point out that the parcel in question is part of a larger tract of land that does have “other buildings” on that land. Things like visitor centers and maintenance buildings are common on government lands out west. So at the very least, even using the most obtrusive and restrictive language of the Constitution, the government still owns the land and still qualifies under the “other buildings” portion of the clause.
The tree will eventually die and fall over.
Specific examples. If you then build yourself a sports stadium, you are violating the limits of the terms.
Your "other buildings" argument falls apart BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS.
Really? I thought that Polar Bears used them for barbeques.
I have wondered, from time to time, what would happen if you introduced a small population of polar bears to Antarctica. Would they be able to adjust their diet/habits to different local food sources and weather conditions?
I’d label the $1,000,000 contract cowboys as Regulators; Most of the popos involved too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.