Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DannyTN
Your take on this is a bit more than flawed.
If the law is not on Bundy’s side then we need to change the law.
Civil Disobedience is a time honored way to do just that.
11 posted on 04/16/2014 10:32:32 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Kansas58
"Your take on this is a bit more than flawed. If the law is not on Bundy’s side then we need to change the law."

Okay, but what exactly about the law failed? What needs to change?

Bundy claims it's that Federal Government took ownership of the land in the beginning and never gave it back to Nevada. Or rather, more accurately, he refuses to recognize that Federal government ever took possession of the land, even though his family previously paid grazing fees to the Federal government. That seems like a self-serving, revisionist stance to me.

Is it the EPA overreach on the turtle? Okay, in hindsight that does sound like overreach. I think we need better checks and balances on the EPA. But again, this was Federal owned land. Ownership conveys the right to do with the land what you want.

Maybe it's that the Federal government owns as much land as it does. That seems to be a sore point with a lot of people out west. There is a legislative remedy for that though. And if the government does sell off it's vast holdings, is there going to be enough water resources for the increased population? Something to think about.

Maybe it's that the BLM shows up with military hardware. Perhaps it should have been left to the local sheriff to enforce. But the BLM claims there were threats. Would it be any more acceptable if the Fed's had ordered the Sheriff to deputize enough people to overcome the threat?

18 posted on 04/16/2014 10:51:19 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58
"Your take on this is a bit more than flawed. If the law is not on Bundy’s side then we need to change the law."

Okay, but what exactly about the law failed? What needs to change?

Bundy claims it's that Federal Government took ownership of the land in the beginning and never gave it back to Nevada. Or rather, more accurately, he refuses to recognize that Federal government ever took possession of the land, even though his family previously paid grazing fees to the Federal government. That seems like a self-serving, revisionist stance to me.

Is it the EPA overreach on the turtle? Okay, in hindsight that does sound like overreach. I think we need better checks and balances on the EPA. But again, this was Federal owned land. Ownership conveys the right to do with the land what you want.

Maybe it's that the Federal government owns as much land as it does. That seems to be a sore point with a lot of people out west. There is a legislative remedy for that though. And if the government does sell off it's vast holdings, is there going to be enough water resources for the increased population? Something to think about.

Maybe it's that the BLM shows up with military hardware. Perhaps it should have been left to the local sheriff to enforce. But the BLM claims there were threats. Would it be any more acceptable if the Fed's had ordered the Sheriff to deputize enough people to overcome the threat?

19 posted on 04/16/2014 10:51:19 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson