Finicum Shooting video inside vehicle

[rivermobster]

Joe, you are looking at a tree and not seeing the Forrest here man..

Small parcels sure.. 85% of a state? Not environmentally related.. I'll post a vid that I have posted before on here when I get home

http://www.huntfortruth.org/cbd-pro...-against-endangered-species-recovery-efforts/

We realized that we can bypass the officials and sue, and that we can get things done in court . . . . Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning. . . . The core talent of a successful environmental activist is not science and law. It?s campaigning instinct.
This quote comes from Kieran Suckling,[SUP]1[/SUP] a founder of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). CBD has participated in well over 800 lawsuits with purported environmental aims. Two recent CBD lawsuits, however, were filed with the goal of stopping hunters from being able to use traditional lead-based ammunition in one of the Southwest?s best hunting areas, northern Arizona.

 

[C-2]

C-2. To start That wasn't Bundy in the video.. It was Levoy, the man that was shot to death. As for the rest, it isn't history by Levoy to be the point of the video. It was to say he was a normal, successful rancher, whom hasn't ever been a trouble maker, whom purchased his grazing rights and land from someone else, whom all of a sudden has become a target of a government agency, who's friends of similar occupation have become targets of the same, whom drove it to the point where he took a stand, and it ultimately ended up costing him his life..

For the record you make it sound like referring to the constitution is a bad thing? Why?

You wont find a single post from me in the political section as I don't like, or care, to argue about politics. I've only been chiming in lately on these topics since many of the poosts have become so condescending that a response is warranted; the fact some of us are silent does not mean we need to "wake up."

Let's get back to your argument about the sudden land grab by the Feds. Defend your position, put up some facts.

 

[rivermobster]

http://www.hinsongravelle.com/tag/cbd/

Dave, you SERIOUSLY underestimate the impact these groups have and the money they have to spend. AND how fucking crazy they are.

 

[rivermobster]

You awake yet Dave??

http://www.huntfortruth.org/center-for-biological-diversity-v-u-s-bureau-of-land-management-et-al/

In a major legal victory, a federal judge ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and threw a lawsuit filed by the environmental group, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) out of US District Court in Phoenix, Arizona.

CBD?s lawsuit, filed on January 27, 2009, alleged that the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were illegally mismanaging federal lands in Arizona. The lawsuit challenged the allowance of off road vehicles, construction of roads, inadequate protection of desert tortoises, and inadequate protection of California condors. Among other things, the suit sought to force BLM to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona strip. CBD contended California condors in Arizona and elsewhere were being poisoned from scavenging game that was shot by hunters using lead shot or bullets. But the record plainly showed that California condors were reintroduced to this area of Arizona based on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the ?reintroduction? would not impact hunting.

The Court ruled that CBD had waived its claims concerning BLM?s failure to assess the alleged impact of lead ammunition on condors because ?t did not argue that BLM was required to include the potential effects of lead ammunition in [BLM?s] analysis of environmental impacts.?

NRA?s intervention on behalf of its members in the case Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., has already resulted in several legal victories. A January 13, 2010 court ruling granting NRA?s motion to intervene was published in the official Federal Rules Decision Reporter. The Federal Rules Decisions Reporter is a compendium of selected United States District Court rulings that specifically interpret and apply the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Publication of this court ruling is important to hunters and NRA members because it sets legal precedent and confirms that there is a ?significantly protectable interest? in hunting that can justify intervention by hunter?s rights groups like NRA in the increasing number of lawsuits filed by so-called environmental groups against state and federal natural resource, game and land management agencies.

 

[jpwaverider]

I can't believe there are people on this forum that can call themselves AMERICAN and sit back to watch the new world order take over our god given constitutional freedom! This was an obvious MURDER PEOPLE, MURDER! The same murder that is going on to remove our constitution from existence starting with the 1st amendment on. Lavoy is me, Lavoy should be you, Lavoy is a proud American, also proud for what America was established on. This was a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MURDER COVER UP, how can one be so blind.

[video=youtube;d1fnPoMLCxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fnPoMLCxo[/video]

 

[C-2]

I can't believe there are people on this forum that can call themselves AMERICAN and sit back to watch the new world order take over our god given constitutional freedom! This was an obvious MURDER PEOPLE, MURDER! The same murder that is going on to remove our constitution from existence starting with the 1st amendment on. Lavoy is me, Lavoy should be you, Lavoy is a proud American, also proud for what America was established on. This was a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MURDER COVER UP, how can one be so blind.

[video=youtube;d1fnPoMLCxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fnPoMLCxo[/video]

Dang, comes out swinging, nice job and welcome to the board :thumbsup

 

[RiverDave]

Yes Joe we get that.. And what caused the initial friction is that. The deal at the refuge went beyond the individual ranchers and problems when they raised he subject that the Feds shouldn't own anything more then ten square miles per the constitution and called into question the actual authority of the BLM, and how it has come to be this all encompassing thing that is grabbing up land and why..

The why is control.. And the BLM is purchasing massive plots of land from private individuals and states and they aren't doing it because of environmental groups pressuring them too. That is the Forrest beyond the tree.

 

[Riverson]

god given constitutional freedom

I just find that statement funny.

 

[C-2]

Let's get back to your argument about the sudden land grab by the Feds. Defend your position, put up some facts.

You know what, abandon that thought, I'm sure we both have better things to do than argue about land rights on a boating forum, no response necessary, points taken.

 

[rivermobster]

Yes Joe we get that.. And what caused the initial friction is that. The deal at the refuge went beyond the individual ranchers and problems when they raised he subject that the Feds shouldn't own anything more then ten square miles per the constitution and called into question the actual authority of the BLM, and how it has come to be this all encompassing thing that is grabbing up land and why..

The why is control.. And the BLM is purchasing massive plots of land from private individuals and states and they aren't doing it because of environmental groups pressuring them too. That is the Forrest beyond the tree.

No Dave, wrong again. The problem started when the court ordered them to stop grazing cattle, and they told the court to fuck off. At that point, the court ordered the BLM to take action, and that's when the shit hit the fan.

But...

Can you give me just one example what I highlighted above please?

(and not some random youTube vid. show me the actual documents to support your theory)

And throw in some info on WHY the BLM would want to control ANY land.

__________________


See Dave, I know you're a smart guy, and when you actually start doing your homework on this, you're gonna find out what some of us have been saying is right, and what you have been thinking, is false.

 

[rivermobster]

I can't believe there are people on this forum that can call themselves AMERICAN and sit back to watch the new world order take over our god given constitutional freedom! This was an obvious MURDER PEOPLE, MURDER! The same murder that is going on to remove our constitution from existence starting with the 1st amendment on. Lavoy is me, Lavoy should be you, Lavoy is a proud American, also proud for what America was established on. This was a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MURDER COVER UP, how can one be so blind.

[video=youtube;d1fnPoMLCxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fnPoMLCxo[/video]

So right at the beginning of this vid, it looks like the vehicle ran right over somebody!!! :yikes

 

[Raffit78]

So right at the beginning of this vid, it looks like the vehicle ran right over somebody!!! :yikes

I don't see that, but I do see someone trying to jump in front of the suv, in attempt to shoot the driver head on.

 

[RiverDave]

No Dave, wrong again. The problem started when the court ordered them to stop grazing cattle, and they told the court to fuck off. At that point, the court ordered the BLM to take action, and that's when the shit hit the fan.

But...

Can you give me just one example what I highlighted above please?

(and not some random youTube vid. show me the actual documents to support your theory)

And throw in some info on WHY the BLM would want to control ANY land.

__________________


See Dave, I know you're a smart guy, and when you actually start doing your homework on this, you're gonna find out what some of us have been saying is right, and what you have been thinking, is false.

Joe, this is video of the BLM meeting where they are bragging about acquiring and purchasing land, and getting it cheap. It describes where they get the funds, and how they get the funds. Sincerely spend the 10 minutes watching it, because this is the ACTUAL MEETING.. Not someones interpretation of it etc.. You get to watch it.

[video=youtube;7jeLi14p-KU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jeLi14p-KU[/video]

Pay close attention to 5:20 mark where they have contests of what the giant #'s on the wall mean.. But don't skip ahead to it. Watch it.

As well pay close attention to the 9:20 mark as well..

Or watch the entire meeting here... Hold on I have to find the unedited link. The one I posted was incorrect.

In many instances they are acquiring land for supposedly "environmental reasons" but they aren't acquiring because of that.

You can go back to Tommy Henderson vs the BLM and a bazillion other instances where the BLM just flat took peoples private land. (In his case 30 years later he finally got it back)

RD

 

[RiverDave]

I don't see that, but I do see someone trying to jump in front of the suv, in attempt to shoot the driver head on.

Right? LOL.. Looks to me like the guy is turning away and someone is running towards it? But somehow he's trying to run him over? WTF?

RD

 

[Stainless]

Shouldn't this be in the P&G section?

 

[RiverDave]

There are examples out there where their are conservancy groups that are purchasing land, and then turning around and selling it to the BLM as well.. Is that what you are referring too?

RD

 

[rivermobster]

Dave, Dave, Dave, WTF am I gonna do with you?!?!?!?!? :smackhead

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/01/texas-farmer-wins-30-year-battle-with-blm-gets-land-back/

In a federal court decision in 1984, a judge stripped Henderson of ownership of a portion of his land located along the Red River in Texas. The Red River is Texas? northern border with Oklahoma. Some of that land was given to the BLM and a small section was awarded to an Oklahoma man who brought the lawsuit. The Oklahoma rancher was attempting to claim land because of boundary changes due to erosion and evulsion.

_____________________


I'll watch your vid while I eat lunch. Should be interesting I'm sure.

 

[RiverDave]

Dave, Dave, Dave, WTF am I gonna do with you?!?!?!?!? :smackhead

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/08/01/texas-farmer-wins-30-year-battle-with-blm-gets-land-back/

In a federal court decision in 1984, a judge stripped Henderson of ownership of a portion of his land located along the Red River in Texas. The Red River is Texas? northern border with Oklahoma. Some of that land was given to the BLM and a small section was awarded to an Oklahoma man who brought the lawsuit. The Oklahoma rancher was attempting to claim land because of boundary changes due to erosion and evulsion.

_____________________


I'll watch your vid while I eat lunch. Should be interesting I'm sure.

I'm not sure you are reading that one sentence in a very long article in the correct context Joe.. LOL

I can take a random quote out of that article that rewinds us back to the glamis conversation we had earlier..

Congressman Thornberry has been a persistent point man, Henderson said gratefully. He continues to work with Henderson and other land owners in the area. He told them, ?It is good that Mr. Henderson was finally able to get back a portion of his land that he lost in the 1980s, but it never should have happened in the first place.?

?Three decades to correct that mistake is ridiculous,? Thornberry wrote in his statement.

Either way you watch that vid.. There's nothing about environmental groups making the push.. It's the head honcho's at the BLM discussing in detail how they are purchasing the land, where they are getting the money etc.. The one thing that isn't discussed is the "why" and there's a lot of theories on that.

The fact is though, they want it, and they are trying to get it by any means necesarry.. Which would include burning down peoples ranches, and homes.. Charging innocent people with terrorism (Hammond's), then releasing them and when they still don't confirm extending their sentences. Flooding peoples lands and buying it for pennies on the dollar. (Interesting story that I'll try to dig up and share.. Short version the BLM tried to take some property but lost in court. Somehow they won control of the water rights though and a small water control system that was put in by the Rancher's.. So they turned around and flooded all the surrounding properties to put them out of business and bought all the land for pennies on the dollar.. LOL Just straight ruthless shit) And all the way up to killing people (Levoy) for doing anything to stand in there way.

And god forbid you stand with one of these ranchers then they will attempt to drum up warrants on you and charge you for having an opinion. The charges brought against Cliven are bullshit at best, and all those guys are now facing LIFE SENTENCES for standing up to the FEDS.


People can call these Rancher's crazy.. They can call them stupid and dumbasses..

But ask yourself a basic question.. Who is right and who is wrong? You are allowed to talk about that in your "1st amendment area!" That was the little boxes that were setup about a mile away from the Bundy ranch.. LOL That should tell you the scope of how fucking out of whack the FEDS have gotten with this shit, when they take your universal constitutional right and put it in a box and down the road.

RD

 

[rivermobster]

Joe, this is video of the BLM meeting where they are bragging about acquiring and purchasing land, and getting it cheap. It describes where they get the funds, and how they get the funds. Sincerely spend the 10 minutes watching it, because this is the ACTUAL MEETING.. Not someones interpretation of it etc.. You get to watch it.

[video=youtube;7jeLi14p-KU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jeLi14p-KU[/video]

Pay close attention to 5:20 mark where they have contests of what the giant #'s on the wall mean.. But don't skip ahead to it. Watch it.

As well pay close attention to the 9:20 mark as well..

Or watch the entire meeting here... Hold on I have to find the unedited link. The one I posted was incorrect.

In many instances they are acquiring land for supposedly "environmental reasons" but they aren't acquiring because of that.

You can go back to Tommy Henderson vs the BLM and a bazillion other instances where the BLM just flat took peoples private land. (In his case 30 years later he finally got it back)

RD

:fsakes


Dave, I'm started to think you're drunk off your ass. That was NOT a BLM meeting, it was a fucking retirement party!!! Here is the text from where the video was first posted....

I?ve wrestled about whether or not to publish this video, but as a journalist, I believe that all sides of a story should be told. So, you be the judge. This was filmed at a public event (Superintendent Mary Martin?s retirement from the Mojave Preserve) with government employees (most from the Park Service) so permission is not needed to publish.

http://www.sustainingamerica.com/2016/01/17/caught-on-tape-bragging-about-stealing-land-in-the-mojave/

I don't see anyone bragging about stealing anything. Just some back slapping bulshit.

So again...

I would like to see some FACTS to back up your (insane) position. I'll be waiting patiently over here...

:cool

 

[cicchetti_24]

I just find that statement funny.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves

 

[rivermobster]

I'm not sure you are reading that one sentence in a very long article in the correct context Joe.. LOL

I can take a random quote out of that article that rewinds us back to the glamis conversation we had earlier..



Either way you watch that vid.. There's nothing about environmental groups making the push.. It's the head honcho's at the BLM discussing in detail how they are purchasing the land, where they are getting the money etc.. The one thing that isn't discussed is the "why" and there's a lot of theories on that.

The fact is though, they want it, and they are trying to get it by any means necesarry.. Which would include burning down peoples ranches, and homes.. Charging innocent people with terrorism (Hammond's), then releasing them and when they still don't confirm extending their sentences. Flooding peoples lands and buying it for pennies on the dollar. (Interesting story that I'll try to dig up and share.. Short version the BLM tried to take some property but lost in court. Somehow they won control of the water rights though and a small water control system that was put in by the Rancher's.. So they turned around and flooded all the surrounding properties to put them out of business and bought all the land for pennies on the dollar.. LOL Just straight ruthless shit) And all the way up to killing people (Levoy) for doing anything to stand in there way.

And god forbid you stand with one of these ranchers then they will attempt to drum up warrants on you and charge you for having an opinion. The charges brought against Cliven are bullshit at best, and all those guys are now facing LIFE SENTENCES for standing up to the FEDS.

In this particular case, you are right about it not being "enviro-nut" related. It was a land dispute between two ranchers.

And as always...

The court ordered the land stripped from guy, and GIVEN to the BLM to manage. The BLM was not part of this suit in any way shape or form. They only did what they were told to do by the court (just like always).

Dude you are so far off base here it's unreal....

 

[RiverDave]

:fsakes


Dave, I'm started to think you're drunk off your ass. That was NOT a BLM meeting, it was a fucking retirement party!!! Here is the text from where the video was first posted....

I?ve wrestled about whether or not to publish this video, but as a journalist, I believe that all sides of a story should be told. So, you be the judge. This was filmed at a public event (Superintendent Mary Martin?s retirement from the Mojave Preserve) with government employees (most from the Park Service) so permission is not needed to publish.

http://www.sustainingamerica.com/2016/01/17/caught-on-tape-bragging-about-stealing-land-in-the-mojave/

I don't see anyone bragging about stealing anything. Just some back slapping bulshit.

So again...

I would like to see some FACTS to back up your (insane) position. I'll be waiting patiently over here...

:cool

Joe, I dunno what the fuck you are talking about.. While it's a retirement party, That's a BLM meeting again where they discuss the purchase of a 40 million dollar asset, where and how they acquired the funds.. They discuss the total amount of acreage acquired through their joking title "Acquisition Regime Queen" for the chick.. They discuss donated lands by private individuals, and convincing other individuals to sell the land cheap.. I'm wondering if you are on tapatalk and it showed you a different video or something.. LOL Because there's zero chance you can watch the one I posted and come away with any kind of different conclusion? You inhale a bunch of brake cleaner this morning or something?


RD

 

[TeamGreene]

You know after watching that video and how they were all patting themselves on the back for how many acres of land that the "queen" had acquired it makes me sick to think that families are losing their ranches/homes to this kind of BS.

I'd like to know the inside scoop on the mine they were talking about. It started out with a value of 40 mil and was bought for 2. something. That's a hell of a difference and I'm sure that there was a legal battle and the owners were the only one's battered and bruised.

I would love for one of these a-holes to be in the way of eminent domain and see how fucking happy they would be.

 

[rivermobster]

Joe, I dunno what the fuck you are talking about.. While it's a retirement party, That's a BLM meeting again where they discuss the purchase of a 40 million dollar asset, where and how they acquired the funds.. They discuss the total amount of acreage acquired through their joking title "Acquisition Regime Queen" for the chick.. They discuss donated lands by private individuals, and convincing other individuals to sell the land cheap.. I'm wondering if you are on tapatalk and it showed you a different video or something.. LOL Because there's zero chance you can watch the one I posted and come away with any kind of different conclusion? You inhale a bunch of brake cleaner this morning or something?


RD

Well that's the first factual thing you've said today!!!

It is NOT a BLM meeting. There are probably ZERO people from the BLM in that room.

It was a retirement party for Mary Martin. https://www.npca.org/people/mary-martin

The National Parks Conservation Association IS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT AGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are in no way shape or form associated with the BLM or the Forest Service.

Jezuz Dave, where do you come up with this bullshit!?!?! lol

 

[RiverDave]

Well that's the first factual thing you've said today!!!

It is NOT a BLM meeting. There are probably ZERO people from the BLM in that room.

It was a retirement party for Mary Martin. https://www.npca.org/people/mary-martin

The National Parks Conservation Association IS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT AGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are in no way shape or form associated with the BLM or the Forest Service.

Jezuz Dave, where do you come up with this bullshit!?!?! lol

You would be correct that the NPCA is not a government agency.. However

Mary Martin
Former Superintendent of Mojave National Preserve
Mary Martin served as deputy superintendent of Mojave National Preserve from 1994-1995 and Superintendent from 1995 to 2005.

Mary's Job title doesn't exactly say NPCA on it does it Joe.. She works for the Federal Government.

In case you missed it, here it is again..

Former Superintendent of Mojave National Preserve
Mary Martin served as deputy superintendent of Mojave National Preserve from 1994-1995 and Superintendent from 1995 to 2005.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE JOE.. I.E. The FEDS.. I.E. The Federal Government. I.E. THE BLM.. This chick literally has nothing to do with the NPCA other then being on their website, and them having her articles on record.

NPCA is a watchdog group that lobby's for conservation, and works in hand with various parks to book vacations etc.. They also have on record a ton of information to do with the management of the parks, their employees etc.. ( again especially on their website)..


RD

 

[RiverDave]

I believe now the old rdp adage "Fuck You I win" comes into play right about now.

RD

 

[rivermobster]

Former Superintendent of Mojave National Preserve
Mary Martin served as deputy superintendent of Mojave National Preserve from 1994-1995 and Superintendent from 1995 to 2005.

You would be correct that the NPCA is not a government agency..

However



Mary's Job title doesn't exactly say NPCA on it does it Joe..

In case you missed it, here it is again..




FEDERAL FUCKING EMPLOYEE JOE.. I.E. The FEDS.. I.E. The Federal Government. I.E. THE BLM.. This chick literally has nothing to do with the NPCA other then being on their website, and them having her articles on record.

http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

The NPS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bureau of Land Management Dave. The NPS is in charge of maintaining our National Parks. Like Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, you know, established parks that dot our beautiful country?

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more.html

The BLM is in charge of maintaining public lands. You know, like the whole West side of Parker?? Ever been there? Maybe you've seen the signs.

Any other bullshit you wanna try and feed the masses today?? That chick has Nothing to do with the BLM. That's like saying someone that works for the IRS, can speak for someone that works for the Department of the Interior. Sure they are both .gov agencies, but they have nothing to do with each other.

Still waiting for ONE single fact that states the BLM has taken one single piece of land away from anyone, on their own accord.

Hint: It's never happened. That's why you can't find any real evidence to support your absolutely insane theory!

 

[rivermobster]

I believe now the old rdp adage "Fuck You I'm making shit up as i go" comes into play right about now.

RD

Fixed it for ya. :thumbup:

 

[RiverDave]

http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

The NPS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bureau of Land Management Dave. The NPS is in charge of maintaining our National Parks. Like Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, you know, established parks that dot our beautiful country?

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more.html

The BLM is in charge of maintaining public lands. You know, like the whole West side of Parker?? Ever been there? Maybe you've seen the signs.

Any other bullshit you wanna try and feed the masses today?? That chick has Nothing to do with the BLM. That's like saying someone that works for the IRS, can speak for someone that works for the Department of the Interior. Sure they are both .gov agencies, but they have nothing to do with each other.

Still waiting for ONE single fact that states the BLM has taken one single piece of land away from anyone, on their own accord.

Hint: It's never happened. That's why you can't find any real evidence to support your absolutely insane theory!

Fixed it for ya. :thumbup:

Joe, you are now separating Federal Agencies in an attempt to say "Well this one has nothing to do with the other.." The Federal Government is grabbing land on all fronts, and that map with the red zones doesn't split it into which ones are owned by who.. What does matter is they are no longer your land, or my land, or state land, but Federal land. That is the point.

RD

 

[rivermobster]

Joe, you are now separating Federal Agencies in an attempt to say "Well this one has nothing to do with the other.." The Federal Government is grabbing land on all fronts, and that map with the red zones doesn't split it into which ones are owned by who.. What does matter is they are no longer your land, or my land, or state land, but Federal land. That is the point.

RD

Shocker for you Dave, but...

ALL land in the country is owned by the Feds or the state you live in. And in some cases the American Indians. Every heard of CRIT?

Unless YOU have a deed for it, it is absolutely NOT YOUR LAND!!!

Nice back pedal on the BLM land grab issue though. :thumbup: Or should I say, way to change the subject, about the rant you have been on all day. :bowdown:

If you ever come up with anything to prove your theory. Just let me know.

:drink

 

[RiverDave]

Shocker for you Dave, but...

ALL land in the country is owned by the Feds or the state you live in.
:drink

Yes Joe.. The problem is what happens when it becomes Federal vs State.

RD

 

[rivermobster]

Yes Joe.. The problem is what happens when it becomes Federal vs State.

RD

Please elaborate. What would the problem be with that scenario?

And explain how it relates to this situation.

 

[IN AWE]

No Dave, wrong again. The problem started when the court ordered them to stop grazing cattle, and they told the court to fuck off. At that point, the court ordered the BLM to take action, and that's when the shit hit the fan.

But...

Can you give me just one example what I highlighted above please?

(and not some random youTube vid. show me the actual documents to support your theory)

And throw in some info on WHY the BLM would want to control ANY land.

__________________


See Dave, I know you're a smart guy, and when you actually start doing your homework on this, you're gonna find out what some of us have been saying is right, and what you have been thinking, is false.

And Fuck the courts also..... Still Feds overstepping their bounds and we have no recourse but to revolt. I think we need some wild wild west.

 

[rivermobster]

And Fuck the courts also..... Still Feds overstepping their bounds and we have no recourse but to revolt. I think we need some wild wild west.

Please provide an example. Thanks.

 

[460]

Dave when you joining their cause?

 

[IN AWE]

Please provide an example. Thanks.

I am not going to site or argue the point with anybody. The fact is that the government has made me a criminal (likely most of you also). Why? Because I do not recognize it's authority over me and the laws that are unconstitutional that are enforced upon me. I will for the most part remain dormant and quiet about them, but if pushed will become a "Lavoy Finnicum" and die for the shear principle. I do not believe that the feds have a right to have any real property (land). I am ready for the revolution.

 

[RiverDave]

Please elaborate. What would the problem be with that scenario?

And explain how it relates to this situation.

We will lick this up on Monday Joe.. Gotta pack and load up the rest of CC shirts. Leaving for ca early am.

 

[blacksockdown]

All of u who disagree with this.Plsase answer one ques.What are all of you going to accomplish with your anti LE stance.Keep it up.You will end up jus like dude here.Here is what ive accomplished with my pro cop stance.Very courteous respectful and full compliance.I will put my sit/run ins with the law that could have gone sideways real fast,against anyone else here.I dont fear much.Which is VERY stupid.However? Cops and seeing those lights in my mirror? Scares the ever lovin shit outta me.Dont want any part of the units back seat or what handcuffs feel like on my wrists..I got into a ruckus in a bar.In the mtns,one night.Sherrif(s) had to drive 70 mi to get there.I blew that dive bar.On my snowmobile.75+mph.To my 5th wheel.Me and my doggie were getting all nice an comfy.When two PISSED OFF sheriffs pounding on my door..They were none too happy with me..."I dont even know wtf a Terroristic Threat is,sir." LOL

 

[rivermobster]

I am not going to site or argue the point with anybody. The fact is that the government has made me a criminal (likely most of you also). Why? Because I do not recognize it's authority over me and the laws that are unconstitutional that are enforced upon me. I will for the most part remain dormant and quiet about them, but if pushed will become a "Lavoy Finnicum" and die for the shear principle. I do not believe that the feds have a right to have any real property (land). I am ready for the revolution.

Good luck with that. 👍

 

[rivermobster]

We will lick this up on Monday Joe.. Gotta pack and load up the rest of CC shirts. Leaving for ca early am.

See ya soon Dave.

 

[Go-Fly]

The Federal Government can own land through the Property Clause. They can tell you how it can be used and who can go on their property. Sometime in the 40's the land use and grazing regulators were combined into one agency called BLM. The BLM is still trying to map and claim it's land that was leased to the ranchers. Some leases haven't been payed for years and the ranchers now think they own the land. Not how it works.

 

[IN AWE]

The Federal Government can own land through the Property Clause. They can tell you how it can be used and who can go on their property. Sometime in the 40's the land use and grazing regulators were combined into one agency called BLM. The BLM is still trying to map and claim it's land that was leased to the ranchers. Some leases haven't been payed for years and the ranchers now think they own the land. Not how it works.

The way I read it, does not give them the "right" to OWN it, just to apply rules and regulations to land they already own. Such as National parks and forests, gov. buildings and military bases, etc. The government should not own anything called public land, which is what the BLM "manages". It is complete bullshit land-grabbing and I believe unconstitutional.

 

[blacksockdown]

Ive been scrollin thru all the gazillion "outrageous,murderers,civil rights" etc. infinity.Bring that shit.Up close and personal to LE.Let me know how that works out for u.ALL u fuckfaces are sitting in the comfort of your SAFE,warm,dry and cozy pads.Those that you are bashing?They are out there.Everyday.When@any moment?Peeps are coming@them with bad intentions.Wanting to end them.EVER fucking day.TicFucknToc.They leave their homes and fam.Knowing that it could be the last time they see them.All u keyboard commandos should take their place.Do it your way.Just like MACDonalds...lmao

 

[Go-Fly]

The way I read it, does not give them the "right" to OWN it, just to apply rules and regulations to land they already own. Such as National parks and forests, gov. buildings and military bases, etc. The government should not own anything called public land, which is what the BLM "manages". It is complete bullshit land-grabbing and I believe unconstitutional.

The Property Clause gives Congress authority over Federal property and the Supreme Court has described Congress's power to legislate under this Clause as without limitation. So yes the Feds owns property and the third branch of the government will over see it.

 

[IN AWE]

The Property Clause gives Congress authority over Federal property and the Supreme Court has described Congress's power to legislate under this Clause as without limitation. So yes the Feds owns property and the third branch of the government will over see it.

For clarification I said the feds own land, National parks, forests, Government buildings, etc. I have a problem with them owning so called "Public Land" managed by the BLM. All of which was land-grabbed way back when after they eliminated homesteading and began fleecing the people of land and water rights. I also do not agree with everything the third branch says, especially now that some seem to think that the Constitution is "living". Fuck no, It is a written Constitution.

 

[Go-Fly]

For clarification I said the feds own land, National parks, forests, Government buildings, etc. I have a problem with them owning so called "Public Land" managed by the BLM. All of which was land-grabbed way back when after they eliminated homesteading and began fleecing the people of land and water rights. I also do not agree with everything the third branch says, especially now that some seem to think that the Constitution is "living". Fuck no, It is a written Constitution.

I get what you are saying. I don't have any knowledge of government land grabs to comment on it. If real property doesn't have a Trust Deed, Recorder's Office Note, Warranty Deed or Mortgage Note attached to it the government takes responsibility of that property.

 

[RiverDave]

Please elaborate. What would the problem be with that scenario?

And explain how it relates to this situation.

It tails back to who would have a better idea of what the land should be used for in the best interest of the citizens. People in Washington, D.C.? Or local "elected" government?

Joe this is something that people far smarter then you and I have argued for going on a century and there's papers written on the pros and cons of such that are longer then all of the rancher threads put together.

For myself I believe this country was founded on states rights, and the idea that the federal government was a union between all of the states. It has grown into something where we are now faced with a lowest common denominator problem where states are being leaned on by this giant gorilla.

Dave when you joining their cause?

Just sharing my opinions like everyone else Tyro.. That said though I would say as we progress through this conversation as a group Tyro we are all learning together. I have learned quite a bit from this thread, from the ranchers themselves, Google and various resources..

A lot of the things I believed to be one way I have found out to be another, and I'm sure that is the same for others and vice versa again for others.

Ive been scrollin thru all the gazillion "outrageous,murderers,civil rights" etc. infinity.Bring that shit.Up close and personal to LE.Let me know how that works out for u.ALL u fuckfaces are sitting in the comfort of your SAFE,warm,dry and cozy pads.Those that you are bashing?They are out there.Everyday.When@any moment?Peeps are coming@them with bad intentions.Wanting to end them.EVER fucking day.TicFucknToc.They leave their homes and fam.Knowing that it could be the last time they see them.All u keyboard commandos should take their place.Do it your way.Just like MACDonalds...lmao

What are you talking about?

 

[t&y]

So right at the beginning of this vid, it looks like the vehicle ran right over somebody!!! :yikes

I don't see that, but I do see someone trying to jump in front of the suv, in attempt to shoot the driver head on.

Right? LOL.. Looks to me like the guy is turning away and someone is running towards it? But somehow he's trying to run him over? WTF?

RD

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've read on here. So I just want to make sure when I go on duty tonight... If I pull out my gun and shoot it in the direction of a crowd, and someone starts running, are they to blame for running into my bullet? Just like saying... why did you try to beat up my hand with your face... lol...

Seems pretty clear the dude at the road block heard about the idiot driving the truck towards them, saw him coming, and was trying to get out of the way thinking he was going to ram the vehicles.

You guys honestly think the FBI or LEO standing there intintionally ran infront of the truck??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[rivermobster]

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've read on here. So I just want to make sure when I go on duty tonight... If I pull out my gun and shoot it in the direction of a crowd, and someone starts running, are they to blame for running into my bullet? Just like saying... why did you try to beat up my hand with your face... lol...

Seems pretty clear the dude at the road block heard about the idiot driving the truck towards them, saw him coming, and was trying to get out of the way thinking he was going to ram the vehicles.

You guys honestly think the FBI or LEO standing there intintionally ran infront of the truck??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

This makes sense. [emoji106]

 

[RiverDave]

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've read on here. So I just want to make sure when I go on duty tonight... If I pull out my gun and shoot it in the direction of a crowd, and someone starts running, are they to blame for running into my bullet? Just like saying... why did you try to beat up my hand with your face... lol...

Seems pretty clear the dude at the road block heard about the idiot driving the truck towards them, saw him coming, and was trying to get out of the way thinking he was going to ram the vehicles.

You guys honestly think the FBI or LEO standing there intintionally ran infront of the truck??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

What it looks like from the vid.. But again I guess that's what happens when you set a roadblock at the end of a blind curve.. Things happen quickly. (Which was the intent of putting it there)