Quote of the Day: Bundy Standoff and The Second Amendment

“That’s exactly why we had guns there. They would respect us and allow us to speak . .  [Without guns, law enforcement] “would have done what they’ve done to protesters all across this nation. They would have tased us and sprayed with mace. They would have put zip ties on us and hauled us off in paddy wagons.” – Ammon Bundy quoted in America Patriot Frontline documentary [available at link]

comments

  1. avatar Paul says:

    In other words, they would have done exactly what they should have.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      So they should have gone in and violated the rights of an American citizen? All for refusing to pay extortion fees for use of public land? Land the man was maintaining at his own expense? Land that the government has no constitutional authority to own in the first place?

      Let me know when you see a SWAT raid on Al Sharpton’s home for the millions in back taxes that race baiting scumbag owes.

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        I read this as he was referring to the 2nd Bundy standoff, the one where Ammon and his buddies were trying to force a change for those farmers who were actively telling him not to do that. I was in Vegas during Bundy 1, and was planning to go up and join the protest one weekend, but that turned out to be the weekend it ended. Bundy 2 struck me as Ammon and his buddies trying to play hero.

      2. avatar lionsfan54 says:

        “Extortion fees”? GTFO. He knew the rules when he agreed to use that land. Deadbeats need to pay up.

        1. avatar PACoug says:

          Umm, the rules for that ranch were set over a hundred years ago. The Obama Administration knew those rules when they came bumbling in trying to change the deal.

        2. avatar William says:

          I came upon the Bundy ranch story as it played out in the media “in medias res” but before large numbers of armed folks had rallied to their cause. I was struck not by their complaints of the BLM, but by the actions of the authorities in their treatment of livestock and protesters. In particular the setting up of free-speech zones on private land.

      3. avatar Doktor says:

        Bundy was violating my rights and bundy was breaking the law. Why is that so hard to get through the thick skulls of fellow gun lovers.

        This is like the frickn branch davidians. You can’t rape children and then expect a light touch from the government.

        Bundy and sons were bad people breaking laws. To put our gun rights on display behind a communist like bundy will certainly work against all of us in the long run. Idiots!

        1. avatar George in RI says:

          It is crazy to think back to the media spin on the Waco and Weaver standoff stories. I was young and dumb and impressionable and I distinctly recall being fed the “Waco cult has 50 caliber rifles!” and “Randy Weaver is ex special forces” angle and thinking to myself “wow those guys are dangerous I am glad the gubmint is handling this so strongly”. Now that I am old enough to think for myself, it kills me to see just how much BS was flung around during those stories to justify them. Not disagreeing with your point, but making the case that I went from a default position of trusting the jack booted “authorities” to by-default distrusting them whenever a CONUS show of force takes place. Even on a smaller local PD scale we still have the James Boyd shit happening, complete with the standard police dept attempted “spin” and knee-jerk excuse making. At least those fckers eventually got theirs, not that it helped that guy. the ones setting the tone and conducting the procedures and training still get away smelling like a rose. That particular NM firing squad were not acting rogue, but were going through very clear procedures like they were trained to do. scary.

        2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Exactly. I’m 50 and felt the same way when I was younger. The way the govt entrapped and executed the weavers is still something that bothers me greatly. Those responsible for those murders should’ve forfeited their lives long ago.

        3. avatar PACoug says:

          I know the Bundys. They are very good people and the polar opposite of communists. I don’t think the Oregon thing was warranted but I understand their stand against the government vacuuming up our property rights.

          What I don’t understand is how standing up for private property makes one a communist. Perhaps we will get a new political theory disquisition.

        4. avatar rt66paul says:

          That bit about them raping children was BS, made up to justify the takeover. If they wanted Koresh, they could have arrested him any thursday when he came into town. like clockwork. Sex laws are handled by the state and they should have had him under arrest asap. This was a federal government action to show the power the US government has over us all. While I don’t like Koresh’s message, he had every legal right to spread it. If they could prove he did something against Texas state law, the state should have handled it.
          Wholesale killing of cults is not our governments’ job.

        5. avatar Serpent Vision says:

          One obvious difference between the Bundy gang and the branch Davidians or the Weaver family is that the Bundy gang had their day (years) in court; they went through the legal process and were told to pay up, and the deadbeats just refused to pay the taxpayers what they owed. Branch Davidians never got due process, and Randy Weaver was acquitted of the weapons charge that was the government’s great excuse to attack.

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          This is like the frickn branch davidians. You can’t rape children and then expect a light touch from the government.

          So because one guy “allegedly” raped some people, 76 people deserved to die, including a dozen or so children? FLAME DELETED

        7. avatar Frijoli says:

          Apparently it because of people like you, Doktor, oh wise one. When the Gov’t says “enough talking about this, send in the guns”, you Doktor can bow down and kiss their feet. The rest of us unwashed masses will do what is right.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Paul,

      I want to be sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that police should have used tasers, pepper spray, and handcuffs on the people who opposed the federal government’s arbitrary decision to suspend the First Amendment on several thousand acres of public land?

      1. avatar FlaBoy says:

        Well….yes, you peasants should “obey” and submit “to authority”. The law officers have a duty to “command and control” the situation and you are supposed to (immediately, with not hesitation or questioning) do as you are told. Don’t forget “your place”. Remember, “…some animals are more equal than others.”
        Of course, we would all still be British subjects if everyone in the past had done this.

        1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

          “+2million thumbs up !”

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      Paul ain’t from here.

    4. avatar Hank says:

      No they wouldn’t have. Look at what he’s saying: “Law enforcement would’ve to us what they’ve done to protestors all across this nation.” Are you f*cking kidding me? Police have been ordered to stand down and retreat from all the black lies matter and antifa loons. They’ve been straight up rioting and attacking innocents across the nation and now all the sudden Bundy wants to embrace them? Seriously? F*ck him. At first I actually supported this retard but apparently he’s just another antifa attention seeking whore ready to embrace any ideology so long as it brings him personal gain. I don’t give a sh*t what caused it. The minute you embrace the radical, violent, fascist left you’ve just sh*t all over the constitution.

      1. avatar Ed says:

        Where did all these pro-Fed anti freedom trolls come from? Pinkos everywhere.

        1. avatar The Punisher says:

          Ed,

          In my experience, pro-2a and “liberty loving” individuals quickly turn completely statist as soon as police authority and/or military patriotism is questioned or belittled. That, apparently, is the line in the sand.

          And any ex-cop or ex-soldier who crosses over to the freedom and liberty side and denounces their ex-profession are summarily executed in the court of public opinion as well.

          This is why I gave up hope for any sort of real resistance a long time ago. If one guy or a small group sticks their necks out against the .gov the response is always, let ’em hang, they deserved it, he broke the law, etc…

          I hope everyone keeps that in mind if the SHTF…your “gun loving” neighbors just might sell you up the creek to the AUTHORITAHS just as quickly as any progressive leftist.

        2. avatar Hank says:

          So Ed, you support antifa and black lies matter? (The other BLM). Because Bundy just endorsed them. I gives a Fuck what he stands for after making such a proclamation. It shows how ignorant he is after embracing the leftist medias fake news. It shows that his motives weren’t for his rights, or your rights. It shows his motives were for personal gain.

        3. avatar Ed says:

          Hey Hank, I remember Ruby Ridge and waco and antifa and blm and all those bullshit Soros orgs still have yet to snipe a mother holding a baby or burn 25+ children alive…so until then, the god damn mother fucking goverment is the real threat! Theres some real fuckin morons here….holy shit.

        4. avatar Hank says:

          Haven’t hurt anyone? They killed 5 cops in Dallas. They killed 3 cops in Baton Rouge. They’ve destroyed millions in private property across several major cities. They’ve committed multiple violent beatings on suspected conservatives and trump supporters. If your ok with violent communists taking over neighborhoods simply because they’re not the government, holy shit are you the retard here.

        5. avatar Ed says:

          Hey Hank, first, as sad as it may be, the cops that take that job know they are risking their lives. Second, the millions of dollars in damages are almost as much the business owners faults. I own a business and you better believe that I would be sitting inside with an AK and a drum all wound up and ready to cook. I was in shock that not one business owner in st..louis laid waste to that crowd of oxygen wasters. NO ONE, not little Soros children/communist agitators especially could take over the town I live in. Then again, my town demographic is 98.7% white with 4500 people and four police with two cars. I was smart enough to move away from the progressives and the mongoloids. You wanna defend this tyranical, overbearing, inept and intentionally malicious goverment, go for it. Just don’t be surprised when REAL patriots call your bullshit. Next you can tell me how Randy Weaver deserved what he go too, right? Why would you ever decide to defend the Bureau of fucking land management? You must be a federal employee or a full retard. Either way, you sir, are one simple son of a bitch.

    5. avatar Kim says:

      Only for a pansy a** coward as you are!!!!!! the 2nd amendment was written in just so things like this could be heard, and not tyrannized against the common folk. Ever heard of “ABUSE OF POWER”??? it is EXACTLY what went on at the Bundy ranch, and other places… Ruby Ridge… Waco….

  2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Words to the effect of “security of a FREE state” are rattling around in my noggin … not sure what the source might be or how it might have applied in this case.

    /end_sarcasm

  3. avatar Alex Waits says:

    This is why we have guns.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      And even if we didn’t “need” them for something like this, they’re just so damn cool.

  4. avatar The Resistor says:

    Cliffs notes version of the reason Bundy stood-off?

    BLM took over private land ?

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      BLM arbitrarily hiked land usage fees to deliberately force small ranchers out of business. When one owner refused to pay the increased fees, his family got harrased, his property destroyed, and his son, assaulted. Then the militia showed up.

      1. avatar Fghjkg says:

        The fees where $1.35 per cow/calf combo per month. That’s a lot less than fees on private land. And he hadn’t paid for twenty years. That sounds pretty lenient treatment to me.
        Oh, and his racist comments weren’t anything to rally behind either.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          1. Do you know what the fees were prior? Do you know what his profit margin is on said cows? No? Then sit down and shut up.

          2. The truth can’t be racist. Nothing he said was patently untrue.

        2. avatar DrewR says:

          I agree with your last point, the Bundys as people are not the best.

        3. avatar Tom Moscone says:

          Ha the racist comments were awesome.

          Fox News and the rest of the right-leaning media had been hyping these rebel scum as if they were heroes, Sean Hannity was ready beatify Cliven Bundy as the patron saint of patriotism. And then those awesome words: “And I’ve often wondered, are [blacks] better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

          …and not a peep from Fox News since!

        4. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Hey Tom, go take a look at reality and show me how that statement is untrue. A welfare slave is the best sort of slave. He has no reason to escape and is just as useful for those that own him.

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          True words. There is NOTHING the progtards can do to the welfare deadbeat that will make them leave the plantation and go get a fing job.

          I’m tired of hearing “rasist” and misc “verbal abuse” – hey snowflake its WORDS you wimp – bones/never hurt etc. Get over yourself verbal reception is YOUR problem.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Landlords arbitrarily hike fees where allowed by law every day, my friend. That’s business. Now, perhaps the Federal government shouldn’t be in the grazing land business in the first place. Perhaps, but that’s politics and public policy and that’s beside tge point here.

        That crazy old coot Bundy paid his grazing permit fees for decades. He protested changes in 1993 and refused to renew. Yet, he continued to use the land illegally for two more decades. Only then did he start in with his expedient “I don’t recognize the Federal government’s authority” routine.

        He’s a racist cheapskate and trespasser who’s been swatted down in court repeatedly. Had he ever actually won in court, you just know he’d all of a sudden recognize federal authority again and tell the BLM to suck it. Except, he lost, so out comes the racist, secessionist, populist B.S. and lots of people fell for it.

        There have already been two of his goons criminally convicted. Mistrials for the others last month, but re-trials are set for June. Hope they all get prison sentences.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          As above – WTH does “racist” have to do with diddly? or your/ ERic Holders opinion of “racist”.

          No brain yell RACIST. Want to demonize someone yell racist and child molester. NOT evidence is needed to convict and ruin an individual. That is community organizer BS.

  5. avatar DrewR says:

    Yeah, I think Ammon Bundy is a bit of a knob, and don’t really agree with what they were doing, but the statement above is true, that’s half the reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Tell me all about how Bundy should have just bent over and taken it in the ass when the government deliberately tried to regulate his family ranch out of business.

      1. avatar DrewR says:

        As I just mentioned above, I was referring to when Ammon, the son, and his buddies occupied a government building, not when Cliven faced off with the inexplicably armed BLM, which was a cause I supported and was planning to join by the time it ended. Mea Culpa, I guess I did not make myself clear. Bundy 1: support, Bundy 2: disagree. In the later Ammon went in against the wishes of the people he was supposedly doing it for and that is why I think he’s a bit of a knob.

      2. avatar Tom Moscone says:

        Same as the underage whoremongers would take it when the government enforced laws against juvenile sex slavery.

        It is public land managed by the Federal Government through the authority of our duly elected representatives in our ostensible liberal republican democracy. They can raise the fees to whatever best furthers their agenda, which includes interests in sustainability, wildlife preservation, and tourism. They do so with the authority of the people’s consent.

        I call it armed insurrection. As soon as he saw those rebel traitors raising their guns at officers of the federal government, Obama should have called in airstrikes and sent a message to neo-confederate scum across the country that patriots loyal to our constitution would be hunting down every traitor that bears arms against the People and their interests.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Please point me to the portion of the CotUS that grants the federal government the authority to own and “manage” vast swathes of land. I’ll wait.

        2. avatar DrewR says:

          I have to disagree on two points. First, as Serge pointed out, the federal government has no legal authority to own or manage public lands. Second, the BLM circumvented traditional legal means by warrantlessly sending in armed members of their own organization rather than getting a warrant and sending the local sheriff as the law proscribes. There should be no armed wing of the BLM, just as there should be no armed wing of the Department of Education. These forces exist only to act extra judiciously in cases where the fed doesn’t feel it would succeed through traditional means.

        3. avatar Tom Moscone says:

          Modern Federal land governance was codified in the National Resource Lands Management Act of 1976 which passed the Senate in a 79-11 vote. If you feel its unconstitutional you can take it up with SCOTUS. I’m sure they’ll think you as much as the wackjob as everyone else does.

        4. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Not what I asked for Tom. Please cite the portion of the CotUS that grants congress the authority you claim.

        5. avatar Tom Moscone says:

          “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

          Despite the grand delusions of many Inbred-Americans, the founding fathers were the bourgeois elite of their time and these fantasies that they intended a Republic to be an ungovernable free-for-all is nonsense. Of course the government has the right to manage land.

          And of course the elite scholars of Harvard and Yale that make up our Supreme Court are the true arbitrators of our constitution. They have dedicated their lives to studying it and the history of its interpretation. The opinions of internet nerds who have read a few articles from nutjob sovereign citizens websites is of course irrelevant.

          As I said, take it up with the Supreme Court, they’re the ones that the people entrust to interpret our constitution. Hell, more of them right now were appointed by Republicans than Democrats, they’re as close as you’ll ever get to a Court that sees your worldview. And they would laugh you out of court, of course.

        6. avatar The Punisher says:

          It’s responses like this that definitely reinforce that government schooling propaganda and brainwashing has completely worked and been successful across the whole range of the population for the last several decades.

          Mission accomplished.

          Don’t Remember the Empire.

        7. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          The section of the Constitution quoted above only describes what Congress may do on lands it owns. It doesn’t specify *what* the federal government may own. for that you have to go here:

          17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

          Tell, me does vast holdings of leased grazing land sound to you like “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings?”

      3. avatar John E> says:

        Normally I would agree but in this instance he leased the land, and hadn’t paid on it in ten years. So you rent out a home and the tenant’s lease is up and you need to hike the cost 5% to cover utilities, they decide to stop paying for a year. Is that their right? or are you gonna evict them?

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Yeah, Bundy had 160 acres that he owned and raised cash crops on. He ran his cattle on public land and refused to pay for the right. I often wonder what the Bundy’s would have done if I ran 5-600 head of my own cattle onto that same public land? Range war?

      Out of a nation of 330 million he was able to rally, what, 500 to his cause?

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Incorrect. He refused to pay the arbitrarily spiked useage fees designed to drive him out of business.

        1. avatar lionsfan54 says:

          You keep saying the fee hikes were “arbitrary”. Besides typing that, do you have any evidence? the guy was free loading off of public land.

        2. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Show me where the federal government has the authority to own and charge for the use of vast swathes of land. The BLM has no constitutional authority to exist or to charge jack shit.

        3. avatar Megalith says:

          Here you go. The spike in usage fees was not only arbitrary, it was illegal.

          https://www.kcet.org/redefine/grazing-fees-raised-for-public-lands

        4. avatar Ben says:

          “Show me where the federal government has the authority to own and charge for the use of vast swathes of land. The BLM has no constitutional authority to exist or to charge jack shit.”

          OK, Pwrserge; I’ll bite. U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

          “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

        5. avatar Nobody Special says:

          Dang Pwrserge your on fire today. I find it funny how many people are ready to roll over when the going gets tough against government. the government works for us not the other way around. If they had to do something it should have been drive bundys cows on his land and keep them there. Not the threat of armed force or destruction of property. The government owes me a very large tax return. If they don’t pay me what I’m owed. I don’t go down to Capitol Hill and smash in some windows. Just saying.

        6. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Again Ben. Not what I asked. Show me where is the CotUS the federal government is authorized to own large swathes of land. From what I seem to remember, it is constitutionally restricted to forts, ports, and D.C.

        7. avatar Ben says:

          Pwrserge, that’s exactly what you asked. The portion of the Constitution I cited gives the federal gov’t the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” This expressly contemplates the federal government owning land and making rules and regulations (e.g., grazing fees) regarding those lands. There is nothing in here concerning large swaths or otherwise limiting the size or amount of land that can be owed.

          “From what I seem to remember, it is constitutionally restricted to forts, ports, and D.C.” -Pwrserge

          I think what you are referring to here is Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17:

          The Congress shall have Power . . . “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

          As I understand it, this clause states that the federal gov’t has exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws for Washington D.C., military forts, docks, or other federal buildings. In other words, the laws of a state would not apply on military bases within that state due to this clause. On the other hand, other government territory, such as the lands on which the Bundy’s grazed their cattle, would not be subject to such exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, a person on those federal territories would be subject to jurisdiction of the state in which the federal territory resides.

        8. avatar Bruce says:

          You can read up on the authority in the report created by the Congressional Research Service:

          http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

          Or if you prefer, the Heritage Foundations take on it:

          http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

        9. avatar Hawk_TX says:

          Bruce, Ben and the congressional research service report Bruce cited are wrong. The mistake they all are making is thinking that the Constitution authorizes the federal government to own land based on this section of the Constitution.

          “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;…” (article 4, section 3). This section simply states that the federal government makes rules and regulations for the territories and property belonging to the federal government. It does not say that territories are the property of the federal government.

          Black’s law dictionary defines territory as “A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction. In American law. A portion of the United States, not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized, with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial officers appointed by the president.”

          Article 4, section 3 is simply referring to the jurisdiction the federal government has over territories not ownership of territories by the government. If you disagree with this just ask any land owner in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa.

          The only part of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to own lands is article 1, section 8.

          “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And” (article 1, section 8).

          This section authorizes the federal government only to own land only for needful buildings, not to own vast tracks of land (currently 1.8 billion acres).

        10. avatar Ben says:

          Sorry Hawk_TX, I am unconvinced. I see several flaws in your theory. First, the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary cites to laws that all postdate the U.S. Constitution. Was the meaning of “territory” different when the Constitution was signed? Second, these lands that the BLM manages were first territories of the U.S. before they became states. I am not familiar with the details of the western states becoming states, but I am assuming there was some sort of agreement over those lands that were to remain under government control via rules and regulations. Third, even if “territory” were construed as Black’s defines it, the clause of the Constitution is not limited to such “territory.” The U.S. Constitution allows for “Congress . . . to . . . make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2. Land is property, and the term “other Property” could certainly be construed to include “land that is not a territory.” For example, if the federal government owns land in a territory that becomes a state, that land would no longer be “territory” under your interpretation of Black’s. However, if ownership of that land stays with the federal government, then that land could become “other Property” under the Constitution.

          I am not a constitutional law or property law scholar. I am not going to pretend that my above-stated position is iron clad. Let’s not pretend that your position is either. The real issue is whether the Bundys and their supporters were justified in leading a standoff against the Federal government in Nevada and Oregon. I don’t see how the answer can be anything but “no.” If the government starts to send soldier to round up and/or kill people that speak out against the government, then I fully support armed insurrection to stop such clearly unconstitutional actions. However, on an issue such as the constitutionality of federal government land ownership and the BLM, where reasonable minds may differ, such armed insurrection is not justified. The U.S. Constitution provides other mechanisms to address such issues, like the right to vote for representatives who want to sell of such land and the right to speak, write, print, or otherwise disseminate the different views.

          Since this is TTAG, let’s bring it back to guns for a minute. The Bundy family’s uprisings in Nevada and Oregon absolutely hurt the cause for gun rights. I think most people either firmly believe that the government can own and manage the lands that it has or that such a determination is open for interpretation. For these people, these militias that showed up in Nevada and Oregon look like thugs using their guns to intimidate and get their way. That’s about as undemocratic as it gets. So chalk up another instance in the public eye in which guns were used negatively.

        11. avatar The Punisher says:

          Serge –

          I’m with you as far as your argument goes, but defense of the Constitution is pointless. It’s a worthless piece of paper.

          “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner

        12. avatar Hawk_TX says:

          1. No, the definition of territory has not changed. Here is a link to a dictionary of the English language from 1768.
          https://books.google.com/books?id=03Q7AAAAcAAJ&vq=territory&pg=PT853#v=snippet&q=terri&f=false
          It defines territory as: land; country; dominion; district.

          A U.S. territory is a part of a country separate from the rest and subject to a particular jurisdiction (or dominion). Clearly the definition has not changed.

          2. Yes, there was a agreement were the federal government was able to keep 87.7% of the land in Nevada. It was known as the “enabling acts”. Under the conditions set forth Nevada agreed to let the federal government own “unappropriated land” within the state, “unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States.” In exchange Nevada would be allowed to become a state. However imposing these conditions on admission of a state violates the doctrine of the equality of the states.

          3. “…make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”…”

          This is merely saying that the federal government has legal jurisdiction over the territories (obviously no state would have jurisdiction over a territory) and property belonging to the federal government(i.e…forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings). Nothing in this gives the federal government ownership over land. That is governed by article 1, section 8.

          “and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be”.

          This means that the federal government can only exercise authority over land if the state legislature gives it’s consent. Of course this power is still constrained to ” the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings”, and not vast tracks of land.

          Ben- “If the government starts to send soldier to round up and/or kill people that speak out against the government, then I fully support armed insurrection to stop such clearly unconstitutional actions. ”

          Your argument shows that you do not support opposition to these unconstitutional act of government agents.

          I do not agree that the Bundy protest hurt the cause of gun rights. I think that any attempt to prevent the government from violating the constitution can only serve to protect our rights. Including our second amendment rights.

        13. avatar Sambo82 says:

          “However imposing these conditions on admission of a state violates the doctrine of the equality of the states.”

          You just made that up. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the US can’t determine the lines of States that are admitted from its territory.

          I came by here to bring up this point, actually. The Federal Government land in Nevada is now as it has always been, federal territory. It was never part of Nevada and, for better or worse, there isn’t anything unconstitutional about the federal government retaining territory in perpetuity. Nothing in the Constitution says that the federal government has a set time limit to admit territory to statehood. As such Bundy was simply in violation of federal rules and law.

          I was all aboard his cause until I actually researched it with an open mind. Bundy wants free access to land that isn’t his to run his business, at taxpayer cost. And there isn’t anything unconstitutional about federal management of its territories. He is simply in the wrong.

        14. avatar Hawk_TX says:

          Not at all. The legal doctrine of equality of the states is a principle in Constitutional law that says all states admitted to the Union under the Constitution since 1789 enter on equal footing with the 13 states already in the Union at that time. Beginning with the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each state’s act of admission a clause providing that it enters the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever”.

          There are a number of Supreme court cases that recognize this principle. In Coyle v. Smith the court noted that the power given to Congress by Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution is to admit new States to this Union, and relates only to such States as are equal to each other in power and dignity and competency to exert the residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the Federal Government.

          The only power delegated to the federal government to hold land is constrained to “needful buildings” (article 1, section 8), not to vast tracks of land holdings. And as I have already said even this power is limited to exercising “like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be” .

          How could the legislature of the state of Nevada consent to the federal government taking 88% of the state before there even was a state legislature? It couldn’t.

          Did the federal government purchase the land? No, unless you count extortion them for statehood.

          Does the 59,681,502 acres (84.9% of the state) of land the federal government holds in Nevada count as needful buildings? Obviously not.

          The federal government cannot constitutionally own vast tracks of land, and it cannot Constitutionally extort land from a territory in exchange for admission as a state.

  6. avatar Tim Moscone says:

    Pussy Obama should have called in air strikes. These people were nothing more than traitorous scum in open rebellion against the people and their duly elected representatives. Over what, stealing access to the public’s land?

    Obama was way too soft on these traitors. He should have made an example for all to see.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      He only traitor here is you. Granting a bloated federal government authrities it does not have under the CotUS. Sit down and shut your mouth trollo.

      1. avatar Waffensammler98 says:

        I am in full agreement with Serge on this. Fed gov buying up swaths of land for shiggles (and using some EPA-concocted nonsense as justification) is beyond unconstitutional. Anyone who thinks they wouldn’t study the annual income pattern of ranchers in a certain area, and then jack up taxes/fees in an effort to drive them all out and claim said land for themselves has their goddamn head in the sand.

        Also, anyone who thinks the police showing up to some old rancher’s house with enough gear and vehicles to storm Fallujah are “just trying to do their jobs” is insane. They could have sent two plain-clothes officers or just had the IRS mail the guy a letter. That show of force was statist propaganda, just like the reaction to the Boston bombing.

        1. avatar Havoc says:

          This. They were ready to pull another Waco, and a buncha folks said to heck with that.

          Obvious government shills are obvious. Lick the hand.

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Lol. Obama? He should be on death row awaiting execution for Treason.

    3. avatar Rimfire says:

      So by your reasoning Timmy, pussy Obama should have also called in airstrikes in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities when the riotous herds acted up? Airstrikes on other Americans . I see how you think now. Airstrikes against the terrorists in the Pulse nightclub, or in CA? Aren’t you the high and mighty one.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      Moscone is starting to sound like Grand Moff Tarkin with all this “rebel scum” talk. What’s next, the Death Star?

    5. avatar neiowa says:

      Thanks for stopping in Mr Holder. As much useful to offer as when at the Dept of “Justice”.

    6. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      wow….just wow.

      These people were nothing more than traitorous scum in open rebellion against the people and their duly elected representatives. Over what, stealing access to the public’s land?

      Obama was way too soft on these traitors. He should have made an example for all to see.

      ..you can’t be serious.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Quills. Working as intended.

  8. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Love or hate the Bundy bunch, but being armed means the government fears the people, not the other way around.

    May it ever be thus.

  9. avatar FlaBoy says:

    A lesson of Lexington, April 19, 1775: sometimes you have to stand up and fight for what you believe in, even if the arms and might of the government are against you.

    And as others have pointed out, this is why we even have a 2nd amendment.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      The nitwits above would presumably lecture that such is a myth.

      I wonder if the goofballs would allow/accept armed resistance to an invading military force? Or only to the point that the invader as a successful occupier. Or would the invader have to conduct a mock election? Think Eurp 1939-40.

      Fortunately the big water prevents any such thing as invasion or terrorism on American soil.

  10. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I guess I have very different ideas on how I would’ve preferred these standoffs to end. I’m so sick of the Liberal Terrorists™ I’m ready to get busy.

  11. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Pardon me …But, is it my imagination, or are there now LibTard PRO-Aggressive Trolls now come to roost in the TTAG’s comments section..!? Just curious….SJW scanner App on my tablet went off….Meter indicated a “shelter in place, or seek a safe-space status….”

  12. avatar kap says:

    you all missed something here, the land was forcibly being taken over by the BLM, so it could be sold too the Chinese to become a solar cell farm! a deal brokered by Reids son. BLM leader owed kids father a bunch so hence the fraudulent takeover, Bundy’s paid land usage too the state not the Feds, then enter this Chinese deal and the Feds say the land is theirs since whenever, then bring false land rental claims get land turned over too Feds so kid makes a bundle!

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Good recall. Wasn’t that crooked SOB Harry Reid and his spawn in there somewhere also?

      IE the 973 Obama “Teapot Dome”

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    In agreement kap. This is why we have guns. Unmentioned is the “1st Amendment free zone”. The evil Obama goons backed off when patriots showed up. BTW this boondoggle had a part in my decision to purchase an AR 15. Never thought I’d NEED one. Now I do…

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Yeah, those “First Amendment zones” really burned my biscuit.

      I’m not a Bundy fan (it’s a messy situation, neither they nor the government being entirely in the right), but combine that First Amendment travesty with the BLM’s storm troopers, and it’s clear where the federal government stands — and it ain’t with you and me.

  14. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    While I’m not going to argue the merits of either cause, There’s a huge difference in how the government responded to the bundy ‘s vs the pipeline folks. Nobody with power cares what you do unless you have the power to back it up.

    I keep getting reminded of the Movie “Billy Jack”

  15. avatar I1ULUZ says:

    When did he stop paying the fees for the permit? The day Obama was sworn in? If the answer is no, then don’t blame him for the hike in fees. When did it become legal to shut down interstates (morons laying in the road with their AK’s in overwatch)? We have a tizzyfit when the left does it, we should hold the right to the same standard. Isn’t interstate commerce how evil firearms can pass across leftist held states to good homes in free states?
    Nobody likes to pay fees or taxes, NOBODY, but we all love the things that they pay for like interstate roadways, DoD, doubt if anyone of us could afford Huntington Ingalls to build us one of them BIG boats in Newport News, that spreads love and joy around the world. Or even one of them tracked ATV built in Lima OH with the smooth bore duck gun. Something about the common defense, all those men and women who put on an uniform to defend our way of life don’t do it just for the thrill, they also like the paycheck too. We pay a fee for our DL’s so we can legally drive on those roads that fuel taxes pay for, some pay fees to carry concealed, we pay a fee for the tags on our trucks/cars/motorcycles. If you don’t want to pay those fees, then don’t drive, don’t want to pay grazing fees, keep your cattle off public lands, restrict them to your OWN property. Now had Uncle Sammy said we’re taking your land, that would be a different cause for the male bovine fecal matter hitting the rotating ventilation blades. 3, 2, 1….My it’s getting warm.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Sorry bro… one problem with your theory. Nowhere in the CotUS is the federal government authorized to own land with the exceptions of D.C. and “needful buildings”. As such, the government has no authority to charge grazing fees in the first place as they are not the owners of said land. The land is held in public trust. If said land was being damaged, you might have and argument. Unfortunately for you, ranchers generally IMPROVE the value of the land they use by keeping brush under control and building improvements.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Irrelevant. The question is not the extent of the property clause, but if it applies at all given the lack of constitutional authority to own the property in question to begin with.

      1. avatar C Otto says:

        if your so opposed to all the laws written since the founding of this country, why not just say F#*k the ATF, the laws and their stupid arbitrary decision making and just go into business making non-registered full autos and silencers?

        Oh? Don’t really want to do that? Why not? We all KNOW that gun control laws are against the second amendment. So seriously, put your money where your mouth is and build and sell a bunch of full autos and see what happens. Don’t like paying taxes? Just stop paying them and see what happens. I’m sure the IRS will just give you a pass.

        Just cause you say “it’s not in the constitution” doesn’t make it so. We are a nation of laws. Some good, some bad, some are pointless. But it’s the law. There are lots of laws I don’t like, but we still have to abide by them. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

        The land was not his. His family had the opportunity to buy the land, but chose to rent it rather than paying taxes on it. Until they didn’t like to pay for it anymore and stopped. Every other rancher that grazes on federal land pays rent. It saves them money by not having to pay taxes on the land. Bundy was a greedy bastard that just didn’t want to pay anymore and now owes in excess of 2 million. Think the IRS is gonna be lenient if you stopped paying taxes for 20 years?

        Did the BLM mishandle the situation? Yes, absolutely. Was Bundy in the right? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Don’t like paying taxes? Just stop paying them and see what happens. I’m sure the IRS will just give you a pass.

          They will give your a pass. Dude. Like 150 million people do this already:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

        2. avatar The Punisher says:

          If supposedly patriotic 2A loving Americans would back somebody up when they make a stand then I’m sure there would be many who would do so. Montana and Wyoming have State laws that say that if machine guns are made in that respective state, including the raw materials and not sold outside of state borders then it doesn’t activate the commerce clause. Nobody has taken them up on it yet because everyone would chicken out and not back up any company or person who did so because they would in fact be sued or arrested by the Feds.

          Look at the issue in Kansas. Similar law there and the guy making the suppressors and selling them is labeled an idiot or a douche or a criminal. That man is more of a patriot than almost anyone else I know and yet I don’t see the supposed “people of the gun” rallying around him.

          And in fact if you want to stop the machine then you do have to stop feeding the machine. If there was a massive tax protest and nobody filed and quit paying you had better believe that it would get the .gov attention…but everyone just pays up like good little brainwashed zombies. And the few who do try to stand up just get made examples of to keep the masses in line.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Pwrserge, you’re doing a good job. I’m being lazy today and don’t want to debate them over this nonsense.

        To me, it’s just funny. The government basically seizes all this land for “public” use. Then when people want to use it, they start taxing the shit out them for using it. Later if they need some money they can occasionally “sell” the land back to people to make it private property. 1/3 of all the land in the United States “supposedly” belongs to the federal government. Land that plenty of people would like to have and could use, and the government uses it as a source of income – nothing more. Just tax and control. Their two favorite items.

    2. avatar Jeb Bush says:

      Yeah I pay taxes so I can look on a map and see 800 us military bases all over the world, oh boy I feel real safe at night. Or maybe I pay taxes because I like the feeling of being raped.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        Jeb, you did get raped by Trump in the primaries.

      2. avatar I1ULUZ says:

        Jeb

        Only IF, your mother had swallowed or daddy pulled out then Iraq would not be a steaming pile of cow patties. ISIS or any other flavor of feral crazies would not be running around screaming due to your brother’s greed for their oil fields. 4000 American service members would be alive, untold number never affected by their time in that steaming pile. Never had a Arab Spring, Syria would not have had a civil war, Libya would not be a failed state. So I think your family helped add to the number of US bases out of CONUS, don’t you think? And the rise of the number of DoD contractors nursing off DoD teat costing more than gov employees. So a big THANKS for your family’s actions.

  16. avatar Joe in San Antonio says:

    If it wasn’t for Malcolm X and the real threat of a race war MLK never would have been. King George rejected our petition of grievances and we had to take recourse on the matter. Non violence is a great recourse but eventually as a last recourse you need to be willing and able to fight.

  17. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    The Bundy’s are/were turd burglars in how they handled both “Bundy” incidents. HOWEVER, the Feds did try to illegally raise the grazing fees back in ’93, but that bid fell through. Bundy should have paid his fees for using public land after the illegal move was stopped, but he didn’t. He got a free pass for over 20 years, which is wrong.

    BUT the Feds really don’t have the authority to run public lands in this manner anyway. The BLM nor Feds never purchased this land from NV. They just kept control of it after granting statehood to NV. They have NO constitutional authority to do this. None.

    The Feds also handled this situation *entirely* inappropriately. They could have forced his livestock back on his land, fenced it, and sent him a bill along with the IRS dropping him a letter. Hell, two plainclothes agents serving him would have been just fine. But no. The statist dbags of .gov love nothing more than propaganda, so they armed and armored up enough police to crush the rebel scum and would have definitely ran Waco 2.0 if given the opportunity. The BLM needs to justify their existence after all.

    In short, both sides are wrong. Way wrong. The actions of .gov firmly put a lot of us against our benevolent overlords, whether we supported the Bundys or not.

    Oh, and then they ambushed and killed Finicum because they could.

    1. avatar DrewR says:

      I pretty much agree. I feel you said that more clearly and succinctly than I could.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    The brave government agents should have treated the Bundys the same way they treated the Branch Davidians and the Weavers and shot all the children of Bundy and his followers, and maybe their dogs too.

    That would have taught Bundy a lesson he’d never forget, which is that we all must kneel before the power of the Almighty Federal Government.

  19. avatar Darkman says:

    Keep in mind what the Bundy’s did was exactly what was done in 1774. Standing up to an oppressive Government.

  20. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    go look up the concept of adversarial possession, then ask yourself why:
    A) Bundy stopped paying fees but kept using the land
    B) why the government tried to use force instead of the courts to prevent him from grazing his cattle.

    When you put it all together, let me know

  21. avatar ozzallos says:

    Let’s be honest– The only reason Bundy became a thing was not because Bundy was a True and Righteous Defender of the Constitution of the United States of America and Land Rights Everywhere, but because the event happened at a time when government intrusion into citizen rights was at an all-time high under the Obama administration. This was The People’s middle finger and Bundy happened to be a convenient rallying point for it.

    His troubles were a catalyst representing greater angst, not because he was on solid legal ground or even a great guy. Regardless, the quote is probably true.

  22. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Bundys were right and the government was wrong. Thank god for the founders and for them who gave us the Second amendment. The Left is terrified of the second amendment.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email