Hey, I'm just going with what you said in the other topic.  Don't see how $4800 is any less unreasonable than $1,000,000.

 

And I don't see a problem with the Federal Government charging people in exchange for a service on their land.  If a private organization did it, you'd be fine with it I'm sure.

This is a case of laws being ok when you don't like the criminal and being wrong when you do like the criminal. 

---

The picture that DragonFury linked doesn't show him "aiming" at anything.  He is simply using his scope as a "set of binoculars".  He is not in firing position at all.

1: He doesn't have a scope, so he can't use one as binoculars.

2: Even if he did and he wanted to use them as binoculars he wouldn't be peering through a 1/2 inch gap with an extremely limited field of view.

3: Any competent person would know better to point a firearm at federal personnel or any living being for that matter, regardless of the reason. 

---

As you like to point out a lot, that's a completely different argument. the grazing requires a permit to do so. To not have one is illegal and is trespassing.


Are you in favor of trespassing?

For hundreds of years the grazing did not require a permit. The permits are simply another tax on ranchers. In this case yes I support non compliance which is trespassing here. There is no justification, authority, or reason the federal government is holding 155 million acres other than to charge ranchers permits. Over half of the blm cost are administrative cost so they created a system to tax ranchers to support the administrative cost of collecting the tax.


It's an example of complete infringement at the federal level.

---

This is a case of laws being ok when you don't like the criminal and being wrong when you do like the criminal.

In the civil fine thread I clearly stated the problem is the existence of those laws in the first place.

---

Hey, I'm just going with what you said in the other topic. Don't see how $4800 is any less unreasonable than $1,000,000.


And I don't see a problem with the Federal Government charging people in exchange for a service on their land. If a private organization did it, you'd be fine with it I'm sure.

Your right if a private company purchased 155 million acres and wanted to charge for access id be fine with it, why because that is commerce. The government is not a commerce organization, it's representation of the people two completely different roles. When you mix governments complete authority and use it as a tool for commerce you have violated the markets ability to compete and control cost.


Again I ask what is the purpose of these permits other than to fund another federal agency?

---

Look at the situation from this point of view.


The protesters were defending a rancher from un-reasonable seizure/destruction of his property. They were not violating any laws, nor were they being destructive to private and/or public property. They were also in no way acting aggressively towards any law enforcement.


Next look at the occupy protesters. They were violating city ordinances, littering, defecating and destroying public property, and were being disruptive.


Next look at what happened in Ferguson. A black felon gets killed by a white police officer legally, and people start to riot. They were looting, destroying public and private property and being very hostile towards law enforcement.


My point is, you seem to be looking at it and perceiving it from a racial "black vs. white" point of view rather than looking at the actions and demeanor of the people involved. Take race out of it all together and just look at the actions (reality).

No, I see where you're coming from... there are different facts that can be viewed from different perspectives... and I can concede that.


However, my point boils down to this one thing, certain protesters are treated better than others. Again, if a black dude, or Muslim in a turbin, or a deadlocked hippy with adv occupy shirt on was crouched down looking through a scope of an AR, I think reactions would be different... But that's just my perspective.

---

For hundreds of years the grazing did not require a permit. The permits are simply another tax on ranchers. In this case yes I support non compliance which is trespassing here. There is no justification, authority, or reason the federal government is holding 155 million acres other than to charge ranchers permits. Over half of the blm cost are administrative cost so they created a system to tax ranchers to support the administrative cost of collecting the tax.


It's an example of complete infringement at the federal level.

 

 

In the civil fine thread I clearly stated the problem is the existence of those laws in the first place.

But you are ok with the massive penalties in other thread because those are the real criminals in your eyes. It's ok for them to get penalties for not being able to pay fines on top of private industry making money off of them. Some crusty old rancher that decides he doesn't like a law that's been in effect in for multiple decades so willfully breaks it and then calls in an army when the gov decides finally to enforce his penalty is a hero to you. It's hypocrisy at it's finest. 

---

Your right if a private company purchased 155 million acres and wanted to charge for access id be fine with it, why because that is commerce. The government is not a commerce organization, it's representation of the people two completely different roles. When you mix governments complete authority and use it as a tool for commerce you have violated the markets ability to compete and control cost.

Again I ask what is the purpose of these permits other than to fund another federal agency?

They help to fund the national parks service as well. I get the feeling however, you would be in favor private industry owning our parks and therefore being able to raze them and put in more starbucks and condos. 

 

Regardless of weather you agree or disagree with the law, he willfully broke the law and as you pointed out in the traffic violation thread,  he should pay the price. Would you take the same stance with the traffic violators were they to call in friends with guns to avoid paying their fines? I highly doubt it. 

---

They help to fund the national parks service as well. I get the feeling however, you would be in favor private industry owning our parks and therefore being able to raze them and put in more starbucks and condos. 

 

Regardless of weather you agree or disagree with the law, he willfully broke the law and as you pointed out in the traffic violation thread,  he should pay the price. Would you take the same stance with the traffic violators were they to call in friends with guns to avoid paying their fines? I highly doubt it. 

Actually I don't support privatized parks, national parks serve a purpose. They are a hands-off area the public has designated to industry, these area's require upkeep which is why there's a charge for access. This goes back to the point there is a purpose for the government to hold this land, the public has decided we want this land preserved undeveloped for the enjoyment of society. 

 

Now the land that the BLM is claiming and charging ranchers for requires no upkeep and is claimed by the federal government solely for the purpose of taxing ranchers. This isn't managed land, it's grasslands across the west that cattle have grazed on for centuries. Again look at the budget of the BLM over half of it's budget is in administrative cost of collecting, tracking and distributing these grazing permits. It's an agency created to tax simply to support the existence of the agency.

 

As for the fines, would I support armed resistance to the fines. Well for it to be an applicable scenario the federal government would have of seized private property. For example if the federal government claimed in Oregon you now have to pay an access fee to use the highways, which is crap because people have been using highways for decades without fee's. But nope the newly created Federal Division of Highway Management is overseeing the highway system in Oregon and you sir must pay an additional tax for access. Well you refused to pay that tax? we are going to now confiscate your vehicles. Damn straight I'd support armed resistance.

---

Here it is in a picture, where the hell is a rancher supposed to graze his cattle?

 

---

Actually I don't support privatized parks, national parks serve a purpose. They are a hands-off area the public has designated to industry, these area's require upkeep which is why there's a charge for access. This goes back to the point there is a purpose for the government to hold this land, the public has decided we want this land preserved undeveloped for the enjoyment of society. 

 

Now the land that the BLM is claiming and charging ranchers for requires no upkeep and is claimed by the federal government solely for the purpose of taxing ranchers. This isn't managed land, it's grasslands across the west that cattle have grazed on for centuries. Again look at the budget of the BLM over half of it's budget is in administrative cost of collecting, tracking and distributing these grazing permits. It's an agency created to tax simply to support the existence of the agency.

 

As for the fines, would I support armed resistance to the fines. Well for it to be an applicable scenario the federal government would have of seized private property. For example if the federal government claimed in Oregon you now have to pay an access fee to use the highways, which is crap because people have been using highways for decades without fee's. But nope the newly created Federal Division of Highway Management is overseeing the highway system in Oregon and you sir must pay an additional tax for access. Well you refused to pay that tax? we are going to now confiscate your vehicles. Damn straight I'd support armed resistance.

He willfully violated the law that's been in place for multiple decades.

 

He trespassed on land illegally. That comes with fines, fines he chose to ignore. The courts than told the BLM they could seize the illegally trespassing property. 

 

You are hypocritically defending one criminal because you agree with his ideology. If you disagree with laws then you work with your politicians to change them. You don't raise an army while calling for a range war sparking what we saw here. He had fines to pay and chose to ignore them. In the case of the traffic violators they end up in jail and you were ok with that but this guy is hero? You ignore the fact that it's illegal and give him a pass including his inflammatory call for war because you like his ideology. You have to see that right?

---

Here it is in a picture, where the hell is a rancher supposed to graze his cattle?

 

There is plenty of white there. Or he could continue to lawfully pay for the grazing permit like 40,000+ other ranchers do. Seems simple to me. 

---

He willfully violated the law that's been in place for multiple decades.

 

He trespassed on land illegally. That comes with fines, fines he chose to ignore. The courts than told the BLM they could seize the illegally trespassing property. 

 

You are hypocritically defending one criminal because you agree with his ideology. If you disagree with laws then you work with your politicians to change them. You don't raise an army while calling for a range war sparking what we saw here. He had fines to pay and chose to ignore them. In the case of the traffic violators they end up in jail and you were ok with that but this guy is hero? You ignore the fact that it's illegal and give him a pass including his inflammatory call for war because you like his ideology. You have to see that right?

 

I'm arguing against the existence of this law from the start. No one has argued against the existence of a speed limit. So the arguments are not the same, if a law is not justifiable in ALL cases I support non-compliance, I'm very consistent in that regard. Now if you're taking the road of non-compliance then confrontation is inevitable. To assume the system can always be corrected from working within the confides of the system is assuming the system is correctable. If an access fee was charged for you to drive on the highway for example (A government toll you can call it) I'd take the same stand what right does the federal government have to charge a toll for access, those roads belong to the public (we paid for them). That land long before the government went broke in the 1930's was used to graze cattle, so because the Feds need a fund raiser the ranchers should just bend over and pay for access to land they've been grazing for generations? 

 

I'm not as much of a pacifist as Bundy is, he tried to keep the waters calm and regardless of his outdated views on race worked to stop a confrontation. I'm a bit more pro-confrontation, the Fed needs to be confronted and challenged it's out of control.

 

Now if you want to pretend ranchers fighting fee's for access to land is the same as a thief who stole products from another private entity and then not paying his probation fee's we're on two different levels.

 

 

There is plenty of white there. Or he could continue to lawfully pay for the grazing permit like 40,000+ other ranchers do. Seems simple to me. 

 

You see plenty of white in the west?

---

1: He doesn't have a scope, so he can't use one as binoculars.

2: Even if he did and he wanted to use them as binoculars he wouldn't be peering through a 1/2 inch gap with an extremely limited field of view.

3: Any competent person would know better to point a firearm at federal personnel or any living being for that matter, regardless of the reason. 

 

1.  It's hard to tell from the picture if he does or doesn't.  I based my assessment based on the positions of his hands as well as how the weapon is placed.

2.  The gap is much more than 1/2 inch since most of the rifle is fitted between the concrete barricades.  Also, he probably doesn't want to be seen in plain view pointing a firearm in that manner, so he's doing it in a way that wouldn't spark trouble.

3.  Yes, the "average" responsible firearm owner would not do such a thing, myself included even though I have been trained.  However, neither you or I know this guy's background or profession.  For all we know he could be an off-duty cop or soldier.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm arguing against the existence of this law from the start. No one has argued against the existence of a speed limit. So the arguments are not the same, if a law is not justifiable in ALL cases I support non-compliance, I'm very consistent in that regard. Now if you're taking the road of non-compliance then confrontation is inevitable. To assume the system can always be corrected from working within the confides of the system is assuming the system is correctable. If an access fee was charged for you to drive on the highway for example (A government toll you can call it) I'd take the same stand what right does the federal government have to charge a toll for access, those roads belong to the public (we paid for them). That land long before the government went broke in the 1930's was used to graze cattle, so because the Feds need a fund raiser the ranchers should just bend over and pay for access to land they've been grazing for generations? 

 

I'm not as much of a pacifist as Bundy is, he tried to keep the waters calm and regardless of his outdated views on race worked to stop a confrontation. I'm a bit more pro-confrontation, the Fed needs to be confronted and challenged it's out of control.

 

Now if you want to pretend ranchers fighting fee's for access to land is the same as a thief who stole products from another private entity and then not paying his probation fee's we're on two different levels.

 

 

 

You see plenty of white in the west?

Plenty people have advocated the removal of speed limits. It's a nanny state thing isn't it? 

 

State ran tolls are a thing already and you yourself have advocated privatizing all roads as if those would have tolls on them. You would be ok with those tolls though. 

 

The problem here is you take issue with the government operating, in some cases (but not others for some reason you wont elaborate on) as private industry does and making money to fund operations. I don't see the problem in that. Why should the gov not make any money off lands it owns and use those monies to fund other programs? 

 

I am not pretending anything. I am stating the legal stance that he was trespassing and grazing with a permit in willful and direct violation of the law. This has been upheld by multiple courts multiple times. We can argue wether the land should be grazable (is that a word?) at no fee all we want but that does not ignore the current law on the books that has been upheld by the courts showing he is in violation of the law. 

---

1. It's hard to tell from the picture if he does or doesn't. I based my assessment based on the positions of his hands as well as how the weapon is placed.

2. The gap is much more than 1/2 inch since most of the rifle is fitted between the concrete barricades. Also, he probably doesn't want to be seen in plain view pointing a firearm in that manner, so he's doing it in a way that wouldn't spark trouble.

3. Yes, the "average" responsible firearm owner would not do such a thing, myself included even though I have been trained. However, neither you or I know this guy's background or profession. For all we know he could be an off-duty cop or soldier.

I appreciate all the benefits of the doubt you give to that white man with whom you identify with politically.


I would hope that you provide the same grace to those with whom you do not identify with.

---