Wildlife vs. Welfare Ranchers

[wildcat junkie]

I am sure the shop owners would have preferred that. 

 

You mean after all the bullet holes from 50 cal Browning M2s & drone strikes are over & the place looks like an "urban" area in Iraq?

Edited January 12, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

Open carry in America.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvW_zBvJlsA

[wildcat junkie]

Dumba$$ cap doesn't even open the bolt when he picks up the weapon.

 

Here's another example of open carry rights, but this time it's an air rifle.

 

 

 

 

[Mr VJP]

The real issue boils down to private property and the federal government. Liberals and other defenders of the power of the state over the individual assume the government owns the majority of land in the West and it graciously allows ranchers to use it provided they pay reasonable fees. If challenged on this premise, liberals usually cite the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Proponents of state power over the individual argue the Property Clause permits a centralized federal government to hold state lands for a variety of reasons–presently and popularly for liberals to preserve wildlife and the environment–but this interpretation (known as the “police-power theory”) runs counter to the original purpose of the clause.

Thomas W. Merrill, a law professor at Columbia Law Schools, cites a court ruling to explain the original concept of the Property Clause:

"A leading nineteenth-century exposition of the constitutional authority of the federal government over federal lands, Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885), is generally consistent with [the original understanding of the Property Clause]. There, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that the authority of the federal government over territories is “necessarily paramount.” 

But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an “individual proprietor.”

 The federal government can exercise rights of general sovereignty over property only if there has been a formal cession of sovereignty by the state under the Enclave Clause. Justice Field qualified this vision of separated sovereignty, however, by noting that if the federal government acquires land outside the Enclave Clause, any federal forts, buildings, or other installations erected on such land “will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the State as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed.”

The Enclave clause limits federal government ownership of land to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings,” including post offices and post roads.

A better understanding of the issue can be had by reading Robert G. Natelson’s Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding (University of Colorado Law Review, 2005).

“The Enclave Clause was sold to the ratifying public on the basis that enclaves would be relatively small. Holding massive tracts of undeveloped land (such as in Yosemite National Park, nearly 750,000 acres) as enclaves is not what the Founders had in mind,” writes Natelson.

Under this original and subsequently diluted understanding of the Property and Enclave Clause—most recently with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976—the Bureau of Land Management has no right to hold land and should have long ago disposed of it. (Moreover, it can be argued, the BLM itself is an unconstitutional and therefore illegal entity.)

Unfortunately, due to the impulsive behavior of Ammond Bundy and his crew in Oregon, the corporate media has aggressively pushed the government’s stance on the Property Clause and its unconstitutional domination over millions of acres of land around the United States.

It is indeed unfortunate the Constitution—misread and turned into a cudgel for state power with the help of the corporate media—has been overshadowed by the irresponsible actions of a gang of self-defined patriots who are doing absolutely nothing constructive for the cause of individual rights and private property.

Instead, they have allowed the media to portray constitutionalists and other advocates of liberty as little more than armed fanatics bent on starting a war with the federal government.

[Skillet]

I guess the next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man, the local black community should heavily arm themselves & "peacefully" take over a city park.

Or riot like animals. Burning, & vandalizing a city.

Wait, that sounds familiar.

[Skillet]

Murica & all that $HIT!

You are a disgrace.

[greg54]

You are a disgrace.

 Yes, I the Colonel, am a Liberal disgrace

[Skillet]

I giggle every time, Greg. It never gets old.

[ants]

You mean after all the bullet holes from 50 cal Browning M2s & drone strikes are over & the place looks like an "urban" area in Iraq?

LOL!!!.. WTF goes on in your head???.. LOL!!!

[wildcat junkie]

You are a disgrace.

 

You are a delusional obedient sheep!

[wildcat junkie]

I giggle every time, Greg. It never gets old.

 

Dullards are easily amused.

[wildcat junkie]

LOL!!!.. WTF goes on in your head???.. LOL!!!

 

So you think the militarized Gestapo police will allow armed black people to "peacefully" take over government property like those thugs in Oregon?

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So you think the militarized Gestapo police will allow armed black people to "peacefully" take over government property like those thugs in Oregon?

 

Well they let them burn and loot without doing anything

[wildcat junkie]

I guess the next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man, the local black community should heavily arm themselves & "peacefully" take over a city park.

 

 

Or riot like animals. Burning, & vandalizing a city.

Wait, that sounds familiar.

By your response I take it you would support the armed take over of a city park by armed black people over a situation far more relavent than arsonists being sent to prison?

 

Try not to dodge the question this time.

[wildcat junkie]

Well they let them burn and loot without doing anything

 

No arrests, no beat downs, no tear gas? Many times on non violent "peaceful protesters" no less!

 

Then can I take it you would support the same response that the non violent protesters in Ferguson received to be used in Oregon?

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[Culvercreek hunt club]

No arrests, no beat downs, no tear gas? Many times on non violent "peaceful protesters" no less!

 

Then can I take it you would support the same response that the non violent protesters in Ferguson received to be used in Oregon?

 

Ii don't support the "protest" in Oregon. Wrong way to go about it. The Fed's are on a tight rope on this one though because of how they are armed and how divided the country is. They aren't in a city and it might be the the best approach to isolate them and wait it out. 

[Skillet]

By your response I take it you would support the armed take over of a city park by armed black people over a situation far more relavent than arsonists being sent to prison?

Try not to dodge the question this time.

I didn't dodge it at all. I guess you're pretty dull yourself. Here, I'll spell it out for you.

Black community response that you speak of: Ferguson.

Regardless of the issue, I don't think there's anyone who can honestly say that was a better way to handle things, than the peaceful occupation in Oregon.

[Skillet]

You are a delusional obedient sheep!

Yeah, I'm the sheep.

[Skillet]

No arrests, no beat downs, no tear gas? Many times on non violent "peaceful protesters" no less!

Then can I take it you would support the same response that the non violent protesters in Ferguson received to be used in Oregon?

Non violent?!!!! Are you kidding?

Who was talking about blacks or Ferguson, anyway? Great lib tactic there, throw the race card, then stand back & pick off the "racists".

Here, I'll make it easy for you: Michael Brown had it coming.

[wildcat junkie]

Non violent?!!!! Are you kidding?

Who was talking about blacks or Ferguson, anyway? Great lib tactic there, throw the race card, then stand back & pick off the "racists".

Here, I'll make it easy for you: Michael Brown had it coming.

 

Hey Skillet, seems like reading isn't your forte. Let me differentiate between the meaning of "many" & "all".

 

Many means a large number, all means every last one. Many were indeed looting & burning but "Many" of those people were walking down the street in a peaceful (and legal under the Constitution) protest.

 

How about the cop that pointed an AR-15 at a member of the press & threatened to kill him? Not sure if he was white or black if that would make any difference to you.

 

Micheal Brown also had a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Did John Crawford have it coming?

 

Being a "moderate Christian" myself I have to say you remind me of the so called "Conservative Christians" (now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one, Jesus was a socialist & a liberal by today's "conservative" standards) When they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on everyone, their "religious freedom" is being assailed. They're the only ones that deserve the constitutional right to religious freedom right?

 

 All these "constitutional scholars" on here want to cherry pick the parts of the constitution they want enforced. Just like "conservative Christians" want to cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to adhere to.

Edited January 13, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[greg54]

You are a delusional obedient sheep!

And I, the Colonel, am a delusional Liberal chicken!!

[Skillet]

We can't all be literary scholars, like yourself. Thanks for dumbing it down.

[wildcat junkie]

We can't all be literary scholars, like yourself. Thanks for dumbing it down.

 

Thanks I'm glad you were able to grasp it.

 

[wildcat junkie]

For those of you that think that the Hammonds were wrongly imprisoned, perhaps you should read the transcripts of the testimony at their trial contained in their grazing permit rejection.

 

Before you dismiss that as BLM propaganda, bear in mind that some of the testimony was from a member of the Hammond family & a hunting guide that witnesses the Hammonds "herd shooting" deer, wounding some of them as well as the firesthat were set by the Hammonds that nearly engulfed the campsite of the guide & his clients.

 

This is interesting. (this is PDF so you will have to download it) https://www.google.c...5,d.dmo&cad=rja

 

Take the time to read through the testimony that spells out the conduct of the Hammonds that endangered the lives of hunters & guides in the area they set ablaze.( A; pages 5-7) On yet another occasion the endangered the lives of fire fighters.(B; pages 7-14)

 

Of particular interest are the threats made on August 24 2006 (page 14) to BLM officials where Steve Hammond threatened to blame BLM for setting the fires if BLM "didn't make the investigation go away".

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Hey Skillet, seems like reading isn't your forte. Let me differentiate between the meaning of "many" & "all".

 

Many means a large number, all means every last one. Many were indeed looting & burning but "Many" of those people were walking down the street in a peaceful (and legal under the Constitution) protest.

 

How about the cop that pointed an AR-15 at a member of the press & threatened to kill him? Not sure if he was white or black if that would make any difference to you.

 

Micheal Brown also had a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Did John Crawford have it coming?

 

Being a "moderate Christian" myself I have to say you remind me of the so called "Conservative Christians" (now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one, Jesus was a socialist & a liberal by today's "conservative" standards) When they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on everyone, their "religious freedom" is being assailed. They're the only ones that deserve the constitutional right to religious freedom right?

 

 All these "constitutional scholars" on here want to cherry pick the parts of the constitution they want enforced. Just like "conservative Christians" want to cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to adhere to.

Jesus also taught individual accountability and responsibility. How does that fit into the "moderate" and "Liberal" Christian narrative?