- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Hey let's not forget guns! This is a gun forum right?
Gun forum? Where?
Hey let's not forget guns! This is a gun forum right?
My sympathy for the ranchers is limited. If they have to use someone elses property forever to make a buck, then get the hell out.
Regards,
Doug
I have always suspected that several people here would faint at the sight of one in real life... so don't upset them.Gun forum? Where?
Hey let's not forget guns! This is a gun forum right?
Doug, I think you're oversimplifying it. They don't get the land use for free, generally, they have to lease it. Which implies a contract. Which is binding for both parties. The water rights were also purchased.
According to my source, the thing going on with Hammond is very separate from the Bundy take-over thing. He said that Bundy is deluded by some form of Mormon extremism which makes him believe that the Constitution is a divine document like scripture, and that he has a kind of warped understanding of what it says. So Bundy's holdout is kinda silly.
But the thing going on with the Hammonds is different and has been an ongoing fight with the tree-hugging bambifiles within the federal agencies in the area, who are trying to rid the land of cattle and make it once again unblemished by evil mankind, returning it to the Mother of Nature. This is also kinda silly.
Much of that land used to belong to the ranchers, privately held, until the FWS pulled some shenanigans to force them to sell, you know, because of the tree-hugger thing.
The fires that were set started on Hammond's land and spread to federal lands which were leased by Hammond. The whole "deer slaughter" cover-up narrative was "witnessed" by a person who at the time of the fire was a teenager who happened to have a grudge against the Hammonds.
I'd have my reservations about a person who believes the Constitution is akin to scripture. I don't dislike any particular person due to their faith, but I hold Mormonism at the same level as I do Islam... which means I think they're both wrong. Christianity and Mormonism do not reconcile, and I think mos Christians would be surprised if they took time to learn about the faith.
Doug - I agree with many of the points that you are trying to make. PARTICULARLY about where Bundy and Co are going outside the law. That said, one point stands out kind of glaringly...
Do you really mean that I must own the land that my business relies on? What about the dude that runs a restaurant? Does he need to own the strip shopping center where he runs his business? Or is it ok to lease the property long term and invest his time and money in the business rather than his real estate? What about the convenience store owner? I've done work for a privately owned company that brings in 3.5 BILLION a year in revenue with around 200 convenience stores. They uhhhhh... LEASE the land that their stores sit on. This enables them to do what they do best with their capital.
I fail to see how the ranchers in Nevada or anywhere else are different. The reality is, the Fed gov't (well originally the State gov't owns massive chunks of the available land. So the cattlemen LEASE it from the owner. Long term.
One of the drawbacks of leasing is that landlord-tenant law applies, and as you state, sometimes that leads to disagreements. Contracts have a way of doing that. That is what we have courts for , in my opinion. And that is where Bundy/Hammond/whoever has a beef with it should be going
I'm all for anybody worshipping any way they please. I too have a problem with anyone taking the extreme position that the Constitution is akin to scripture. That is an extreme view - just like the others I mentioned. The LDS church came out swiftly AGAINST the folks in question and reiterated the basic belief that we work within the governments we live under to change things, and that if there was a beef here (excuse the pun) it belonged in a court of law. I provided the link. NOTE: I clarified things above
As for whether anyone believes as Mormons do (or any other religion), c'est la vie. My advice to all is this - if you wish to learn about Judaism, talk to a rabbi (or another Jewish resource). If you want to learn about Islam, talk to a local Imam. Heck if I wanted to learn about Glocks - talk to a Glock armorer like Charlie (NHT3). (Not sure who to talk to about those crazy Hi-Points, they are the Jehovah's Witnesses of the gun world - grin...) Same applies for anything. It's a free country - choose what you believe (or don't) and no worries.
I've got lots of friends of all different stripes. Some think I'm out of my freaking mind for believing as I do. Others respect it but don't choose to go there themselves. Doesn't mean I can't break bread, go shooting and have a good time with them.
Responding to Jamil.
I think you're missing the point that this is totally irrelevant to the fact that they have to use someone else's property in order to stay in business. This is not a sound, long term business model.
I agree that these are two (2) separate incidents, but the "fighting big brother with force of arms" seems to run through both by a Bundy. I do not fault the Hammonds on this single issue. I really don't care what delusions Cliven Bundy or Ammon are under. They are criminals who try to use something that is not theirs. This is like Israel settling land that they claim isn't Palestinian. Fine, it's not Palestinian. HOWEVER, it isn't within your agreed upon 1967 boarders either, so it isn't yours and you shouldn't be settling there. Even if the Feds shouldn't own the land near the Bundys, the fact is the Bundy's didn't buy it so it is not theirs to use.
Seeing as how we have witnessed the extinction of dozens of species of animals in the last century or so in our own country I find it difficult to be so flippant about this issue. It would be logical to presume that thousands of head of cattle would do so little damage to a vast area of land, especially as it isn't the most verdant in the first place. This damage would have a major impact on all wildlife in the area, so I don't see it as being completely unreasonable to protect said wildlife.
I don't understand the "pulled some shenanigans" part. Does this mean they may(?) have enforced some provision of the contract that I alluded to upstream? If so, then their reasoning is irrelevant to the fact that they are operating within the bounds of the contract that was signed.
In the case point I read there were "witness's" to the deer slaughter, as in more than one (1). As this is the case, even IF we ignore the teenager who has had his credibility attacked there was at least one (1) other witness who testified against the Hammonds. Therefore, I find this premise to be on more solid ground than others. And even if I lease some wilderness from you, there will be certain stipulations that I cannot damage it in certain ways, like the Hammond's did.
I still have little sympathy for these folks. If it were their property that they had bought I WOULD SUPPORT THEM 100%. The fact is that it isn't theirs, and they have kept to a business model that requires their use of someone else's land.
My uncle was a cattle farmer right here in Indiana, down outside of Decatur. He owned two (2) properties with about 160 acres total. He raised cattle for dairy. He was able to support himself, his wife, and about seven (7) kids. I stayed with him for a week or two on my summer vacation. He got up before dawn and came in dirty and worn out after dusk. He always had something to do, whether it was feeding, milking, repairing, or maintaining. If cattle can be ranched profitably in Indiana or Ohio or Hawaii or Nebraska but not in certain sections of Oregon, guess what? Get the hell out of Oregon for cattle ranchers and seek business opportunities elsewhere.
Most of us agree the original source of this controversy, the Hammonds being resentenced to 5 years was unjust. The only legal recourse for them now is to have the president commute their sentence.
I do hope that someone, somewhere has learned that flexing the government muscle isn't always the right choice (in this case appealing the original sentence).
One thing you can do for these people (who are NOT the people taking over the wildlife refuge) is sign the petition. It may go nowhere, but it's worth a shot.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...even-dwight-hammond-both-harney-county-oregon