But hey, he had it coming, breaking the law, didn't he? Just like the kid sent to prison for a small amount of weed right? Or not registering for the draft in the 60s, right?
Strange that the Flower Children are now all hip to the Law and Order message.
6 comments:
We must obey the law. Just like the president and his administration do.
Thanks for that, PH. :) So now we should all promise to obey it to the same extent that they do.
Well, THEIR version of the law (this week)...
Item of note, just to clarify:
The irrigation infrastructure that was destroyed was not on Bundy's land. It was illegally installed on BLM land.
I think that changes the understanding of the situation a little bit, at least. The way the link was written, you'd have thought they went on his land and tore his stuff down.
Imagine if I built a cabin in the National Forest, used it for a couple of years, and then a forest service ranger found it. They'd tear it down, wouldn't they? It has no right to be there. it's a improvement built illegally on public ground.
Travesty? Or common sense?
I'll say it again, just to make myself clear - once they went all SWAT team and "bully with a badge" on Bundy, the BLM was in the wrong. Up to that point, they were not in the wrong at all.
Read "the tragedy of the commons." It's actually perfect because the example it uses is grazing on public ground, coincidentally.
It is both an argument that ground should not be publicly owned, but it is also an argument that IF ground IS publicly owned, it absolutely, positively CAN NOT be a "free-for-all" or the ground would become overgrazed and useless.
Bundy is arguing, and acting in support of, a "free-for-all" and that is just wrong on a million different levels.
The BLM decided that for various reasons, the ground was being overgrazed and that grazing needed to be reduced. Bundy said "go to hell, I'll do whatever I want" and then acts all shocked when the BLM said "uhhh, no. You won't"
I've been cutting trees on a section of National Forest for most of my life. I did so under permit.
This year, let's say i decide to go cut and cut trees without the permission of the property owner (NFS, in this case).
I deforest an entire hillside before the forest service shows up, and then I get out my guns and run them off, claiming that I've got a natural claim to the ground because I've been cutting wood there my entire life.
That's ridiculous, isn't it?
Would any of you support me in that?
Here's an interesting article from Breitbart. Can't swear to its veracity, but this is exactly the sort of muscle flexing the government is about these days. I'm not sure what the status of that land is, but I believe that at least some of it is privately held.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/21/The-Eyes-of-the-BLM-are-on-Texas
Here is a very interesting map that shows how much land is 'owned' by the feds, oh, I mean that is PUBLIC LAND.
http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/all_us_public_lands_0.jpg
Post a Comment