Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokesan
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
uhh the bundy movement was because he refused to pay cattle grazing fees on public land
|
that partly is correct, that land is not owned by anyone, including a bureaucratic agency, why would someone pay to use it. These ranchers have been using that land for grazing for generations.
The standoff was becuse the bureacratic agency was trying to put outragous fines on the rancher to unfairlyl punish him for breaking a beurocratic law that he and the people of the area did not subscribe to: "law enforcement following a 21-year legal dispute in which the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) obtained court orders directing Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheld grazing fees"
It was the law of the LOCAL land, all the ranchers there agreed. However the FEDERAL Government didnt. And so they tried to infringe on their constitutional rights.
It was theft using overreaching goverment.
Think about it: You support indians having a stand off with a buisness entity that purchased the right to land, but you dont support individuals who have been using un owned land for generations to suddenly owe back payment to the goverment who claim they own the land.
Land is owned if someone buys it not if the goverment just tells you its theirs. this is not the king of englands right to hunt only type of country, you go there if you want to be told what to do and when to do it.