Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Why is the BLM armed?
Because they are BLM law enforcement officers. They were there to enforce the law.

Law enforcement. Cops. Evicting trespass cattle from public land. Enforcing the law. They're not British, so most folks would expect them to be armed with more than a billy club.

Why were a bunch of armed civilians there, on public land, with high powered rifles aimed at law enforcement officers who were enforcing the law? What principle or law were they enforcing?

I know, you have a blinding prejudice against the gummit and so everything the gummit does is bad. But that doesn't make you right, it just makes you a sucker for the Koch brothers white line.

Now back to the economics question, Mr. Fiscal Conservative - why do you sympathize with a blatant recipient of government welfare? You really must come to grips with that before your head blows up. smile



So, you have no problem with the government arming all of their management departments? How about we arm the OMB? They have, after all, management in their name. Or how about we arm EPA, they have an important job to do when they plant evidence. The real question is why are all of these agencies armed to begin with? I trust a bunch of armed civilians more than I trust a bunch of armed government employees. In general, armed civilians are much safer to be around than armed feds.

Quote:
Now back to the economics question, Mr. Fiscal Conservative - why do you sympathize with a blatant recipient of government welfare? You really must come to grips with that before your head blows up


If Bundy is using federal land to graze what is the damage? He actually produces something that contributes to the economy. I have no problem charging him to graze his cattle, I have a problem with the Federal government owning 87% of a state's land.

The Federal government is supposed to be a governing body, not a landlord. They own military bases, official offices and national parks. They should not be the majority land owner in a state. Actually, they shouldn't be a minority large enough to potentially damage the viability of any state.

Do you really care if Bundy lets his cattle graze on lane that is undeveloped and probably better suited for grazing than anything else? This isn't about corporate welfare, this is about common sense. Turn the land over to NV and let them collect the grazing fees, or not collect them if they so choose.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson