If this is the reaction to 800 cows being where the federal government says they can't be,?

What kind of reaction can we expect from future federal laws? Do you think this is one more step toward people saying no to the federal government on other issues? It seems like there is a lot of hatred building up out there.

Update:

I don't support this guy breaking the law! That wasn't my question.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hopefully people will realize how much grazing is done on public lands and the damage it is doing to watersheds, wildlife and forage. Sacred cows are grazing at the public trough. In natural forests, on BLM land and thousands of head of cattle are grazing for nominal fees which don't come close to paying for management of these lands. By allowing this grazing the government is subsidizing hundreds of ranchers who are getting rich at the taxpayers expense.

    • Steven S
      Lv 4
      6 years agoReport

      The BLM set the rates and agreed to manage the lands and ranches. They failed. They aren't subsidizing anyone and it hasn't cost the taxpayers a single dime. He was maintaining the land, he was growing the grass and weeds. When he offered the money to the County, they turned it down.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    If the Government changes policy and then prevents the owners of the cattle from removing their property from grazing areas that are suddenly no longer accessible, even though the owners of the cattle are complying with the policy change, who is the thief?

    If the Government is stealing your property you are likely to react in a manner that is directed toward the recovery of your losses.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Sarah
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    You can't be serious. The government has asked him to remove his cattle or pay to use the property for 22 years. He has refused to do either for 22 years, despite losing two court cases and repeatedly being asked politely to remove his cattle or pay to use the property.

    At what point would it be acceptable for republicans to take a more serious approach, as all other options had been exhausted. Why are you supporting the complete violation of the law?

    • Steven S
      Lv 4
      6 years agoReport

      They have no authority to do so. That's what this whole fiasco is about. The BLM violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The Federal Government is violating the law. The money that goes to the BLM is SUPPOSED to be used for the government to maintain the land and his ranch. They haven't.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    after 20 years of BS and law breaking, yes, that finally was their reaction... I guess you just want to ignore the laws?

    • Steven S
      Lv 4
      6 years agoReport

      The Federal Government is ignoring the law and you support that they are ignoring the law. That's what this whole ordeal is about. Try reading your constitution every once in a while. It's there to protect you from the Federal Government.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    This was a reaction to a Government out of control, Tyranny will not be tolerated in the USA.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Yes, here's my reaction to one:

    Honorable (Official):

    We citizens and our right to military weapons are always the final arbiter in conflicts between us and exploitative, oppressive, and/or repressive government.  That is regardless of promises from a never perfectly trustworthy government including even the Supreme Court.

    I will no longer accept any illicit, unconstitutional infringements of our right to weapons, particularly ones necessary for keeping government under our control.  It is ever more certain people in authority intend to rule with the impunity they were denied by the anti-Federalist farmer and tradesmen authors of our Bill of Rights.

    You swore to honor that and other safeguards for our liberty.  Most of you in office blatantly violate those highest laws of the land and do so to serve themselves and the protection racket they help perpetrate upon the public.

    You are not capable of protecting that public and you never will be. Your offices even make us defenseless against criminals among us so we will be defenseless against them.

    I informed legislators in the past I would not tolerate their interference in the minimum weapons we need to keep authorities under check: semiautomatic rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines.

    Because authorities have and still do persistently try to eliminate or restrict those and other weapons we need I will no longer honor any firearms restrictions past, present, or future.

    Respectfully anyway,

    Source(s): For decades I studied philosophies, cultures, and social institutions. I began that because of confusion resulting from my military experience under the shadow of neo-Marxist anti-military and anti-capitalism indoctrination in the universities. I continue a forty year quest looking for some truth in the pile of stinking crap a wide variety of bigots made by blaming people or practices they don't like while excusing people or practices they do like regardless of where the fault really lies.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • jimmy
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    so long as a hard core Leftists is in the Oval Office we can expect these types of actions often, remember the Feds taking Elian Gonzalez at gun point when Clinton was in office!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Bill
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    could be the start of a new revolution. the guy broke no law by the way.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    But it must all be racist since liberals say it's racist, and boy do they know racist, racistly speaking.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.