Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The protesters vow they'll occupy the Federal building "for years". I'd like the authorities to cut the power & heat, seal off the place, then leave them alone and see how long they actually stay.
I strongly suspect that some clever agents provocateur and their handlers dreamed up this quixotic occupation of empty buildings in the middle of remotest nowhere...
... As winter sets in.
Draw in the most dedicated and well armed self-styled "patriots" -- The ones willing to drive great distances to get there, conveniently leaving their wives, kids and other noncombatant dependents out of the picture..
Plus, it draws in those who willingly break the law, i.e. by setting themselves up in a place they are not authorized to inhabit.
All... As winter sets in.
Already it is 20 degrees Fahrenheit and snow is falling.
Jam comms, block the road and it becomes not a matter of 'if' but of 'when' they straggle out...
OR the well armed militia radicals realize they've been led to a honey pot deluxe by agents provocateur and the camp devolves into a vengeance-fueled self cleaning oven.
Wait for trickles of info to begin trickling out: Pied Pipers have been at work luring the dedicated and potentially violent radicals far, far of the map
I thought you claimed our freedoms were being taken away because we can't buy large swaths of land out west? Yet when I look for large areas of land for sale, the vast majority of the large acreage's for sale are out west. It seems to me that your issues are entirely based on your ideology and have nothing to do with the real world.
Government action is the problem. Not being able to buy large swatchs of land because you lack the cash to do so is a private problem. Not being able to buy land because the government owns it all is a public problem.
Your original point was that federal control of land restricts the sovereignty of people within a state. This is a political concept and not a land tenure concept. All states have two senators. All states have a number of members in the house of representatives that is determined by their population. Therefore, all states have equal political power under the Constitution.
Land ownership has nothing to do with political rights or political power.
Its a bogus argument to say the very least.
They have equal political power yet they have no authority over lands within their own states?
So, if in fact it were easier to acquire large swaths of land in these states, would we not in fact have less control from the feds? 'coz that is the case, it is far easier to buy large swaths of land out west than in the east.
As others have pointed out, your argument is baloney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1
Because the fed controls the use of 80% of the land within the states. Which means people are unable to aquire property in major swaths of these states, so if you want to buy more grazing land and it is owned by the fed you are SOL.
This also means the amount of taxable land is drastically reduced impacting school funding within the state.
So, if in fact it were easier to acquire large swaths of land in these states, would we not in fact have less control from the feds? 'coz that is the case, it is far easier to buy large swaths of land out west than in the east.
As others have pointed out, your argument is baloney.
If less of the land in the state was federal land would states have more control? That is a pretty easy yes.
Why is tourism in Burns so poor? I thought federal retention of the land was to preserve tourism?
The states have no more or less control based on federal land ownership.
You made a specific claim as to why states have less control - and the claim was easily proven wrong. Your argument is dead in the water.
As to tourism in Burns, the city of Burns lists both the National Wildlife Refuge and the Steen Mountains (both public lands) as the major attractions on their home page - so at least Burns things their public lands are their primary tourist draws.
I thought you claimed our freedoms were being taken away because we can't buy large swaths of land out west? Yet when I look for large areas of land for sale, the vast majority of the large acreage's for sale are out west. It seems to me that your issues are entirely based on your ideology and have nothing to do with the real world.
35,700± deeded acres, 25,850± BLM lease acres, and 8,000± State of Wyoming lease acres. With no hay ground (because the gumbo soil out there won't grow it). Have to buy the winter feed. And 70,000 acres (!!!) to run 450 cows (OR a small band of sheep) and that is dependent of BLM and State lease.
Get crosswise of those agencies and you have nothing but some country to run a 4 wheeler on or to ride a horse around and check your fences.
The Feds are not supposed to "own" any land beyond forts and ports, basically. That is part of the issue lease holders have with the BLM. And why many don't recognize them as having authority/jurisdiction.
OK, so maybe you can show me where I can buy 35,700 acres in MA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by branDcalf
Psssh. Typical. 70,000 acres!!! Not quite.
35,700± deeded acres, 25,850± BLM lease acres, and 8,000± State of Wyoming lease acres. With no hay ground (because the gumbo soil out there won't grow it). Have to buy the winter feed. And 70,000 acres (!!!) to run 450 cows (OR a small band of sheep) and that is dependent of BLM and State lease.
Get crosswise of those agencies and you have nothing but some country to run a 4 wheeler on or to ride a horse around and check your fences.
The Feds are not supposed to "own" any land beyond forts and ports, basically. That is part of the issue lease holders have with the BLM. And why many don't recognize them as having authority/jurisdiction.
The states have no more or less control based on federal land ownership.
You made a specific claim as to why states have less control - and the claim was easily proven wrong. Your argument is dead in the water.
As to tourism in Burns, the city of Burns lists both the National Wildlife Refuge and the Steen Mountains (both public lands) as the major attractions on their home page - so at least Burns things their public lands are their primary tourist draws.
So states dont have control of federal land. They would not have more control if they had control of federal land... Is that what you are saying? Because wow, that's preposterous.
Unfortunately those federal lands dont seem to be making burns a great place to visit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
