| pokoko said: The guns could have turned it into something worse. The exposure is what saved the day. However, I'm not sure I understand this. He's using land he doesn't own in order to make money but refuses to pay anything? While others do pay? I see no reason why I should be on this guy's side. |
He owns the mineral AND water rights to the land in question. Also he was paying for the grazing rights up until the BLM started to limit cattle head sizes and outright kicking other (paying) ranchers off the land. The BLM then started taking his cattle off the land and slaughtering/selling them without notice.
The rancher in question also has with his own money built roads and put up improvements on the land.
Supposedly, the BLM started doing this to relocate a turtle (someone correct me if I am wrong there), which is overpopulated in its preserve and they were already euthanizing to keep their numbers down. Then it became about the unpaid dues which lead us to this point.
Also I have to disagree with the fact that it was just the exposure that made the difference. Occupy Wall Street got TONS of exposure and what came out of that? Zero, zip, zilch, nada. And Waco also got tons of press even without the aid of the internet. It was on TV every day during the whole standoff.
Both having armed opposition and maximum exposure helped these people stay on a near equal footing with the agents whom surrounded them with snipers and armed bureaucrats. There is a reason freedom of speech, religion and the right to assemble and the right to bear arms are the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.
And, even IF it turns out this guy was wrong in not paying etc. etc. that should have been decided in a court of law (which is now where the matter will be heading) not by powerful bureaucrats who have the ability to summon other armed bureaucrats without the due process of law.
