User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:07:32 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I enjoy the National Forests here in Utah too, but there's no reason I couldn't enjoy a Utah State Forest just as much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I actually enjoy the USNF system. I've spent a lot of time in Arapahoe NF. I enjoy the National Forests here in Utah too, but there's no reason I couldn't enjoy a Utah State Forest just as much. principle of subsidiarity and all |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:08:04 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That isn't a plus Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Look like we have less fed land ratio compared to everyone else  That isn't a plus |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:08:59 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why wouldn't you want the ranchers to just own the land they used? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As an Oregonian I would prefer that the Federal and State lands stay the way they are. I've met plenty of ranchers while on public lands. Some are great people... others think that they are King of the land and don't waste any time telling you what you can do on "their" land. Why wouldn't you want the ranchers to just own the land they used? Ranchers don't want to own the grazing leases. They never have. If they owned it, they'd have to pay taxes on it. You have to go back to the 1870s to understand this. Why some states are "fence out" states; why water rights are so regulated; and the economics of grazing on public land. This is what the big ranchers and the stockmens associations that ran the West politically wanted. As long as the BLM was their bitch they were happy. Just like the Western states didn't want all that public land - either when they became states or later when Herbert Hoover tried to cede it to them. Now BLM is no longer the lapdog of the ranchers and seems to have turned into a bunch of anti-use tree-huggers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:09:18 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Humongous will rule the wasteland after the collapse. He seems like a reasonable man though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:09:30 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The answer is, bring back the homestead act. 160 acres staked out, you need to build a house and work the land (plant trees, farm it, whatever the area supports) for 5 years before getting ownership. Fail...and you get nothing, someone else can give it a shot. One parcel per applicant, no exceptions. 
Have you ever been out west? I mean out in the lonely places of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah? You're not growing shit out there. Ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:11:15 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now BLM is no longer the lapdog of the ranchers and seems to have turned into a bunch of anti-use tree-huggers. Got rid of all them wooly locusts so they can worship in the untouched majesty of nature. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:11:29 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it.  How is this socialism? Is the land actively taxing you and redistributing your wealth? Who's being negatively affected by large tracts of vacant land? Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism?  ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. that is because the central government prohibits it's used or prohibits it from being turned into a means of production |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:12:06 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ranchers don't want to own the grazing leases. They never have. If they owned it, they'd have to pay taxes on it. You have to go back to the 1870s to understand this. Why some states are "fence out" states; why water rights are so regulated; and the economics of grazing on public land. This is what the big ranchers and the stockmens associations that ran the West politically wanted. As long as the BLM was their bitch they were happy. Just like the Western states didn't want all that public land - either when they became states or later when Herbert Hoover tried to cede it to them. Now BLM is no longer the lapdog of the ranchers and seems to have turned into a bunch of anti-use tree-huggers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As an Oregonian I would prefer that the Federal and State lands stay the way they are. I've met plenty of ranchers while on public lands. Some are great people... others think that they are King of the land and don't waste any time telling you what you can do on "their" land. Why wouldn't you want the ranchers to just own the land they used? Ranchers don't want to own the grazing leases. They never have. If they owned it, they'd have to pay taxes on it. You have to go back to the 1870s to understand this. Why some states are "fence out" states; why water rights are so regulated; and the economics of grazing on public land. This is what the big ranchers and the stockmens associations that ran the West politically wanted. As long as the BLM was their bitch they were happy. Just like the Western states didn't want all that public land - either when they became states or later when Herbert Hoover tried to cede it to them. Now BLM is no longer the lapdog of the ranchers and seems to have turned into a bunch of anti-use tree-huggers. Perhaps they are regretting your first paragraph based on your last. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:12:44 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now BLM is no longer the lapdog of the ranchers and seems to have turned into a bunch of anti-use tree-huggers. Yep.. they're going from bad to worse. Time for the BLM to just go away. If a piece of federal land doesn't already have some agency "managing" it, it shouldn't be federal land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:12:52 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever been out west? I mean out in the lonely places of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah? You're not growing shit out there. Ever. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The answer is, bring back the homestead act. 160 acres staked out, you need to build a house and work the land (plant trees, farm it, whatever the area supports) for 5 years before getting ownership. Fail...and you get nothing, someone else can give it a shot. One parcel per applicant, no exceptions.
Have you ever been out west? I mean out in the lonely places of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah? You're not growing shit out there. Ever. Then I don't see what people are complaining about. The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:16:52 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that is because the central government prohibits it's used or prohibits it from being turned into a means of production You're gonna have to take that argument up with the water table and the climate, because it's a little beyond the government's purview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:18:48 PM EST
[#12]
you are right about the land out west. 160 acres is only going to support maybe 10 cows in some places. that's why these ranchers need to use federal land for there herd to graze. the land they actually own would not support very many cows.
also, do we really want all of these states to own the land. Illinois teachers fund is billions of dollars short. what is to stop a dumbass states government to sell off all of there states property to the Chinese so that they could pay for outrageous teachers pension funds or anything else that the current states gov wants to spend it on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:20:56 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:28:29 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, a lot of Federal land was acquired during that time period. I believe the "refuge" involved in the Oregon controversy was one of those acquisitions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Disgusting. Blame the states and the residents at the time of admission. They thought it was better to leave the crappy land in the hands of the Feds, rather than have to pay for its upkeep themselves. And the ranchers who thought the idea of free grazing land was better than having to buy their own land to graze on. Actually, our very first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, probably had a fairly large impact on the land grab. Wealthy Progressives, like the nobility of old, need their game reserves. Yep, a lot of Federal land was acquired during that time period. I believe the "refuge" involved in the Oregon controversy was one of those acquisitions. What TR did was designated areas of existing public lands (in the West) as national parks or wildlife refuges. That's how come there were / are private enclaves inside those parks and whatever (land someone had homesteaded). Different story in the East, in places like the Shenandoah National Park (VA took land through eminent domain and gave it to the Federal government for the park). At one point almost all of the US west of the Mississippi was public land (where the Spanish / Mexicans hadn't built towns). It became private land through the various preemptive sale and homestead acts.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:30:23 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. There is nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES the Congress to sell off U.S. Territory. They CAN sell it off.....but there is no requirement they do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:32:09 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what is this managing of sagebrush deserts exactly consist of????? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's big out here. Most don't want the land back, cheaper for the big gov to manage it. what is this managing of sagebrush deserts exactly consist of????? Controlling grazing. Back before the Taylor Grazing Act people used to kill people over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:32:12 PM EST
[#17]
I agree 100%. If the Federal government used federal dollars to buy the land, why would it be owned by individual states?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:35:29 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does GD hate the Constitution? I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:38:05 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are ten other states with less Fed land ownership than Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Look like we have less fed land ratio compared to everyone else There are ten other states with less Fed land ownership than Texas. Texas sold their public land to the US government. Then people homesteaded. The reason places like Kansas have less Federal land than places like Nevada is that people homesteaded it. In places like Wyoming and Northwest Colorado, big stock operations fought (literally) against homesteading so there would be huge tracts of open range to graze cattle on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:39:00 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the ridiculous part. Time after time we see whiners going on about "Texas sucks because there is no public land" and in the very next thread bitch about the feds owning too much land.
There is very little BLM activity in Texas and we like it that way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Look like we have less fed land ratio compared to everyone else NY has a low federal ownership but we have the Adirondack park mostly owned and controlled by state bureaucrats That's the ridiculous part. Time after time we see whiners going on about "Texas sucks because there is no public land" and in the very next thread bitch about the feds owning too much land.
There is very little BLM activity in Texas and we like it that way. I was thinking the same thing. I've never had a problem when I want to go hunt, off roading, fishing or whatever here in Texas. Guess I'm just lucky... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:41:17 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you are right about the land out west. 160 acres is only going to support maybe 10 cows in some places. that's why these ranchers need to use federal land for there herd to graze. the land they actually own would not support very many cows. also, do we really want all of these states to own the land. Illinois teachers fund is billions of dollars short. what is to stop a dumbass states government to sell off all of there states property to the Chinese so that they could pay for outrageous teachers pension funds or anything else that the current states gov wants to spend it on. Your example of why to not have the states own land is as silly as the reasons stated for the Feds to own it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:42:10 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why does GD hate the Constitution? I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary the states allowed them to manage it when they joined the union. the states haven't really tried to get it back I'm sure we could but there is little interest to do so and even if it was returned to the state it would most likely be either privatized or managed by a state agency that would do just as much stupid shit as the fed |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:44:20 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For comparison: http://www.pubtheo.com/images/tax-payments-benefits.jpg So, in Nevada we get a 31% ROI on the Feds using 84.5% of our land. http://m.memegen.com/gclun7.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit Nevada. In general if is shocking http://patterico.com/files/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-03-at-3.16.02-PM.png Article its from: http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/ For comparison: http://www.pubtheo.com/images/tax-payments-benefits.jpg So, in Nevada we get a 31% ROI on the Feds using 84.5% of our land. http://m.memegen.com/gclun7.jpg Map is incorrect. Iowa has both Senators as R's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:47:25 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. Is it socialism or the result of crony capitalism? The situation we have is the legacy of the political clout of (big) ranchers and their bought politicians. Big ranchers weren't striking any blows for freedom when they got what they wanted with controlled grazing, leasing and the creation of the BLM. Yeah, it's kindlier and gentler than sending Joe Horner and a couple of hundred "detectives" to burn out the homesteaders (like the Wyoming Stock Growers Association did). Now the BLM isn't their bitch anymore and it's "socialism"? If all that BLM land went up for sale tomorrow, the stockmen would start screaming again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:47:31 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the states allowed them to manage it when they joined the union. the states haven't really tried to get it back I'm sure we could but there is little interest to do so and even if it was returned to the state it would most likely be either privatized or managed by a state agency that would do just as much stupid shit as the fed Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does GD hate the Constitution? I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary the states allowed them to manage it when they joined the union. the states haven't really tried to get it back I'm sure we could but there is little interest to do so and even if it was returned to the state it would most likely be either privatized or managed by a state agency that would do just as much stupid shit as the fed Thats perfectly fine....atleast they are operating within the Constitutional Articles. I would very willingly go to jail if I broke a law on purpose. The Feds should be held to the same if not HIGHER standards. If a state cannot maintain the land, well, that is the states call. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:48:28 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: was like damn OK and the mid west has hardly any. then i was like oh yeah they gave it all to the Indians. Well, we killed a bunch first. And they did think that land was theirs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:51:55 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If all that BLM land went up for sale tomorrow, the stockmen would start screaming again. Guys like Ted Turner would be first in line at the auction and he's got some NICE fences all the way around Vermejo Park. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:52:40 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The answer is, bring back the homestead act. 160 acres staked out, you need to build a house and work the land (plant trees, farm it, whatever the area supports) for 5 years before getting ownership. Fail...and you get nothing, someone else can give it a shot. One parcel per applicant, no exceptions. I like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:59:04 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
principle of subsidiarity and all Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I actually enjoy the USNF system. I've spent a lot of time in Arapahoe NF. I enjoy the National Forests here in Utah too, but there's no reason I couldn't enjoy a Utah State Forest just as much. principle of subsidiarity and all Very basic conservative principle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:59:13 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guys like Ted Turner would be first in line at the auction and he's got some NICE fences all the way around Vermejo Park. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If all that BLM land went up for sale tomorrow, the stockmen would start screaming again. Guys like Ted Turner would be first in line at the auction and he's got some NICE fences all the way around Vermejo Park. Is "Because someone may do something we don't like with it" really a good reason to ignore the role of a limited federal government? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:02:33 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why does GD hate the Constitution? I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary Article IV, Section 3: New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. "or other property" The US came into possession of the vast majority of the public land in the West before it was organized into territories. The states didn't want it when they became states or in the 1920s. Your analysis misses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:04:20 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is "Because someone may do something we don't like with it" really a good reason to ignore the role of a limited federal government? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If all that BLM land went up for sale tomorrow, the stockmen would start screaming again. Guys like Ted Turner would be first in line at the auction and he's got some NICE fences all the way around Vermejo Park. Is "Because someone may do something we don't like with it" really a good reason to ignore the role of a limited federal government? Where have the limits regarding land been overstepped? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:06:25 PM EST
[#33]
So you put it up for an auction with what limits? Corporations can't buy it or foreign governments can't buy it? Who makes the rules? This is a messed up "unconstitutional" situation without a constitutional resolution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:11:03 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where have the limits regarding land been overstepped? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If all that BLM land went up for sale tomorrow, the stockmen would start screaming again. Guys like Ted Turner would be first in line at the auction and he's got some NICE fences all the way around Vermejo Park. Is "Because someone may do something we don't like with it" really a good reason to ignore the role of a limited federal government? Where have the limits regarding land been overstepped? What constitutional authority is there for the federal government to own land for recreational or livestock grazing purposes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:13:29 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you put it up for an auction with what limits? Corporations can't buy it or foreign governments can't buy it? Who makes the rules? This is a messed up "unconstitutional" situation without a constitutional resolution. In general making rules more fucked up than Mexico's is a clue that you're on the wrong track. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:13:56 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is "Because someone may do something we don't like with it" really a good reason to ignore the role of a limited federal government? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If all that BLM land went up for sale tomorrow, the stockmen would start screaming again. Guys like Ted Turner would be first in line at the auction and he's got some NICE fences all the way around Vermejo Park. Is "Because someone may do something we don't like with it" really a good reason to ignore the role of a limited federal government? I'm not sure that the management of public land isn't a legitimate role of the Federal government. It's in line with Article IV, Section 3. I am sure that the management of public land needs to be focused on sound stewardship of a national asset and not to the benefit of one group over another. In other words, if we're going to strip mine Yellowstone for coal, it shouldn't be to make one crony of the President wealthy. Did the Founders anticipate that we'd wind up with public lands? Yes, but I think they thought of situations like the Northwest Ordinance where every acre wound up being homesteaded - not cattle barons fighting to keep homesteaders of the vast open range leading to the Taylor Grazing Act, etc. I think the "how you manage public lands in a limited Federal government" is the real challenge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:18:04 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Article IV, Section 3: New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. "or other property" The US came into possession of the vast majority of the public land in the West before it was organized into territories. The states didn't want it when they became states or in the 1920s. Your analysis misses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does GD hate the Constitution? I just spent a good amount of time researching the ownership of land by the Feds as per the Constitution. It basically says: They CANNOT own more than D.C. and military locations. It also states it can own Territories, and other property. All of this verbiage is very clear. Since we no longer have any Territories, that means they CAN own D.C.,mil, and other property. Land is not "other property. They CAN be temporary curators the way I read it. But they cannot outright OWN land. Its pretty scary Article IV, Section 3: New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. "or other property" The US came into possession of the vast majority of the public land in the West before it was organized into territories. The states didn't want it when they became states or in the 1920s. Your analysis misses. I see it states VERY CLEARLY.....the Feds cannot own land......how do I miss this? Land =Land Territories =land Other property = not land, nor territories..... Explain |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:21:05 PM EST
[#38]
So let's say the Feds decided they want to follow the constitution. They put a for sale sign on all of the Federally owned land.
Then "corporations" from China, Saudi Arabia and Russia decide to buy up all of the land for sale. Should we now be happy that we followed the constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:22:59 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So let's say the Feds decided they want to follow the constitution. They put a for sale sign on all of the Federally owned land. Then "corporations" from China, Saudi Arabia and Russia decide to buy up all of the land for sale. Should we now be happy that we followed the constitution? That's a terrible way to justify violating the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:25:29 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So let's say the Feds decided they want to follow the constitution. They put a for sale sign on all of the Federally owned land. Then "corporations" from China, Saudi Arabia and Russia decide to buy up all of the land for sale. Should we now be happy that we followed the constitution? They cannot sell what is not theirs. The states would take possession. Now what the states are to do with it is that of the State Reps AND the people. Kind of like toll roads in the east. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:27:08 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're welcome. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The flip side is that I can go Jeeping, hunting and shooting for free in National Forests and BLM holdings. We DO have large recreation areas. You're welcome. for what. BLM's budget is a net positive. They're not taking money from you if you're not using the land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:29:25 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for what. BLM's budget is a net positive. They're not taking money from you if you're not using the land. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The flip side is that I can go Jeeping, hunting and shooting for free in National Forests and BLM holdings. We DO have large recreation areas. You're welcome. for what. BLM's budget is a net positive. They're not taking money from you if you're not using the land. Would you happen to have a link (.gov)for that? If so, that would answer a WHOLE BUNCH OF questions! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:32:24 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for what. BLM's budget is a net positive. They're not taking money from you if you're not using the land. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The flip side is that I can go Jeeping, hunting and shooting for free in National Forests and BLM holdings. We DO have large recreation areas. You're welcome. for what. BLM's budget is a net positive. They're not taking money from you if you're not using the land. What money are they making off of these vast tracks of desert in New Mexico that are being used for Jeeping, hunting, and shooting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:37:48 PM EST
[#44]
So we give it to the states. And then they sell it to foreign corporations.
I have about as much faith in Colorado state government as I do the Feds. Colorado state government passed laws banning magazines larger than 15 rounds, all private sales of firearms need an FFL. Colorado is becoming another liberal California. I have zero faith in our State and Federal government. I am just saying that the current situation might be the best. Things could get a lot worse with the dumbass politicians running things now. Who bought up all of the land around DIA before they announced they were going to build it? a bunch of political cronies it was all fixed. You must have a lot of faith in the states government to always do the right thing. I don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:43:35 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So we give it to the states. And then they sell it to foreign corporations. I have about as much faith in Colorado state government as I do the Feds. Colorado state government passed laws banning magazines larger than 15 rounds, all private sales of firearms need an FFL. Colorado is becoming another liberal California. I have zero faith in our State and Federal government. I am just saying that the current situation might be the best. Things could get a lot worse with the dumbass politicians running things now. Who bought up all of the land around DIA before they announced they were going to build it? a bunch of political cronies it was all fixed. You must have a lot of faith in the states government to always do the right thing. I don't. "I don't trust the federal government, so I think they should continue to own 47% of the west" is an odd statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:47:44 PM EST
[#46]
I don't trust the Federal government, but I do not have a problem with the way federal land is managed in Colorado.
That is not a crazy statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:50:46 PM EST
[#47]
I like it! Thanks back east!
Also, to those upset. Federal ownership seems to work fairly well for productivity on minimally productive land. Not to mention I don't shot at ranges |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:57:25 PM EST
[#48]
Right now the federal government is not giving away over 100 million acres to corporations, like they did between 1850 and 1871 to the railroads.
I fear, that the federal government can do this again but right now they are not. I think it is a lot harder for corporations to buy the federal government than state governments. It did not take much of Bloombergs money to buy the Colorado state government and have them pass BS firearms laws. That is all that I am saying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 5:59:53 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right now the federal government is not giving away over 100 million acres to corporations, like they did between 1850 and 1871 to the railroads. I fear, that the federal government can do this again but right now they are not. I think it is a lot harder for corporations to buy the federal government than state governments. It did not take much of Bloombergs money to buy the Colorado state government and have them pass BS firearms laws. That is all that I am saying. The federal government gave the railroads all this land for nothing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 6:06:00 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. It's been established though that the states don't want it, and most of the citizen don't want it, that sort of leaves the fed holding the bag. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
