that ain't the way i heard it , i was told the judge decided he was right all along . maybe i was misinformed .

I am unaware of any cases.  In U.S. vs. Bundy (1998) he argued the land wasn't owned by the federal government but he court ruled it was and that he was trespassing and that the government had the right to enforce injunctions on him for trespassing.

In 2012, again U.S. vs. Bundy, the issue was litigated again due to the cattle having relocated to an area not covered by the original court order.

He also lost a court case in which he argued the federal government lacked jurisdiction because they couldn't own land and that the land must be owned by the state.

He has now evolved to the position that 'he' doesn't recognize the federal government as even existing.

I don't see any court agreeing with his legal positions.  Ever.

let's clarify , what exactly did the court decide on mr. bundys case ? anybody know besides me ?

Yes, the courts ordered Mr. Bundy not to trespass on federal land.

In the 80's, Bundy had a permit with the BLM to graze his cattle on federal land.  In the early 90's, he decided not to renew it and no longer pay grazing fees.  The BLM eventually sued him and the courts prohibited him from grazing his cattle on federal lands.  He ignored the court order.

The dispute has lasted 20 years or more.  He has evolved to the argument, not in court, that the federal government shouldn't own any land  ...  therefore he can run his cattle on any land that isn't privately owned.  An argument of a dubious nature.

I do not understand his defenders.  It isn't his land.  He refuses to pay to graze his cattle on it.  Basically, I think he is a freeloader.  Yet some are adamant that he is being wronged.  I don't understand it.

I saw the news video.  Still not persuaded it is that large.  In the vid the guy who owns the land said it was 8' long and filled up the bed of a truck.  Hmmmm.  They didn't show any picture of it with a tape measure  ...  or a picture of it in the bed of that truck ... and damn sure a picture of the hog on the scales and a close up of the scale.

The only pictures they show are the 2 or 3 shot in the woods.

Most people would have lots of pictures.  Especially if it was actually that large. 

With this sketchy amount of documentation  ...  I think it is "over-stated".

Sterilization also would be mandatory for cats and dogs that aren’t registered with organizations such as the American Kennel Club, which only accepts purebred pups.


Really?  Hmmm.  This could be a business opportunity.  Why not start "The American Crossbred Kennel Club" so that they would be technically registered?

What a lovely looking home.  Congrats.

This was an article in the Houston Chronicle last week.  You can probably read it on Chron.com.

Watch the commercial.  It is about a soldier.  About his choices to protect his country and family.  The only reference to a weapon is the sponsors logo at the end and they offered to replace it with a flag.  Geez.

And the guy in the YouTube vid is dead on about their hypocrisy.

I'm not surprised the NFL bans ads about guns or ammo  ...  but even ones that don't feature them but are paid for by pro gun sites.  Here is the story by the manufacturer.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/12/03/ceo-gun-manufacturer-speaks-out-after-nfl-bans-super-bowl-ad


This is an outstanding rebuttal about the hypocrisy of it all.  So very well stated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvzAt9Yx7s8

Sorry about the typo in the title line.  I hit 2 keys at once and didn't see the error until I had posted it. 

[Smart Rifle never misses, now comes in semi-automatic form]

Pretty cool gun.  Well, pretty cool technology.  The combination makes a lot of sense.  I would enjoy owning one of these and likely will in a few years.

It is pricey, but the first time something is introduced it always is.  Prices drop when mass production begins  ...  along with competition.



http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/smart-rifle-never-misses-now-comes-semi-automatic-form-2D11899302


Smart Rifle never misses, now comes in semi-automatic form

In the near future, you won't even need to know how to fire a rifle to be a crack shot.

At the Consumer Electronic Show, the Austin, Texas-based start-up TrackingPoint showed off its all-new 500 Series AR Smart Rifle, a gun that makes it almost impossible for any user to miss.

TrackingPoint is the inventor of Precision Guided Firearms, a guided shooting system that the company says creates the most accurate guns in the world. The new rifle is the company's first semi-automatic series.

This technology turns even a neophyte into a marksman, at least within a 500-yard range. The user simply "tags" the target, and the gun and ammo do the rest, all for a mere $9,950—the starting price for the new series.

In fact, the system is so accurate that a user will have up to five times the accuracy of an experienced shooter, said Oren Schauble, the company's marketing director.

The gun can track a target moving at up to 10 mph and allows for rapid engagement, meaning a person can shoot multiple targets quickly.

But TrackingPoint doesn't want people to think of it as just a fancy gun maker. The company is really focused on the technology inside the gun, Schauble said.

"Firearms have been the same for decades, the same old design in guns and ammunition," he said.

"What defines our product from the rest of the marketplace is our firearms integrate technology. We always try to ask ourselves, what in the technology space has not been applied to the arms space and how can we do it?"

TrackingPoint, which rolled out its first Precision Guided Firearm last year, doesn't just include the technology for a perfect shot. It also integrates other technological functions into it, such as video capabilities and Wi-Fi connectivity. These features allow users to record their hunting expeditions and even share the footage on social media platforms, like Facebook and YouTube.

"The reason we are at CES is because a lot of interest in our technology doesn't come from gun space. Executives and hunters who are in technology make up most of our clients and they see how the technology could be used elsewhere," he said. "Don't be surprised if you see us using this technology for other things."

TrackingPoint makes most of its money from gun sales, but also licenses out some of its technology to Remington. It is also has an assessment contract with the military right now, meaning it's looking to develop technology for them as well.

The company's 500 Series AR Smart Rifle officially launched on Wednesday and is available for pre-order for nearly $10,000. More than 40 orders had been received as of Thursday.

But not everyone who wants the new smart rifle will be able to get their hands on it.

TrackingPoint doesn't sell its guns to just anybody. Besides the background check that all applicants must go through, the company also has its own set of standards for purchasers.

The company wants only active users who will provide regular performance feedback on the weapon, Schauble said.

Because the company is still young and the technology is still new, TrackingPoint wants as much user input and sharing of data as possible in order to enhance the weapon's precision and capabilities, he said

Charles, I agree with you.  LEOs aren't the enemy.  They didn't choose "the other side".  They chose to enforce the laws.

My post above quoted Warrent who ranted against the LEOs.  His post quoted yours above it and both appeared when I quoted his.

They can outlaw all the hunting they want, but its the poor wardens n other leos that will have to enforce the laws n pay the ultimate sacrafice for a bunch bunny humping id10ts forcing their unjust views.

If those wardens and leo's have "chosen" to enforce those unjust rules, then they have already "chosen" their side. ;)Piss on them and anyone else who tries to take away my way of life.

Really?  The side they have chosen is "law enforcement".  They don't make the laws.  They choose to enforce them.  Merely enforcing a law does NOT make them an enemy or bad.  I suspect many of the laws you think they should enforce are laws that others think they shouldn't.

The further we get from our rural past, the further down the crapper our nation goes.

Exactly...that what I meant when I said the system is on their side...I used to believe that the majority should rule...I have now changed my mind...

I believe this is how it should be...

if you are an anti hunter...then practice it...

If your are a hunter...practice it...

As long as the hunter and fisherman abide by rules that manages the resources there shouldn't be any issues...

One group should not have the authority to impose their beliefs on another group...

Reuben, you made me chuckle.  In the large picture, you are right.  One group should not impose their beliefs upon the other.  But  ...  change the topic and you might find that your view of what we should allow changes.    For all of us, me included.  It is hard to balance one's beliefs/views on a particular topic with not creating laws/rules/regs that impose them on others who have different views.

On this topic, I do not like the direction and erosion of our hunting rights.  They are slowly being whittled away.  As our population has grown, so has the concentration of it.  People living in more urban and suburban areas relative to rural.  So they aren't exposed to hunting/fishing/trapping, etc. ... so they have no affinity for it.  This trend will continue.

I've seen the vids of them.  They are pretty neat.  Where I trap the camera and then the gate would be stolen.

has clouded ur limited judgement

Notice that I haven't made any negative comments towards you or your opinions  ...  not something you can state.

Now here is an irony.  Earlier this year Phil announced that he was leaving the show.  As I recall he stated that he had lost interest in it.  His oldest son, Alan, who is a pastor in California and doesn't work at Duck Commander nor does he have a beard ... was joining the show.

So Phil was leaving before this controversy.

Do you have a link for this assertion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/phil-robertson-leaving-duck-dynasty_n_3661012.html
This article was from July '13, long before this controversy. 

In an interview with Parade magazine, the reality star admitted that he and "Duck Dynasty" aren't in it for the long haul.

When asked how much longer he would be involved with the show, Robertson, "Not long," noting that he thought the show itself would be fine. "I think it'll go on without me."

"Duck Dynasty," which stars the camo-wearing, bearded duck-hunting Robertson family, certainly hasn't struggled in the ratings recently. The Season 3 finale brought in 9.6 million viewers -- and 5.5 million in the coveted 18-49 demo -- making it the most-watched telecast in A&E history among all key demos.

Although "Duck Dynasty" could be losing its patriarch in the not-so-distant future, it's also gaining a Robertson in Season 4. Alan, a 47-year-old pastor, is leaving his station in Louisiana to join his family on their adventure.

Well looky here...........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/21/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-return_n_4485646.html

I am not sure that is a change in the A&E position.  They have already filmed all but one of the episodes for next year.  So yes, they are airing them.  That does not change the suspension of Phil.

Now here is an irony.  Earlier this year Phil announced that he was leaving the show.  As I recall he stated that he had lost interest in it.  His oldest son, Alan, who is a pastor in California and doesn't work at Duck Commander nor does he have a beard ... was joining the show.

So Phil was leaving before this controversy.

So what part of phils interview of black folks civil rights offended u?

I think his implication that Blacks were better off and happy, etc. prior to the Civil Rights movement is a nostalgic revision of what life was like then.  There was segregation, lynchings, open discrimination, dehumanizing degradation, Jim Crow laws, voting laws meant to prohibit them from voting, etc.  It was akin to someone stating "prior to emancipation ... they were happy and not complaining".  It just has a tone about it that is insensitive and blind to the injustices that were being inflicted upon one sector of our society.

[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion]

Ur right, its simple to google it. So how bout u google it n post it. What i found said "congress shall not pass laws against religious practice or force 1 religoin over another.  Then i want u to refuse employment to somebody based on their religion and lets see long before ur in court for religious discrimination.

Charles, you are confusing the 1st Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. 

The 1st Amendment states ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".[/I]

The Civil Right Act of '64  ... "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin".


So the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from imposing a religion ... and the CRA '64 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.

Neither of these are being violated in this situation.  A&E is not a government entity and therefore is not violating the 1st Amendment.  They clearly did not discriminate against Phil when they hired him.  Do not confuse these as protecting an employee for saying anything anytime they want.  They can't discriminate against someone because of their religion but that doesn't give the employee the right to espouse those views in the workplace or cause the employer problems when they do espouse them.

To answer the employment aspect of your Q ... google "Employment Discrimination" and the Civil Rights Act of '64.