Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire This deserves to stand on it's own

As all these Oregon Occupiers threads are running, I think this video needs to be shown on its own. Ask yourself what kind of man Lavoy Finicum is was.

If you were to leave your family with this man, how do you feel he would treat them?

Is this the kind of man you would trust with your favorite rifle?

Would you expect to get your truck back if you loaned it to him?


I'll tell you, from what I see here I think the world is now poorer with him gone. I won't even touch on what I think of the people that would want him killed.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...E6BA06D6CB284704093AE6BA0&FORM=VIRE5

<sigh>

it's = contraction of the words "it is"

its = plural possessive article

This ain't rocket science. Sixth graders know this.

Don't worry Doc, I misspelled "man" and had to go back and fix it too. Mna probably wouldn't make sense would it? I beg your forgiveness for errors as my brain is moving ahead of my grammar.

At the risk of sounding picayune, I'm afraid lots of college graduates these days don't know that. Which is not meant to undermine the validity of your statement, just expressing a personal general disappointment in what I see coming into the work force.

I refrained from correcting an earlier post...

"in vein" vs. in vain...maybe it is "rocket" science..."Doc......"

Sometimes good people make really bad decisions.

I have no idea what happened on the highway but I bet he has some family that wonders if him putting himself in that position was worth it.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson


I just hope Lavoy Finicum didn't die in vain.

just waiting for the resident experts to dogpile now

Yeah. And no insult intended to fireball, btw...

.

What do you mean by in "vain"? So that welfare ranchers can continue stealing from the public trust? So that your lands and your wildlife take a back seat to lining their pocket books? F these guys. Nobody rallied to their cause because no one supports it. I get hating the government, but you're not gonna get any support from conservatives over guys who live off the public. And you dang sure ain't gonna get liberals to join the movement. So who did they think would sympathize with them? Other so called conservatives sucking on the government tit?

Committing suicide is NOT, "looking after one's family",

...not in my world, by a VERY long shot.

GTC

It's comin'!

Well, thank you for that, but the real point is in the video. I'm glad I watched it.

It's a snapshot from Lavoy's perspective into the Constitution and what's going on with the battle over whether the federal govt has the right to administer the public lands, and specifically, how "rights" are established and maintained. He talks about how he bought the grazing rights and what that means, Constitutionally. It was intriguing to say the least.

Even the critics here would really be interested to hear this, IMHO.

I have a journalism degree and from time to time still mess that up. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" and also can be a contraction for "it has". Mistakes are common. We are taught the possessive form of a noun, such as "DocRocket's house", but we'll often see people apply the same form using this specific pronoun. ie - "DocRocket's house was left standing after the storm, but it's shutters were torn from their hinges."

It is another example of where the rule supplants what would seem to be logical. In the first half of the sentence, the possessive of a noun's apostrophe shows ownership, but in the second half of the sentence, the "it" is a pronoun that when used as a possessive pronoun becomes "its", with no apostrophe. The hard rule is that ALL possessive pronouns do not use an apostrophe while all possessive nouns do use an apostrophe.

How about a bit of slack for those of who try to get it right but are a long time out of school.
My career required some knowledge of Physics and I learned as I went along, very little writing skill was necessary so my ability in that area faded as the years passed.
I seldom see someone with particular skills in those areas going out of their way to correct the wordsmiths among us.
Do we fail to make what we write understandable?

I just watched the entire video. Thank you for posting it.

It's ironic, but if I'm honest, I don't think I'd have watched it had Lavoy not been shot and killed. I regret this. I wish I had watched it two weeks or a month or three months ago. This was a good decent man, calm and reasonable. I've got to learn more about this.

I'm not a rancher, I've got no horse in this race. I did grow up on a small farm in PA, but that's the extent of any bias I might have. I'm not a here and haven't been here to shove my political, personal, or religious views down your throats. I'm a pretty reasonable guy whose biggest flaw is sometimes writing flowery prose. I urge you to watch this video.

You are not fairly representing their position or the issue.

I'd much rather ranchers have use of it, than let mineral.mines and wind farms take it over...

Quite frankly ranchers shouldn't have to pay grazing rights on it

His video sounds reasonable, but what he's not accepting is that as the country grew west, where territories had vast amounts of land acquired by the federal government through purchase or treaty (Louisiana Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Seward's Folly, etc.), the legislated jurisdiction over those lands was voluntarily ceded by the state (not territory) to the federal government. The state had to agree. As the Western territories became states, they ceded legislative jurisdiction of federal owned lands as a condition of statehood. Some would say voluntary - some would say coerced. "You can become a state as long as you cede jurisdiction of federal lands - otherwise you can pound sand." They put similar requirements on the adoption of state Constitutions. For example, New Mexico was required to include recall of elected officials in their constitution as a condition of statehood. Essentially, a gun was held to their heads if they wanted statehood.

The question is whether a state can rescind that legislative jurisdiction. The Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980's explored those legal questions and I do not believe they ever found a legal workaround to reclaim federal lands to state jurisdiction.

The true legal questions around the rights of federal grazing leaseholders is a matter of case law and new legal suits. The Bundy's stopped paying their lease, thus their right to sue for redress was lost.

Where ranchers like Lavoy lose their argument is when they call the lease "their land". No, it's not. It's their land to use under the terms of the lease - no more and no less. If the government comes in and arbitrarily changes or revokes the lease without due process, then obviously that is a legal matter.