Whether you side with the Bundy’s or you side with Harry Reid, the issue of Federal land is an interesting topic. Should public land within a state belong to the state or to the Federal government? This goes beyond national parks and military installations, this is land that is just public, because it is owned by the government, but is not set aside for any particular reason.
No matter how subversive Bundy supporters sound, they do have a point that the Fed should not own so much of a states land and resources. This is not to say that the Fed did anything wrong, it’s just to say things should change. By looking at a picture of federal land within the US, it is easy to see that the states in the western third of the US are screwed, and actually don’t own their own territory. This begs the questions of why have most states gotten control of their land, but not those out west.
Whatever the reason, some state leaders are thinking the same thing, and I think it is about time, since its been over 100 years since all but Alaska and Hawaii joined the union. The land needs to be redistributed to the states. Obama talks about income disparity, and the horrors of that, but how about land disparity out west. If the Fed didn’t own so much of the land in the west, more of the land would be owned as private property and/or by the state, which would mean there would be no need to have these stand offs with the BLM.
No matter what the laws and the courts say, people matter, and their livelihood also matters. If there is an apparent injustice, things need to change, no matter who legally has the right. This is exactly why people elect representatives, because the representatives can change the law to ensure that injustices are addressed without violence or jail time.
Oh, and Nevada, it’s time to kick Harry Reid out of the senate, because apparently he doesn’t care. He’s probably spent too much time in Washington, and not enough in Nevada.