It gets really funny when you discuss state rights and the trend of acquisition of state land by the federal government.

They hate everyrhing that the recent oregon fiasco stood for. And while I disagree with their method, their point was well placed.

They weren't about stealing public land, they just want to keep it out of the hands of the federal government. For reasons of state independence, ranching, etc..

Now reddit will adamantly oppose anything associated with this. Just until your remind them that while weed is legal in Oregon, it is still highly illegal on federal land, within Oregon. When you factor in the federal government owning most of a states resources, that state can buy default, become more dependent on federal money. This has a lot of pull, in terms of how far state laws can conflict with federal laws, such as the case of legal marijuana.

Now, I know this isn't the case at this point in history. However, it isn't out of the scope of reality to assume that at some point, this will be a factor in at some point in the future. The federal government has actually pulled funding many times, with threatening that of states don't change, they will pull funding for certain programs.

Once you realize the full consequence of selling huge portions of resources of a state, to the point that the state is dependent on federal money, you realize that state has zero control over its individual state rights.

This is all new to me, so I may be incorrect, but that's what I'm reading, and it's making sense, why groups are freaking out over federal land grabs. Maybe I'm wrong, still learning.