• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hopefully this law maker is successful.

Bundy aftermath: Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says 'They're not paramilitary units' - Washington Times
Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.
“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

His mulled amendment to an appropriations bill comes in context of recent BLM actions against Mr. Bundy: The federal agents armed themselves and surrounded his property, tasered his son, closed down road access to the ranch and even shot a couple of his prize bulls. The reasons? Mr. Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government, but rather fought the matter in court.
 
Hopefully this law maker is successful.

Bundy aftermath: Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says 'They're not paramilitary units' - Washington Times
Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.
“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

His mulled amendment to an appropriations bill comes in context of recent BLM actions against Mr. Bundy: The federal agents armed themselves and surrounded his property, tasered his son, closed down road access to the ranch and even shot a couple of his prize bulls. The reasons? Mr. Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government, but rather fought the matter in court.

while I understand the sentiment (even if i don't agree with it) wouldn't the BLM still be able to work with other government organizations that have the power to come in armed? I don't know if this law would actually change anything.
 
Somehow I don't think a state can legislate to disarm the federal government.
 
Hopefully this law maker is successful.

Bundy aftermath: Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says 'They're not paramilitary units' - Washington Times
Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.
“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

His mulled amendment to an appropriations bill comes in context of recent BLM actions against Mr. Bundy: The federal agents armed themselves and surrounded his property, tasered his son, closed down road access to the ranch and even shot a couple of his prize bulls. The reasons? Mr. Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government, but rather fought the matter in court.

The guy has a point. They're regulatory agencies. They're not suppose to enforce laws or court orders at the point of a gun. That's what the police are supposed to be for.
 
Somehow I don't think a state can legislate to disarm the federal government.

This isn't coming from the State Legislature but from someone that has a seat in the House of Representitives. Other wise known as the Senate. IE this bill is going through the federal legislative branch. Not state. And they definitely can disarm federal agencies.
 
while I understand the sentiment (even if i don't agree with it) wouldn't the BLM still be able to work with other government organizations that have the power to come in armed? I don't know if this law would actually change anything.

They might be able to coordinate with the FBI. They'd more likely get more cooperation from local police forces though. Which is what they should do anyways as the local police force knows the area and people better than some bureaucrat that doesn't even live in the same state much less same city/town.
 
They might be able to coordinate with the FBI. They'd more likely get more cooperation from local police forces though. Which is what they should do anyways as the local police force knows the area and people better than some bureaucrat that doesn't even live in the same state much less same city/town.

That makes sense. I understand perfectly why people don't think they should be armed. But as far as the Bundy situation goes, whether its cops, FBI, sheriffs, or another force, someone needs to go in and make this guy answerable to the law.
 
That makes sense. I understand perfectly why people don't think they should be armed. But as far as the Bundy situation goes, whether its cops, FBI, sheriffs, or another force, someone needs to go in and make this guy answerable to the law.

:shrug: Some laws shouldn't be followed just because they are The Law. We're suppose to be a nation of people, not a nation ruled by the elite. Personally I think that since Bundy's family has been in that area for well over a century they should not have to ask for permission to use land that they had been using long before the BLM was even a twinkle in Big Daddies pants. Its called grandfathering and it should apply to the Bundy family for as long as the Bundy's live there.
 
:shrug: Some laws shouldn't be followed just because they are The Law. We're suppose to be a nation of people, not a nation ruled by the elite. Personally I think that since Bundy's family has been in that area for well over a century they should not have to ask for permission to use land that they had been using long before the BLM was even a twinkle in Big Daddies pants. Its called grandfathering and it should apply to the Bundy family for as long as the Bundy's live there.

The problem with that logic is that they were paying for years, and then stopped. The fact that they payed in the first place means they acknowledged that they had a contract with the federal government (thus recognizing its authority) and then stopped. And if it is Federal Land, then we, the taxpayer have been paying for it. So "the nation of people" are actually being ripped off by this guy. And even if we decide a law isn't just, you bring it up in the courts and legislature, you don't refuse to pay and ignore court orders.
 
This isn't coming from the State Legislature but from someone that has a seat in the House of Representitives. Other wise known as the Senate. IE this bill is going through the federal legislative branch. Not state. And they definitely can disarm federal agencies.

My bad, I thought he was a state rep. You know as in state legislature. Every state has one.
 
The problem with that logic is that they were paying for years, and then stopped. The fact that they payed in the first place means they acknowledged that they had a contract with the federal government (thus recognizing its authority) and then stopped.

Actually the Bundy family already stated why they paid in the first place and why they stopped. They paid the fees because the BLM was suppossed to help ranchers and the land. When the BLM stopped helping him but started to hinder he stopped paying them. It wasn't about recognizing the federal governments authority in the matter.

And if it is Federal Land, then we, the taxpayer have been paying for it. So "the nation of people" are actually being ripped off by this guy.

How are you getting ripped off? He provides a service to the economy with his cows. He's a productive citizen of this country. He could after all just get rid of all his cows and become like the thousands of other moochers and live on welfare. But no, he provides a service and AFAIK he does pay his taxes. Just not the fees that the BLM is wanting from him.

And even if we decide a law isn't just, you bring it up in the courts and legislature, you don't refuse to pay and ignore court orders.

Tell that to Rosa Parks. ;) Sometimes civil disobediance is justified and is a good thing. I have no problem with someone refusing to pay a fine and ignore court orders when they have a valid claim to do so. And IMO Bundy does.
 
How about disarming the militias that are harboring and protecting a criminal on his ranch and keeping federal law enforcement from executing a court order against him.
WTF?? Armed insurrection good, federal law enforcement bad?
The anarchists are gaining a foothold with the republicons.
 
Tell that to Rosa Parks. ;) Sometimes civil disobediance is justified and is a good thing. I have no problem with someone refusing to pay a fine and ignore court orders when they have a valid claim to do so. And IMO Bundy does.
Rosa Parks ... really? ...REALLY?

WTF? You have the balls to compare the racist Clive Bundy to civil rights movement pioneer Rosa Parks ?
WOW!

I see Bundy as being more akin to George Wallace with armed State troopers defying Federal Marshals who escorted black students into the University of Alabama to enforce a Federal Court desegregation order.

Rosa Parks was resisting the unconstitutional state segregation laws of Alabama, not Federal law.
You have it all exactly ass-backwards.
 
Last edited:
It would have said State Rep before his name if he was. ;)
You're right...I just wasn't paying attention.

I have another question.....don't BLM employees have a right to protect themselves? After all, they are getting threatened.....


FEDERAL WORKERS: With death threats, Nev. conflict highlights dangerous side of public land management -- Thursday, April 17, 2014 -- www.eenews.net


The BLM webpage says they have "specific law enforcement responsibilities".....

Law Enforcement
 
Doesn't that scare you?

You think individual states should be able to dictate federal policy? Do you realize that doesn't make any sense?
 
Rosa Parks ... really? ...REALLY?

WTF? You have the balls to compare the racist Clive Bundy to civil rights movement pioneer Rosa Parks ?
WOW!

I see Bundy as being more akin to George Wallace with armed State troopers defying Federal Marshals who escorted black students into the University of Alabama to enforce a Federal Court desegregation order.

Rosa Parks was resisting the unconstitutional state segregation laws of Alabama, not Federal law.
You have it all exactly ass-backwards.

This isn't about race. Lets keep race out of it. And whether Bundy is a racist or not is also irrelevent to him refusing to pay the fines and him and the militia standing up to federal agents.. I used Rosa Parks as an example of civil disobediance because most people agree that her civil disobediance was justified. And I know exactly what she was doing. Which is why I used her. The fact that she was fighting against state laws is irrelevent. It doesn't matter whether its a state law or a federal law, justifiied civil disobediance can be used against both.

Now, care to address the actual content of my post instead of going off on a fit because I compared Rosa Parks's civil disobediance to Bundy's civil disobediance?
 
Yeah? Whats that reason?

They want to show solidarity among racists, like Truthers sticking up for each other no matter how ridiculous it becomes.
 
You're right...I just wasn't paying attention.

I have another question.....don't BLM employees have a right to protect themselves? After all, they are getting threatened.....


FEDERAL WORKERS: With death threats, Nev. conflict highlights dangerous side of public land management -- Thursday, April 17, 2014 -- www.eenews.net

Yes I fully believe that they have a right to defend themselves. But there is a big difference between defending oneself and going in with guns drawn.

The BLM webpage says they have "specific law enforcement responsibilities".....

Law Enforcement

Doesn't mean that they should have that. No agency should have that ability if they make regulations unless it is the legislature of a state or the country. Too much conflict of interest. Such enforcements personnel should be seperate as it can create bias.
 
They want to show solidarity among racists, like Truthers sticking up for each other no matter how ridiculous it becomes.

So in your minds eye someone cannot possibly support someone that is racist when the thing being supported has absolutely nothing to do with race or racism? The person that is defending the action that is unrelated to race or racism MUST be racist also? That is quite the narrow view imo. And most defintely flies in the face of reality.
 
So in your minds eye someone cannot possibly support someone that is racist when the thing being supported has absolutely nothing to do with race or racism? The person that is defending the action that is unrelated to race or racism MUST be racist also? That is quite the narrow view imo. And most defintely flies in the face of reality.

I think the guy is completely full of crap. It's been proven that he lied about his family history. It's been proven he is a racist piece of crap. He's a mooch, a thief and a delusional idiot.

There's one reason to support the scumbag: to show solidarity among racists. It's the same as Truthers sticking up for each other.

The good thing is it shows us who the racists are.
 
Back
Top Bottom