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

Kal'Stang said:

The question this brings up is....would the militia have turned out if the BLM hadn't been so aggressive? That's the thing about the government using force. The more they use the more it gets noticed.

Click to expand...

If there's something I've learned from this event it's this:

If I'm ever in need of a private army of idiot orcs, I'll just declare "the federal government doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned". And the morons will come pouring in.

Kal'Stang said:

1: It did not require that many when they first arrived.

Click to expand...

Yes, it did. The guy had been in defiance of federal court orders for 20 years and was declaring the federal government non-existent. That kind of nutbag absolutely requires overwhelming force, for the safety of everyone involved.

2: The BLM could also very well have used the FBI as an enforcement arm also. Which is my point. There are open avenues available to the BLM to get laws enforced. There is no reason for them to have their own personal police force.

Click to expand...

Less than a platoon of men for the entire country is reasonable, maybe too few. There is no need to deplete local PDs or the local FBI office (and outing the agents). A couple squads of BLM police was plenty and saved everyone headache.

Kal'Stang said:

The question this brings up is....would the militia have turned out if the BLM hadn't been so aggressive? That's the thing about the government using force. The more they use the more it gets noticed.

Click to expand...

The armed response the BLM put up was just that, a response.
It was no secret that the Bundy organizers had put out a call to arms across the nation in the days and weeks before the confrontation getting individuals and militias to show up from as far away as New Hampshire and Idaho. As it was the BLM didn't have enough armed responders available and had to summon the SWAT team from Las Vegas.
The "aggression" was on the Bundy / militia side of things. The Feds just responded to an aggressive armed insurrection.
You got it backwards ...again...

Kal'Stang said:

What they don't show is that the BLM started coming in with guns drawn before the militias were even there. At the time they moved in all they had to contend with is Bundy and his family.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the only person who made that claim was Bundy's wife and her claim can't be verified. You'd think that with such a big family and farm to run that at least a few more people would've noticed an "army" of 200 LEOs, snipers, helicopters, drones, and SWAT teams moving in. But no, she's the only one.

A Federal judge issued Bundy a court order not to intervene in the round up and removal of his cows off federal land clear back in Oct, 2013. But as usual he ignored it and when the round up started in March he called the Clarke County Sheriff and threatened a range war. The Sheriff took him seriously and put the BLM on notice that out of state anti-government militias were coming. A couple days later, the militias show up wearing combat gear and brandishing guns. If you were the BLM and knew these guys were coming...wouldn't you call in a back up....just in case? The pictures show there were only about 20 rangers and a 3 man SWAT team....and two dogs at the base camp. The helicopter was used to spot and round up the cows which is common practice nowadays.

That's what the Police is for. They're the ones that are supposed to be enforcing the laws.

Click to expand...

State and local police never used to enforce federal law,....did that change?

Let me get this straight...

The GOP is pro gun, let everyone have guns even kids.... but if you are working for a federal agency then you are not allowed to have guns? Hypocrisy much?

ecofarm said:

Yes, it did. The guy had been in defiance of federal court orders for 20 years and was declaring the federal government non-existent. That kind of nutbag absolutely requires overwhelming force, for the safety of everyone involved.

Less than a platoon of men for the entire country is reasonable, maybe too few. There is no need to deplete local PDs or the local FBI office (and outing the agents). A couple squads of BLM police was plenty and saved everyone headache.

Click to expand...

Outing FBI Agents? That's a bit hyperbolic don't you think? They wouldn't have done that and I'm sure that you know that.

Regardless of the situation, regardless if its about Bundy or someone else and regardless of how many agents were used vs how many were actually needed. There is no need for the BLM to have it's own enforcement squad. It is a regulatory agency and such agencies should not have a police force. It creates a biased situation. There's a reason why our legislature does not have direct control over our armed forces but only have control through measures and laws. It helps prevent abuse.

Moot said:

State and local police never used to enforce federal law,....did that change?

Click to expand...

I'm going to stop talking about Bundy as this is not really about him but about a regulatory agency being armed with a police force.

As for this part, State and Local police are allowed to enforce federal law, particularly when working in co-ordination with a government agency. It's always been like that.

Kal'Stang said:

Regardless of the situation, regardless if its about Bundy or someone else and regardless of how many agents were used vs how many were actually needed. There is no need for the BLM to have it's own enforcement squad. It is a regulatory agency and such agencies should not have a police force. It creates a biased situation. There's a reason why our legislature does not have direct control over our armed forces but only have control through measures and laws. It helps prevent abuse.

Click to expand...

Who told you that?

Pretty much all of these agencies:

Major U.S. Federal Regulatory Agencies

Have enforcement responsibilities and corresponding officers.

PeteEU said:

Let me get this straight...

The GOP is pro gun, let everyone have guns even kids.... but if you are working for a federal agency then you are not allowed to have guns? Hypocrisy much?

Click to expand...

If that's what you're getting from this then you need to re-read. We're not talking about their right to own a gun for self defense. We're talking about a regulatory agency using it's own police force to enforce its regulatory power. Such an agency should not have its own private police force. That's what the FBI and police are for. To enforce laws and regulations. The BLM should be using them instead of its own police force.

Kal'Stang said:

If that's what you're getting from this then you need to re-read. We're not talking about their right to own a gun for self defense. We're talking about a regulatory agency using it's own police force to enforce its regulatory power. Such an agency should not have its own private police force. That's what the FBI and police are for. To enforce laws and regulations. The BLM should be using them instead of its own police force.

Click to expand...

Using local police or the FBI to enforce federal court orders requiring 40 officers and a full day (of rounding up cows) is absurd.

Having a small contingent of officers takes the headache off local resources.

ecofarm said:

Who told you that?

Pretty much all of these agencies:

Major U.S. Federal Regulatory Agencies

Have enforcement responsibilities and corresponding officers.

Click to expand...

Do you think it matters to me what regulatory agencies have its own police force? It doesn't. None of them should have its own police force. (btw: CPS does not have its own police force. It uses police for protection when they think they may need it...and I have a feeling that there's a few more on that list that doesn't have a police force of its very own also).

ecofarm said:

Using local police or the FBI to enforce federal court orders requiring 40 officers and a full day (of rounding up cows) is absurd.

Having a small contingent of officers takes the headache off local resources.

Click to expand...

Why is it absurd? Isn't that what the FBI and police are for? To enforce laws?

Kal, you're just making this crap up about regulatory agencies not having a police force. It's nonsense.

ecofarm said:

Kal, you're just making this crap up about regulatory agencies not having a police force. It's nonsense.

Click to expand...

1: I said that they shouldn't have police forces. Obviously some of them do. And that IS what we are debating here isn't it? Whether or not the Senator has a point that the BLM should not have its own police force?

2: Prove to me that the CPS has a police force of its own. If I'm making it up then it should be no problem for you to prove that they do.

Kal'Stang said:

1: I said that they shouldn't have police forces. Obviously some of them do. And that IS what we are debating here isn't it? Whether or not the Senator has a point that the BLM should not have its own police force?

Click to expand...

Thusfar, you've elucidated no logic or reason behind your position. I've provided plenty of logic and reason behind some regulatory agencies having a police force, so as not to place undue burden on local resources be they PD or FBI.

2: Prove to me that the CPS has a police force of its own. If I'm making it up then it should be no problem for you to prove that they do.

Click to expand...

I didn't claim every regulatory agency has police.

Kal'Stang said:

If that's what you're getting from this then you need to re-read. We're not talking about their right to own a gun for self defense. We're talking about a regulatory agency using it's own police force to enforce its regulatory power. Such an agency should not have its own private police force. That's what the FBI and police are for. To enforce laws and regulations. The BLM should be using them instead of its own police force.

Click to expand...

So the employees who have to cover vast wildernesses with dangerous animals have to call in the FBI or local police to defend themselves against wild animals and crazy ranchers?

I understand what you are getting at, but we are talking about an organisation who's responsibility is to manage vast area's of the country that are rather wild... just saying, if any non police force/security force type agency should have access to weapons then it should be them.

ecofarm said:

Thusfar, you've elucidated no logic or reason behind your position. I've provided plenty of logic and reason behind some regulatory agencies having a police force, so as not to place undue burden on local resources be they PD or FBI.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. My reasonings thus far have been that it can create a biased force. Can cause abuse of their power and its a needless waste of money being spent on that agency as there are already other avenues available to it.

ecofarm said:

I didn't claim every regulatory agency has police.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. You definitely did make the claim that I was making stuff up about regulatory agencies not having police force. Considering your post was directly after the one were I pointed out to you that the CPS doesn't have its own police force I had every reason to believe that you were responding to that post and as such was contesting my claim that the CPS does not have a police force. I did wonder why you didn't just quote it. Now i'm pretty sure why.....

PeteEU said:

So the employees who have to cover vast wildernesses with dangerous animals have to call in the FBI or local police to defend themselves against wild animals and crazy ranchers?

I understand what you are getting at, but we are talking about an organisation who's responsibility is to manage vast area's of the country that are rather wild... just saying, if any non police force/security force type agency should have access to weapons then it should be them.

Click to expand...

Like I said earlier in the thread. I have no problem with them having personal weapons for defense. But they certainly do not need a police force of their own.

Kal'Stang said:

Incorrect. My reasonings thus far have been that it can create a biased force. Can cause abuse of their power and its a needless waste of money being spent on that agency as there are already other avenues available to it.

Click to expand...

Anything can "cause" an abuse of power. That's a meaningless platitude.

I've already explained how the agency having a small force saves money, time and effort by local agencies who do not always have such resources available for extended periods of time.

Perhaps. You definitely did make the claim that I was making stuff up about regulatory agencies not having police force. Considering your post was directly after the one were I pointed out to you that the CPS doesn't have its own police force I had every reason to believe that you were responding to that post and as such was contesting my claim that the CPS does not have a police force. I did wonder why you didn't just quote it. Now i'm pretty sure why.....

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I know some regulatory agencies do not have a police force. I stated that clearly long ago.

What you are inventing, out of thin air, is this "regulatory agencies should not have a police force".

Why so worried about the BLM? Ever made a thread about another regulatory agency with a police force? No, you haven't have you. In fact, let's just admit, this hare-brained crap never even occurred to you until you felt an inexplicable urge to support a fraud thief racist.

ecofarm said:

Anything can cause an abuse of power. That's a meaningless platitude.

Click to expand...

If it was meaningless then why do legislatures not have their own personal police force?

ecofarm said:

I've already explained how the agency having a small force saves money, time and effort by local agencies who do not always have such resources available for extended periods of time.

Click to expand...

And I've already explained that local resources are actually better equipped to deal with local issues. Local police are more likely to know the demographics of the people and how best to respond to a situation than someone that doesn't even live in the same state, much less the same city/town. Tell me, who do you think would be better at moving cattle? Local police who have to deal with ranchers and their cattle...or someone that's never even seen a cow much less herded them? Who do you think is going to know more about the habits of a heard of cows in a given area and as such will be able to find them easier...the local police...or the BLM? Even a 20 year veteran of the police force is going to take suggestions from the local guys if he/she just transferred in.

ecofarm said:

You misunderstand. I know some regulatory agencies do not have a police force. I stated that clearly long ago.

Click to expand...

Why don't they? Actually lets narrow this down so you can be a bit more specific. Why doesn't the CPS have its own police force? After all, their job can be dangerous.

ecofarm said:

What you are inventing, out of thin air, is this "regulatory agencies should not have a police force".

Why so worried about the BLM? Ever made a thread about another regulatory agency with a police force? No, you haven't have you. In fact, let's just admit, this hare-brained crap never even occurred to you until you felt an inexplicable urge to support a fraud thief racist.

Click to expand...

In case you hadn't noticed by now I've been including all regulatory agencies. Not just the BLM. Though I have used them specifically also as that is what the thread is about.

And just as you were wrong about my reasons for supporting Bundy you are wrong about it never occuring to me before. You're right that I've never made a thread about it. But then I don't put all my thoughts on a forums either. I doubt that you do too....of course I could be wrong about that. It does seem that the age of twitter has made a lot of people hunger for the need to post every little inane thing that pops into their head. :shrug:

Kal'Stang said:

And just as you were wrong about my reasons for supporting Bundy

Click to expand...

I was only "wrong" about "your" reasons for supporting Bundy because YOU WERE WRONG about your reasons for supporting Bundy.

You were ignorant. You had been fooled by the scumbag. You believed his lies without checking them out. Then you re-spewed them and, in the process, looked like a fool yourself. What possessed you to blindly believe him is beyond me; I don't know how you found the guy credible, but whatever.

Given that you had no clue what you were talking about, let's not put any blame on others for their interpretation of your fail.

ecofarm said:

I was only "wrong" about "your" reasons for supporting Bundy because YOU WERE WRONG about your reasons for supporting Bundy.

You were ignorant. You had been fooled by the scumbag. You believed his lies without checking them out. Then you re-spewed them and, in the process, looked like a fool yourself.

Given that you had no clue what you were talking about, let's not put any blame on others for their interpretation of your fail.

Click to expand...

I noticed that you again, ignored my reasons for believeing that regulatory agencies should not have its own police force. Why's that?

Kal'Stang said:

I noticed that you again, ignored my reasons for believeing that regulatory agencies should not have its own police force. Why's that?

Click to expand...

I don't entertain slippery slope nor "bad things could happen" arguments. Try pawning them off on someone else. What do you want from me?

ecofarm said:

I don't entertain slippery slope nor "bad things could happen" arguments. Try pawning them off on someone else. What do you want from me?

Click to expand...

Yeah....right. But you're quite willing to call someone a racist without the slightest hint of evidence that they actually are. Yeah, you're real believeable. :roll: Since all that you want to do is focus on anything but the topic I think we're done here.

Kal'Stang said:

Yeah....right. But you're quite willing to call someone a racist without the slightest hint of evidence that they actually are. Yeah, you're real believeable. :roll: Since all that you want to do is focus on anything but the topic I think we're done here.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? There is no good reason to support Bundy. YOU AGREE. You were ignorant, you were wrong, end of story. Don't blame others for the indefensible position that you abandoned.

Gee... you can't explain why I was doing what I was doing? Well... neither could I! I was just ignorant and wrong! Now, let me hold my own idiocy against you!


Yeah, dude, you couldn't come up with a good reason for your dumbass position, but I'm supposed to? Sure. Other than racism and ignorance (you claiming the latter), how about you give us a reason to support Bundy?



Wait... was I supposed to presume that you had been fooled by this scumbag and thereby known you were driven by ignorance and not racism? Well, see, I'm not interested in evaluating you. What you fail to understand is that I don't give a crap what YOUR motives are. My statements were made in regard to the issue and, thereby, a presumption of your ignorance was not on the table for discussion.

That you have come to agree with me, that there is no legitimate reason for supporting Bundy, only serves to reinforce my evaluation of the motives (ignorance and/or racism) involved in the issue.

Of course, you still haven't explained why you BLINDLY believed Bundy. I don't think you would have done the same if a democrat was making claims. So there's probably some kind of biased BS going on. You wanna explain why you blindly believed some redneck hillbilly scumbag?


You got some nerve giving my evaluation of Bundy support crap when your evaluation was garbage and you've admitted so.