• 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’

1750Texan said:
I hear the contrary from persons that advocate conceal/open carry...that the police can not be everywhere.

Many call for armed gaurds or arming teachers and staff at schools...so how is a school district police force wrong?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between having guards and having a police force. Schools, hospitals etc etc should have guards. They are not there to enforce the law. They're there to guard people. Government regulatory agencies with policing powers on the other hand are trying to enforce regulations that they make. IMO that's like saying that Microsoft can have their own police force in which to enforce the terms of their TOS.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There is a difference between having guards and having a police force. Schools, hospitals etc etc should have guards. They are not there to enforce the law. They're there to guard people. Government regulatory agencies with policing powers on the other hand are trying to enforce regulations that they make. IMO that's like saying that Microsoft can have their own police force in which to enforce the terms of their TOS.
Click to expand...

Were are discussing what is. The BLM and school districts have police forces, Midrosoft does not.

What order was BLM enforcing? BLM policy or a court order to vacate?
 
1750Texan said:
Were are discussing what is. The BLM and school districts have police forces, Midrosoft does not.
Click to expand...

No, actually we're talking about a lawmakers belief that regulatory agencies should not be armed because they are not a paramilitary unit.

1750Texan said:
What order was BLM enforcing? BLM policy or a court order to vacate?
Click to expand...

It was a court order based off of BLM policy. So both.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Now that we have that out of our systems I still support what the guy said in the OP quote.
As a regulatory agency they should not be going around toting guns.
Click to expand...
Living in Idaho, you are quite aware of the entrance of the Mexican cartels into our NPS, NFS and BLM lands to grow pot.
As a website that avidly supports the common man carrying weapons that police do, do you want these BLM agents to face cartels unarmed ?
 
jamesrage said:
.What is the issue is whether or not certain agencies should be equipped with military weapons or military like weapons.
Click to expand...
So when BLM, NFS and NPS agents come across Cartels armed to the teeth, you want them to be unarmed,
far less than the common man you believe should be armed to the teeth like SWAT teams and Militias .
 
NIMBY said:
Living in Idaho, you are quite aware of the entrance of the Mexican cartels into our NPS, NFS and BLM lands to grow pot.
As a website that avidly supports the common man carrying weapons that police do, do you want these BLM agents to face cartels unarmed ?
Click to expand...

:roll: How many times must I say this in this thread? I fully support their right to carry guns in self defense. I do NOT support them having policing powers with full tactical SWAT teams. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.
 
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...
Wouldn't it actually cost more? Logistically, it would be ridiculous to have units in place in every location where they could conceivably be needed so unless one of these units just happened to be located in Nevada I'm assuming they had to be mobilized and transported a great distance to get there? Seems like it would be a hell of a lot less expensive to use local authorities.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Wouldn't it actually cost more? Logistically, it would be ridiculous to have units in place in every location where they could conceivably be needed so unless one of these units just happened to be located in Nevada I'm assuming they had to be mobilized and transported a great distance to get there? Seems like it would be a hell of a lot less expensive to use local authorities.
Click to expand...

You're presuming local authorities have unlimited resources. That's not the case. It makes much more sense for the BLM to bring their own officers and leave the local PD to the mountain of work already before them. This is especially true in rural areas where the BLM could be utilizing nearly the entire on-duty police force for the majority of a day.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, actually we're talking about a lawmakers belief that regulatory agencies should not be armed because they are not a paramilitary unit.


It was a court order based off of BLM policy. So both.
Click to expand...

Almost every police force is becoming heavily armed and have sections that are military like. What if the sheriffs department geared up paramilitray style and went out there?

Is the problem that police forces are becoming paramiltarized or that federal agencies have police forces?
 
How many years should have gone by before action was taken on FEDERAL Lands?
Which County and State law enforcement officials should have the policing powers on FEDERAL lands.
Kal'Stang said:
:roll: How many times must I say this in this thread? I fully support their right to carry guns in self defense. I do NOT support them having policing powers with full tactical SWAT teams. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Now, head back to the argument that this shouldn't be FEDERAL land .
 
Kal'Stang said:
:roll: How many times must I say this in this thread? I fully support their right to carry guns in self defense. I do NOT support them having policing powers with full tactical SWAT teams. There is a WORLD of difference between the two.
Click to expand...

No, there is not. Having a couple dozen officers and a 3 man swat is proper self defense against a crazy fraud claiming that the federal government does not exist. Let's not belittle the level of disobedience and disregard that was being put on display by the Bundy idiot. The guy is a colossal moron and a danger. Overwhelming force was just, prudent even.
 
ecofarm said:
You're presuming local authorities have unlimited resources. That's not the case. It makes much more sense for the BLM to bring their own officers and leave the local PD to the mountain of work already before them. This is especially true in rural areas where the BLM could be utilizing nearly the entire on-duty police force for the majority of a day.
Click to expand...
Not really. I am, however, assuming that they have adequate resources to deal with Bundy.(minus the militia that showed up later, of course.)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. I just think it is worthwhile to examine the possibility that there might be a little overkill.
 
1750Texan said:
Almost every police force is becoming heavily armed and have sections that are military like. What if the sheriffs department geared up paramilitray style and went out there?

Is the problem that police forces are becoming paramiltarized or that federal agencies have police forces?
Click to expand...

Neither of your options. Its that regulatory agencies have police forces. I would have prefered that the police or FBI had gone out there as that is the reason for having police and the FBI.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Not really. I am, however, assuming that they have adequate resources to deal with Bundy.(minus the militia that showed up later, of course.)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. I just think it is worthwhile to examine the possibility that there might be a little overkill.
Click to expand...

It's not overkill. When someone defies federal court orders for 20 years and declares that he does not recognize the federal government, and makes overt requests for a militia and rebellion, it's best to use overwhelming force.

This is beyond question.
 
NIMBY said:
How many years should have gone by before action was taken on FEDERAL Lands?
Which County and State law enforcement officials should have the policing powers on FEDERAL lands.


Now, head back to the argument that this shouldn't be FEDERAL land .
Click to expand...

The FBI has jurisdiction on federal land. And state and local police can also co-ordinate police actions with the permission of the government agency concerned.
 
ecofarm said:
No, there is not. Having a couple dozen officers and a 3 man swat is proper self defense against a crazy fraud claiming that the federal government does not exist. Let's not belittle the level of disobedience and disregard that was being put on display by the Bundy idiot. The guy is a colossal moron and a danger. Overwhelming force was just, prudent even.
Click to expand...

And that force very well could have been state/local police and/or the FBI. It doesn't matter how large a force is required. The very reason that we have police and the FBI is to enforce laws and regulations. There is no need for the BLM or any other regulatory agency to have its own police force when we already have two different kinds of agencies who's very mandate is to enforce laws and regulations.
 
And just as soon as the FBI goes after Bundy, as you advise, the arch-right-wingers would be coming out of the woodwork, as you know.
Poor Bundy being attacked by the FBI is the headline you'd like to see.
You have a circular argument that even you see through.
We have entered a phase of our history where there will be no end to anti-federal gov't attitudes unless DEMs are out of the picture .
Kal'Stang said:
The FBI has jurisdiction on federal land. And state and local police can also co-ordinate police actions with the permission of the government agency concerned.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
It's not overkill. When someone defies federal court orders for 20 years and declares that he does not recognize the federal government, and makes overt requests for a militia and rebellion, it's best to use overwhelming force.

This is beyond question.
Click to expand...
In the case of Bundy I fully agree that it was not overkill. But now what? This "overwhelming force" is still employed by the BLM and what are they doing right now? This is what I'm getting at.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
In the case of Bundy I fully agree that it was not overkill. But now what? This "overwhelming force" is still employed by the BLM and what are they doing right now? This is what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

The BLM has about 250 officers, nation wide. They're presumably doing BLM stuff. Why are you confused?
 
ecofarm said:
Nah. Those guys are busy with their local stuff.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what other stuff is on their plate. It's thier job to enforce the laws. You think that they would or should just ignore a crime just because they have other things on their plate?

BTW: The FBI was made specifically to deal with federal crimes. As such it is thier job to enforce federal laws/regulations. Not regulatory agencies.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Doesn't matter what other stuff is on their plate. It's thier job to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...

And it's also others' job to enforce the laws.

BTW: The FBI was made specifically to deal with federal crimes. As such it is thier job to enforce federal laws/regulations. Not regulatory agencies.
Click to expand...

Who claimed the FBI was not there?
 
NIMBY said:
And just as soon as the FBI goes after Bundy, as you advise, the arch-right-wingers would be coming out of the woodwork, as you know.
Poor Bundy being attacked by the FBI is the headline you'd like to see.
You have a circular argument that even you see through.
We have entered a phase of our history where there will be no end to anti-federal gov't attitudes unless DEMs are out of the picture .
Click to expand...

That is true. But then those arch-right wingers will come out no matter who shows up to enforce the laws. As such you really don't have a point against just using the FBI and/or state/local police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom