Federal Workers in Utah Threatened by Armed Hooded Men Carrying “You Need to Die” Sign

blm-rangerIt’s been just about a month since the story of welfare rancher Cliven Bundy and his group of wannabe G.I. Joes made headlines in Nevada.  It was around that time I wrote an article calling many of these people who seem giddy about the possibility of having some kind of armed conflict with federal agents terrorists.

After all, isn’t that why many of these tea party “patriots” say our Second Amendment is for – an armed revolt?

But after the initial flareup at the Bundy ranch had subsided, there were reports from Nevada concerning these “militia” individuals setting up checkpoints along the highway near Bunkerville and stopping drivers to ensure that they were from the area.

And now there’s a story about the Utah Highway Patrol investigating an incident where a federal worker driving a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vehicle was threatened with a handgun by hooded gunmen.  

Eric Reid, a supervisor at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Fillmore Field Office said that two individuals in a blue Dodge 1500 extended-cab pickup pulled alongside one of the field agents and “told him he was No. 1 with that certain gesture.”

The truck then backed off but reappeared later.  Only this time the men were wearing hoods and holding a sign that read, “You need to die.” One of the men pointed what appeared to be a Glock at the field agent.  After the truck moved on, the agent tried to get the license plate number but it had been covered up by duct tape.

“It’s one of those things now we’re going to be dealing with,” Reid said. “A lot of people have taken that attitude toward the government.”

And these people want to act offended when I call them terrorists?  Could you imagine if a couple of Muslim men did something like this towards a government official?  It’s amazing when it’s a group of armed white people threatening the federal government they’re being “patriots,” but if a group of armed Muslims were to do some of these same things they’d be branded terrorists and those same armed white people would be outraged.

So while these people might keep calling themselves patriots, I’m going to continue to call them what they really are – domestic terrorists.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    Yep, we all need more guns and fewer regulations! We are becoming the laughing stock of the world. Too many uneducated wing nuts!

    • mickey

      sorry we are not becoming the laughing stock of the world. we have been the laughing stock for many, many, years

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      It sounds like you are one of those that puts the focus on the first half of the second amendment, which has no Right listed. The actual Right of the second amendment is found in the second half of it. Do you care to learn the definitions of those individual words in the second half? Then try to step up a little bit and string those words together into a logical phrase that has some meaning. I know it takes a certain learning curve to understand those really big words, but give it a go please.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You mean the part about “WELL-REGULATED???”

      • Charles Vincent

        Well regulated is in the first part, and it means well trained and organized in such a manner as to be able to work in concert with a professional army.

      • Brian

        So does Bubba-Joe and his $80 Mosin Nagant M44 count as that?

      • Charles Vincent

        Time period appropriate yes now no, but the framers intended us to have identical arms to the professional military, i.e. as technology of firearms advanced and military used the latest tech so to were the people and the militia to use the newest firearms. I think the federalist No. 29 talks about this, and you can see it in the US constitution as well.

      • Brian

        That’s complete and total nonsense based solely on an utterly radical interpretation. It’s wildly irresponsible and has no historical basis. The only times military grade weaponry started making it in the hands of private people caused so much death and chaos that regulation was introduced to prevent it. The state militias were what the Constitution intended for, and those were disbanded and replaced with the national guard, which comprises of citizen soldiers using fairly modern equipment and fighting along with the army. What’s more the state militias got their weapons from an armory. They didn’t take them home with them. There is no justifiable reason what so ever for a civilian to own a military grade weapon, there never was, and there never has been.

      • Charles Vincent

        “The state militias were what the Constitution intended for, and those were disbanded and replaced with the national guard, which comprises of citizen soldiers using fairly modern equipment and fighting along with the army.”

        Wrong.

        http://www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/text/10/311

        And if you’re lazy here is what the link goes to(this is current us code BTW).

        “(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b)The classes of the militia are—

        (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        The Dick Act didn’t disband the militia it classified the two types of militia.

        “What’s more the state militias got their weapons from an armory. They didn’t take them home with them.”

        The national guard yes. The unorganized militia no, they were to provide their own firearms and ammunition.

        “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

        The Militia act of 1792

        “That’s complete and total nonsense based solely on an utterly radical interpretation. It’s wildly irresponsible and has no historical basis.”

        This is shear willful ignorance on your part. History records the right to bear military arms clear back to the Magna Carta and before then as well.

        “There is no justifiable reason what so ever for a civilian to own a military grade weapon, there never was, and there never has been.”

        This is opinion not fact.

      • Brian

        Wow you are so full of it I have no idea where to begin. Ok, first off the Dick Act repealed the Militia Acts of 1792, meaning that soldiers do not supply their own firearms anymore. If you’re trying to say the Dick Act means that all American citizens must arm up, you are completely wrong.
        Secondly, the Dick Act’s unorganized militia is the draft. It is NOT these paramilitary morons waving guns around to fight the man.
        The Dick Act provides no justification, in any page of its writing, for civilians to have military-grade weaponry.
        The Magna Carta had the gentry providing weapons to the civilian populace, and was meant to be a level of the king’s power. It is not comparable. Do not compare spears to machine guns.
        No, there is no reason why a civilian should an M16 or a machine gun or a rocket launcher. That is not opinion. That is objective fact. If you want to own one, you are most likely a lunatic. If you think it is your right, and that is reason enough for you to own one, you should be institutionalized. It is wildly irresponsible to allow private ownership of guns in the first place, but making them military weapons will guarantee countless more people will die.

      • Charles Vincent

        All your opinion but considering SCOTUS cases you’re still wrong. There was no draft when they passed the dick act. The dick act formalized how the president could call up the state militia. and your attempt to shift the burden of proof is childish at best.

        “No, there is no reason why a civilian should an M16 or a machine gun or a rocket launcher. That is not opinion. That is objective fact.”

        The only thing factual about this is its your opinion. aslo another example of Onus probandi and Mind projection fallacy.

        It is not comparable. Do not compare spears to machine guns.

        HAHAHAHAHAHA I wasn”t lol but if you think that the founders couldn’t foresee that technology in firearms would advance you have bigger problems than you’ve displayed here.

        “If you want to own one, you are most likely a lunatic.”

        Ad hominem attack.

        “If you think it is your right, and that is reason enough for you to own one, you should be institutionalized.”

        Ad hominem attack.

        “If you’re trying to say the Dick Act means that all American citizens must arm up, you are completely wrong.”

        Argumentum absurdum

        Your whole post is Kettle logic, and or Wishful thinking.

      • Brian

        Wahh all your opinion, how dare you disagree with me! I want a machine gun so I can kill the big bad government! Waahhh! Cheap copout. The Dick Act repealed the Militia Acts, the draft is the unorganized militia, and the framers of the constitution had no possible way of knowing what weapons would be like in the future. You are making assumptions about them in order to support your own argument, which I already tore apart. If you think their intention was for a government to be brought down by a militia, you’re drunk on your own power and self-worth.

        It all comes down to this. You think the Militia Acts still hold meaning even though the Dick Act outright repealed them. Your argument for private ownership of firearms has been debunked time and time again, yet you repeat it like a broken record.
        You are wrong. This is not my opinion. This is simple fact. You want to cause more pain and suffering in the world because you are a paranoid lunatic.

        You can’t accept you are wrong. So you continue to post blatant nonsense.

      • Charles Vincent

        You are an Idiot enjoy your own ignorance
        The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was legislation which codified the circumstances under which the National Guard
        could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to the National
        Guard to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer
        encampments. In return, the National Guard began to organize its units
        along the same lines as the regular Army, and took steps to meet the same training, education and readiness requirements as active duty units.[1]
        Current US code;

        (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b)The classes of the militia are—

        (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        You are the one who cannot accept you are wrong I showed you both Current US law Code that verifies that there are two categories of Militia currently. Then you attempted to set up a straw-man in this most recent post. and you continue to make absurd claims yet offer not a single fact to back your assertion. Ad Hominem attacks are an admission of defeat You have no argument only insults because I made you look ridiculous.

        “Your argument for private ownership of firearms has been debunked time and time again, yet you repeat it like a broken record.”

        Supreme court case that supports my assertion that we have the right to keep and bear arms

        District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

        According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[183] in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[183][184]

        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
        firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
        traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
        Pp. 2–53.[183][184]

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.[183][184]

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to
        abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that
        the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.[183][184]

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.[183][184]

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.[183][184]

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.[183][184]

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[183][184]

      • Brian

        The. Dick Act. Repealed. The. Militia Acts. The “unorganized militia” consists of men elegible for draft. I don’t see why this is so difficult for you. You’re just using your ignorance to sit there and claim you should own a machine gun.

      • Charles Vincent

        The us code that is on the books currently says different chief. the fact that your reading comprehension prevents you from grasping that.

        “What’s more you keep citing cases from before 1903.”

        What SCOTUS case law did I cite before 1903?

        Oh thats right I didn’t I posted the DC v Heller case;

        District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

        Which consequently refuted directly both your assertions that; 1)the civilian militia doesn’t exist and 2) that people do not have the right to bear arms (according to you)

        “The “unorganized militia” consists of men elegible for draft. I don’t see why this is so difficult for you.”

        the selective service draft registration was passed into existence in 1917 that’s 14 years after the dick act.
        “The Selective Service Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 76) was passed by the 65th United States Congress on May 18, 1917 creating the Selective Service System.[8]The Act gave the President the power to conscript men for military service. All males aged 21 to 30 were required to register for military
        service for a service period of 12 months.”

        The militia did draft civilians, it stated that all men ages 17-45 are the militia.

        “You’re just using your ignorance to sit there and claim you should own a machine gun.”

        The NFA already allows civilians to own machine guns, this information is also available from the BATF web site;

        “It is a common misconception[12] that an individual must have a “Class 3 ” in order to own NFA . An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II .”

      • The very first use of the 2nd Amendment Militia was to suppress an anti-tax rebellion against the federal government.
        The idea that the framers intended the 2nd Amendment Militia to be used AGAINST the federal government is stupid.
        Some people think they know the 2nd Amendment better than George Washington LOL.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s pretty clear why it’s there if you read the federalist papers but I guess you haven’t done that yet.

      • Navy5717th

        Brian: If you were to have a son with a Greek bride you could call him Zorba the Dumbs*it.

        Do you remember the weapons that the patriots used at Lexington and Concord? Were they pitchforks? Hammers? Butcher knives? Nope — they were smooth bore, individually-manufactured muskets and flintlocks that they kept at home.

        Lest you think I’m a gun enthusiast, I’m not. I’m a CONSTITUTION enthusiast. I have no firearms of any kind. I don’t hunt. I don’t participate in marksmanship contests. The last weapon I fired was an M-16in the Mekong Delta in March of 1968.

        That said, unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed:

        “…, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        The solution for you and the other “progressives” in this thread is simple and straightforward, Get Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment and have the States ratify it that repealsh the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that, Brian. Go for it!!

      • Brian

        Get your facts straight. The muskets used by the minutemen weren’t kept at home, they were kept in armories and were supplied by the French. They happened to have them on hand at Lexington and Concord because they knew several minutes in advance an attack was coming. I’ve already explained elsewhere on this thread why I believe you’re wrong, and if you read my arguments and are still posting this, you have already made your mind up, are not going to change it, and are merely picking a fight with me to stroke your ego, something which, beyond this reply, I will not do. Also, your history does nothing to make me respect you more or less, I do not care or need to know.

      • Jim Bean

        You keep bringing that up like it means something. You think the framers of second amendment intended to disarm private citizens and just never got around to doing it?

      • Brian

        Of course it means something. Did they just say “Hey, you know what’d be funny? Let’s just write a few meaningless words in there!” Secondly, what is a “private citizen”? There’s only one kind of citizen and that’s a citizen. You pay taxes and follow the law, and if the law says you cannot have an AR-15, you damn well better follow it. Thirdly, no one wants to disarm anyone. But there’s no reason for the average American to have a private arsenal of weapons. The framers of the constitution had no idea what guns would be like a century later.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        There is no reason for crazy people to have weapons, but that doesn’t seem to matter to some people. I got no problem with a gun registry and laws requiring licensing and safety regulations.

      • Jim Bean

        There is a reason, however, not to make ‘crazy’ people think you won’t let them have a gun if they seek treatment for their craziness. Can you guess what it is?

      • Jim Bean

        I agree, the framers could have no idea what guns would be like (2) centuries later. Can you agree that they intended the people to have whatever weapons necessary to take back control of the country should the government become intolerable as their former British government had? Cause that’s what they were worrying about. It’s not like they were worried that Spain, for example, would produce some proclamation that effectively prevented America from having an armed defense mechanism.

      • Brian

        The framers never intended the 2nd amendment to be about “taking back control of the government”. That is lunacy. That is complete and total lunacy and just begging for pain and suffering. You are completely hopeless if you believe that anyone ever intended on civilians owning military weapons to fight the government, and if that is your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I sincerely hope you hve the kindness to be isolated from other human beings, because you are a danger to yourself and others.

      • Jim Bean

        Dude, the people who wrote that thing had just got done using their personal weapons to take control of the government away from England. To think they immediately sat down and wrote something designed to make sure they’d never be able to do it again should the need arise is what fits the definition of ‘lunacy’. When it went into effect the people were permitted to own the same cannons the government owned.

      • Brian

        “Personal weapons” Someone doesn’t know his history. No one used their personal weapons. The minutemen had muskets stored in armories where they could be accessed. No one used their personal weapons. The continental army had its weapons supplied largely by France. Again, no personal weapons.
        The Constitution had separation of powers and the means of impeaching elected officials. The intention was not for mobs to lynch politicians. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with that. Stop clinging to these tired arguments that have been thoroughly debunked.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re trying to insinuate there was no private possession of guns without saying it because you’re trying to avoid sounding stupid. Didn’t work.

      • Kobukvolbane

        Dude. Look at your Constitution. Search for the phrase “levying war.”

      • Kobukvolbane

        Intolerable? You mean the person you voted for didn’t get in? Have you forgotten about what the Constitution actually says? Did you know there’s more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        WHy do you always equate “regulation” with “disarming?” They are not the same, although in your case they should be.

      • Jim Bean

        Cool! You answered the question in your first sentence with what you said in your last.

  • Labgramma

    They only “think” they want to pick a fight with the US government. Idiots!!

  • meatwad_SSuppet

    Looks like the tit fer tat is upon us. The bed they’ve made.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      You do mean the bed the RWNJs have made for themselves. right?

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Oh yeah, I mean those RW and LW nut jobs that has no clue that the Constitution is not a listing of what we may do, but a restriction placed upon those cashing the government payroll checks.

        I bet you would want to lock up pot heads, because there is a law, no matter how illegal the law really is when put up against the Constitution and bill of rights.

        Gov-suck-up Morons surround me.

    • Brian

      Tit fer tat? What’s tit fer tat? Government workers not being able to do their job and enforce the law for fear of getting shot by paranoid maniacs? That’s insanity.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        I bet you would have helped the Nazis round up people for a cattle car ride,,, just like a good little citizen.

  • MLR

    Yep, we’re slipping into third world status alright. Between the KKK running neighborhood watches and domestic terrorists setting up checkpoints on a major U.S. highway and threatening federal workers, this can’t possibly look good for us.

  • Matthew Reece

    The federal government is a domestic terrorist organization. However, the answer to domestic terrorism is not more domestic terrorism, but the use of force in self-defense.

    • Presenting assertions as though they are self-evident facts may work for right-wing authoritarians, but to everyone else it just sounds foolish.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yes, it does.

      • Matthew Reece

        Every definition of terrorism that does not have a special pleading clause in it like “unless a government does it” will have to include governments as terrorist organizations.

      • Defense of property lawfully acquired is not terrorism.
        The property in question is the property of the United States of America, acquired by treaty from Mexico and not given or sold to anyone else.

      • Matthew Reece

        Defense of property morally acquired is not terrorism. No government acquires property morally. All governments have their agents to murder and steal for it.

      • LOLWUT? Bundy acquired his “ranch” (actually a melon farm) by purchasing title from a private party. But where did that private party get title? From the government through intermediate buyers.
        So you’re saying Bundy is part of a government plot to murder and steal land. Well, o.k., so Bundy has no moral title to his “ranch” LOL

      • Matthew Reece

        Look up the Lockean concept of property rights, since you appear to be ignorant of it. Or just continue spouting ad lapidem fallacies, your choice.

    • Brian

      Nonsense.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Give it up, Matthew. We got laws. Youse follows da laws. You don’t, you get whacked. Simple. We don’t live in a libertarian/anarchist paradise.

      • Matthew Reece

        You are defending immorality. “Do as I say or I beat you” is no better than what a wild animal does, and it is appropriate to deal with those who behave like that as such.

        Glenn Beck does not appear to understand the homesteading principle.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You don’t get to determine what is moral and what isn’t. Sorry.

      • Matthew Reece

        No one gets to determine what is or is not moral. Everyone gets a chance to reveal what is or is not moral by use of logic. That which is logically inconsistent is a source of evil. The idea that government agents can steal while private citizens cannot is logically inconsistent.

      • In this case, the government agents are custodians of the property of the United States, lawfully acquired from Mexico by Treaty. When the states were formed by the federal government, it retained certain land rights.
        Why “libertarians” support theft from public lands I don’t know, but I suppose thieves are too lazy to make an honest living.

      • Matthew Reece

        There is no such thing as “public land.” All legitimate property is private. If it is not private, then it is stolen.

      • So you’re saying that the Founders of our Nation were thieves?

        hahahahhahha!

        All title in land in the United States derives from a royal grants, in the case of the 13 colonies, or purchases and/or treaties by the U.S. government.

        That’s a simple fact. Your religious belief that there is no public title in land a silly.

      • Matthew Reece

        The English stole that land and murdered the natives who lived on it, as did the Spanish, French, Dutch, Swedish, etc.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      They have trained so many to be the perfect little puppets for the tyrants.

  • Brian

    This is what the Republican party has done. They won’t quit until civilization itself is eliminated in the name of reducing government.

  • Stephen Barlow

    It’s time for another Ruby Ridge… This time with Black helicopters and 100 ‘terrorists’ to be disappeared vis the NDAA regulation John McCain inserted in the 2012 Bill.

  • sapereaudeprime

    These people must be rounded up and incarcerated until they can be lobotomized and sterilized, or until they die. If they resist, we can omit the lobotomy and sterilization part.

  • Navy5717th

    Joann Cummings is a left-wing, internet sissy who posts all kinds of this “progressive” nonsense, but somehow manages to block people who disagree with her from posting their dissent.