Reply
Fri 2 May, 2014 02:05 pm
The BLM, DoE, IRS, Post Office, TSA, DoC, DHHS, USDA, BIA are all armed agancies that really have no reason to be, in my opinion.
The FBI is supposed to be the Federal cops. They have been, and should be armed. They should also be the agency called when other agencies need to have an armed response. That way, only the FBI, who train with weapons and have the training and experience to use them. They are trained in tactics and investigations etc...
Other then the FBI, these agencies should be using local police when they need to or perhaps even state police. We have enough police forces on the local, state and federal forces that every dept or agency in the govt does not need it's own strike forces. It's getting way out of hand.
My 2 cents.
There is also the United States Marshals Service, a part of the Department of Justice, who have served the nation well for almost 200 years. I also think the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms need to be armed, simply because of their brief to investigate firearms irregularities and crimes.
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
It's getting way out of hand.
My 2 cents.
If these other agencies you mention have expertise that local agencies do not have, then some investigations, by these other agencies, might require officers to be armed? To assume that local law officers can handle all investigations, is sort of like thinking that Barney Fife in tv's Mayberry (Andy Griffith Show) was a sterling example of expert law enforcement, in my opinion.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
There is also the United States Marshals Service, a part of the Department of Justice, who have served the nation well for almost 200 years. I also think the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms need to be armed, simply because of their brief to investigate firearms irregularities and crimes.
I left quite a few agencies off the list that I could understand why they'd be armed. But the Dept of Education? What could they be doing that they need armed people? Bureau of Indian Affairs? Health and Human Services?
These organizations have no reason to need to be armed.
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
It's getting way out of hand.
My 2 cents.
If these other agencies you mention have expertise that local agencies do not have, then some investigations, by these other agencies, might require officers to be armed? To assume that local law officers can handle all investigations, is sort of like thinking that Barney Fife in tv's Mayberry (Andy Griffith Show) was a sterling example of expert law enforcement, in my opinion.
So most local police are like Barney Fife in your opinion?
I believe that considering your reading comprehension skills.
@McGentrix,
Quote:But the Dept of Education? What could they be doing that they need armed people?
You know... you really could find the answer to this question with a simple Google search. It took me 45 seconds to find out why the reason the Department of Education has armed employees.
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Foofie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
It's getting way out of hand.
My 2 cents.
If these other agencies you mention have expertise that local agencies do not have, then some investigations, by these other agencies, might require officers to be armed? To assume that local law officers can handle all investigations, is sort of like thinking that Barney Fife in tv's Mayberry (Andy Griffith Show) was a sterling example of expert law enforcement, in my opinion.
So most local police are like Barney Fife in your opinion?
I believe that considering your reading comprehension skills.
That is not what I said about local law encforcement. The inference is that local law enforcement does not always have specialized expertise in all types of investigations, and that was pretty obvious through the exaggerated character of Barney Fife. But if one wants to be sensitive about law enforcement in the hinterlands, be my guest. Notice the police shows are usually in urban areas; possibly to give the show a ring of authenticity? Or, perhaps, if the venue was the hinterlands, there would be only a few archetype bad guys? But, be sensitive, if you like; I am an expert in eliciting sensitive reactions. I kvell in that ability.
If government agencies dident have to protect themselves from the gun nuts like the ones inserting themselves into the grass stealing controversy no one would need guns.
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Foofie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
It's getting way out of hand.
My 2 cents.
If these other agencies you mention have expertise that local agencies do not have, then some investigations, by these other agencies, might require officers to be armed? To assume that local law officers can handle all investigations, is sort of like thinking that Barney Fife in tv's Mayberry (Andy Griffith Show) was a sterling example of expert law enforcement, in my opinion.
So most local police are like Barney Fife in your opinion?
I believe that considering your reading comprehension skills.
That is not what I said about local law encforcement. The inference is that local law enforcement does not always have specialized expertise in all types of investigations, and that was pretty obvious through the exaggerated character of Barney Fife. But if one wants to be sensitive about law enforcement in the hinterlands, be my guest. Notice the police shows are usually in urban areas; possibly to give the show a ring of authenticity? Or, perhaps, if the venue was the hinterlands, there would be only a few archetype bad guys? But, be sensitive, if you like; I am an expert in eliciting sensitive reactions. I kvell in that ability.
That's why they have the FBI. As I suggested. That's what the "or" was for. They should be the armed response for federal agencies when they need one.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Quote:But the Dept of Education? What could they be doing that they need armed people?
You know... you really could find the answer to this question with a simple Google search. It took me 45 seconds to find out why the reason the Department of Education has armed employees.
So, what did you come up with? Too many in school suspensions?
@McGentrix,
I'm confused...
you want all of the citizens to be allowed to carry guns (including assault rifles), but no one in the government to.
does that seem odd to anyone else?
@Rockhead,
We all know that the TSA and the Secret Service shouldn't be armed.
How dare the TSA try and provide security in order to protect the US from another 9/11 event?!
How dare the secret service try and protect the president from assassination? Or try and enforce the law against violent currency counterfeiters? Of course, Republicans have the right to assassinate President Obama then allow the Secret Service to be armed only when Republicans have their president in the office.
@coldjoint,
You know I doubt all these agencies being armed is a new thing, nor is it difficult to figure out why they would need to be armed in certain situations. Imagine a SSI agent going into a house where a person has been committing SSI fraud for years, there is a potential for violence in that situation. Unless you want all government agents who have to be in those situations to be escorted by the local police in the area, they really have no choice but to be prepared for any violence which could take place. Its not rocket science to figure out, unless you are just looking for something to complain about from the government.
@McGentrix,
So.. let's see.
The BLM manages federal land including state parks. In most cases local police have no jurisdiction on federal land. Who do you propose police the federal lands if local police can't?
The DoE has a department that is responsible for the safe transport of nuclear materials including nuclear weapons. Sure, it would be a great idea to make sure they weren't armed.
The IRS has about 2700 armed agents that work on criminal cases. Federal officers are required to enforce federal law.
In the case of Cliven Bundy we see how local law enforcement can be compromised when it comes time to enforce a federal law.
@revelette2,
The agencies aren't armed. The agencies have a small contingency of agents responsible for criminal investigations that are armed. The argument that they don't need to be armed is ridiculous. Sure we could move all the armed agents to the FBI and then simply assign them to the other agencies but that seems rather silly.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace