Do government agencies need to be armed?

@parados,

Dept of energy? That's just as bad as the dept of education. Why do those agents need guns? Their job is no where as dangerous as that of a street cop. It's still a disgrace to try and equate those types of cops.

You have many more street cops doing patrol stops then you do agents of the DOE presenting warrants. The jobs are not equal in anyway. When was the last time you heard a news story of a DOE agent in a fire fight? Please be real about this.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Here is one story of the DoEducation serving a warrant with armed agents.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aim_of_swat-like_raid_was_student-aid_fraud_education_dept._given_police_po

A copy of the warrant in that raid
http://archive.news10.net/news/pdf/Ed-dept-Wright-warrant-060711.pdf

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

As I said, DOE has ALL the responsibility to protect our stockpiles, fuel rods, reactors, research facilities and weapons grade nuke plants (there are a bunch, all the way from UF6 to stockpile and , "cake piles" trigger plants, and DOD nuke weapons storage units (I believe that the DOD has responsibility once a nuke is deployed to an air base or a ship or sub-but Im not sure).
NEST teams are DOE as are the HS forces that del with "dirty bombs".
Does the reason for weapons become clearer?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Most police officers don't do traffic stops.

What don't you know? I am tired of your condescension. Police do what they do. They are who citizens look to for protection. Your constant overkill is tiresome bullshit.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I had pointed out earlier that the D of Energy was responsible for transport of nuclear material.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Dept of energy? That's just as bad as the dept of education. Why do those agents need guns? Their job is no where as dangerous as that of a street cop. It's still a disgrace to try and equate those types of cops.

Well, in other countries (like in the UK) that's a highly specialised separate police force (Civil Nuclear Constabulary), the only one in the UK which only has armed members.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I was told by my compadre that DOE is energy and DOe is ed (used to be HEW until I was older)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Hey if they have a legitimate need to be armed, I'm OK with it. I don't buy that EPA agents and the rest do.

1 Reply

@parados,

So this was the Dept of Education. Serving a warrant for student aide fraud? So they sent a swat team? Dept of Education? WOW! You are ok with this?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Do government agencies need to be armed?
The citizens shud all be very well armed with their personal weapons,
but government personnel shud be un-armed on-the-job
(except the military, during war).

David

Why do you say that? Or is this just your mindless gut reaction?
Why should government employees be second-class citizens?

Keep them humble on-the-job.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Perhaps you should read the real facts instead of the RW spin on the story.

1. It wasn't SWAT.
2. They were serving a warrant which you admitted requires agents to be armed.

By the way, It was G W Bush and the GOP that provided for an armed the D of Ed.

4 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

EPA is snotty enuff. They don't need to be issued anything stronger than Tedlar Bags

0 Replies

@parados,

A cop, by virtue of his job can be placed in danger on a daily basis. I get that you don't see the point. I never expected to you.

If the BLM agents thought there was going to be trouble with Bundy, they had plenty of time to arrange for professional law enforcement agents to accompany them. Maybe old ladies wouldn't have gotten tazzed.

The Pros are more than capable of improperly handling a conflict situation, and every time they do, we can be sure that you and your confreres will be screaming bloody murder. Why the hell would be want to arm amateurs?

1 Reply

@parados,

Who cares who initiated this nuttiness?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

RW spin on the story.

Look who is talking. There is no one on this forum with such a clearly biased agenda as you. And the fact you are paid make it more than obvious that lies have to be covered by every angle possible to make the left intentions appear as something they are not even close to.

0 Replies

@parados,

I read your story that you posted a link too. The story used the term SWAT. Don't blame me, blame the article you posted. It was the only place I read the story.

I guess for them to be a SWAT team would depend on the type of training they received and the type of operations they perform. SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics.

I guess I don't understand why they have the powers they do. According to what you have said it was the 2004 creation of the DHS that allowed them to have those types of LE powers. Well it should be changed. As has been noted, we have way to many armed federal agencies. If the DOe needs help serving a warrant due to fraud, then they can call upon local LE or the FBI. No reason for DOe to have weapons and LE powers.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Perhaps you should read the real facts instead of the RW spin on the story.

1. It wasn't SWAT.
2. They were serving a warrant which you admitted requires agents to be armed.

By the way, It was G W Bush and the GOP that provided for an armed the D of Ed.

There is no need of armed educators,
so long as the STUDENTS are sufficiently well armed.

David

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

I read your story that you posted a link too. The story used the term SWAT. Don't blame me, blame the article you posted. It was the only place I read the story.

Quote:

Aim of SWAT-Like Raid Was Student-Aid Fraud;

Quote:

The agents worked for the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General and were not a SWAT team.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

There is no need of armed educators,
so long as the STUDENTS are sufficiently well armed.

Do government agencies need to be armed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know