Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 91

Thread: OT: IRS is buying shotguns

  1. #1
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post



    http://tinyurl.com/yagrxcf
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.


  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    They didn't get Al Capone for being a gangster, they got him for being a tax evader.......

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    But they used a separate police force for it. It is very disturbing to me that they will now be arming themselves and being their own police.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    But they used a separate police force for it. It is very disturbing to me that they will now be arming themselves and being their own police.
    That's why the rest of us in society should be armed and ready at all times for defense.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    I was under the impression that the IRS had been armed for quite some time. Regardless, I don't agree with them needing to be armed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Stretch wrote:
    I was under the impression that the IRS had been armed for quite some time. Regardless, I don't agree with them needing to be armed.
    That could very well be this is the first I am hearing of it though. And it is disturbing to me either way.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Think about going to see your friendly IRS agent for an audit. You aren't allowed to carry in the building (federal building), but the agent sitting across from you is armed to the teeth. That might be a bit intimidating. How about adding a uniform and a badge? I don't like where this could go.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    The Criminal Investigation Division is completely different from the "regular" agent who is tasked with auditing. They are one of the 68 Federal Law Enforcement agencies, tasked with LEO duties, not those of accounting.

    Cite 'cause jim knows.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Good grief. Sixty-eight FederalLaw Enforcement agencies. Is that enough? No wonder the Federal budget is through the roof!

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Stretch wrote:
    I was under the impression that the IRS had been armed for quite some time.
    Puh-leeze. Let's not let some rational perspective enter into this discussion.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    so, ban the IRS from possessing firearms then? How 'bout park rangers next, and then weight scale cops and then and then and then. Common ground with the Bradey Bunch perhaps?



    BTW, the article indicates these shotguns are compatible with others already in their inventory.
    are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory,

  12. #12
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    I guess you're right, erps. The Federal government isn't strong enough. I just don't understand how they can get by with only 68 LE agencies. Why not 100? Or 200? or...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    That's not my postion jet. I would like to restrict the size of the federal government and their influence over our lives. I'm not one to restrict another person from tools used to defend their lives. I think it's a shame that pizza outfits prohibit their delivery people from being able to carry for self defense.I'm just surprised to find that same sort of mentality here when an unpopular agency is involved. I guess the gun ban mentality has more influence than I thought.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    That's why the rest of us in society should be armed and ready at all times for defense.
    defense from whom? The IRS?

  15. #15
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    so, ban the IRS from possessing firearms then? How 'bout park rangers next, and then weight scale cops and then and then and then. Common ground with the Bradey Bunch perhaps?



    BTW, the article indicates these shotguns are compatible with others already in their inventory.
    are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory,
    The 2nd Amendment is a right enumerated for the citizen, not the government or it's representatives. When those people are not representing the government, they have every right that you and I have as everyday citizens. When they are on the clock and being paid as a federal employee, they can and should be extremely restricted on the amount of force they can bring to bear against your everyday Joe.....namely because your everyday Joe can and should be better armed than the government goons. That's the very idea behind the RTKBA.....

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post


    When they are on the clock and being paid as a federal employee, they can and should be extremely restricted on the amount of force they can bring to bear against your everyday Joe
    Well of course. Do you have evidence that the purchase of these shotguns are for offensive operations against the average Joe? Do you believe we should restrict law enforcement from possessing firearms because they might use them against the average Joe? Isn't that the same logic gun banners use against the rest of us citizens?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Compmanio, in the felon in possession thread you wrote:
    If a man may not be trusted with the most basic right to self defense, then why is that man out of jail and in society?
    and yet you seem to have problems with agents of a law enforcement agency exercising that same "most basic right to self defense" and then call them "government goons". What's up with that?

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    Compmanio, in the felon in possession thread you wrote:
    If a man may not be trusted with the most basic right to self defense, then why is that man out of jail and in society?
    and yet you seem to have problems with agents of a law enforcement agency exercising that same "most basic right to self defense" and then call them "government goons". What's up with that?
    Not a fair comparison, re-read companio's first post. Gov. agencies don't have rights people do.

    And I can't think of a reason they should need guns defensively or offensively as a tax 'agency

    erps wrote:

    so, ban the IRS from possessing firearms then? How 'bout park rangers next, and then weight scale cops and then and then and then. Common ground with the Bradey Bunch perhaps?
    Until that last sentence I was almost with you. LOL
    By arming agency after agency they have practically made the standing army the founding fathers were fairly set against.

    James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia."

    Ajetpilot wrote:

    I guess you're right, erps. The Federal government isn't strong enough. I just don't understand how they can get by with only 68 LE agencies. Why not 100? Or 200? or...
    +1 The question is when is it going to stop. They are effectively creating a standing army against its people.

    I am just glad to know that every single military person I know have spoken that if it every came to defending the government or the people and their unalienable rights they will side with the peoples.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    SVG, I've seen you speak of natural rights before. Isn't self defense a natural right? Would you deny people the right to self defense because of their employer?

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    SVG, I've seen you speak of natural rights before. Isn't self defense a natural right? Would you deny people the right to self defense because of their employer?
    No I wouldn't. But government agencies are not afforded these same natural rights, the individual people who work in them are. And yes they should have full rights to bear arms as individuals.

    Would I personally bar anyone in any position from carrying something for their own protection. Absolutely not.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    And I can't think of a reason they should need guns defensively or offensively as a tax 'agency
    I can't think of a reason why carpet layers might need a hammer to install carpets, but I'm not a carpet installer, so what would I know. Should we outfit law enforcement agencies using criteria of the fellows doing the job, or just pick some guy at random off the street to decide what equipment they need to do their job?





  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    And I can't think of a reason they should need guns defensively or offensively as a tax 'agency
    I can't think of a reason why carpet layers might need a hammer to install carpets, but I'm not a carpet installer, so what would I know. Should we outfit law enforcement agencies using criteria of the fellows doing the job, or just pick some guy at random off the street to decide what equipment they need to do their job?



    Because they work for us, we should decide what they get to use for their job.

    Can you think of a reason why a carpet layer would need a shotgun to lay carpet?

    Edit to ad a funny story:
    I did see an old man whose house we were working on try to use a shotgun to make a whole in top plates in a hard to reach spot for a plumber to feed a pipe through.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post


    But government agencies are not afforded these same natural rights,
    Certain Government agencies are authorized by law to carry weapons to conduct their duties. Law enforcement agencies are typically authorized to carry weapons because it's recognized that their very job puts them in a position to enforce a law that the law breaker does not agree with.
    I am just glad to know that every single military person I know have spoken that if it every came to defending the government or the people and their unalienable rights they will side with the peoples.
    Do you have reason to believe that the other government workers feel differently? What was the number of shotguns the IRS purchased, 68 wasn't it? A standing army? I would bet money that there are individuals that own a bigger arsenal than that.




  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post


    Because they work for us, we should decide what they get to use for their job.

    You're absolutely right. I submit that the people have already decided that they can use shotguns to do their job.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Can you think of a reason why a carpet layer would need a shotgun to lay carpet?

    Nope, but I can think of a reason why a carpet layer might need a shotgun for self defense. I bet if you try really hard, you can come up with a reason why the enforcement section of the IRS might need a shotgun too.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •