• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: IRS is buying shotguns

Ajetpilot

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
swatspyder

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
That's why the rest of us in society should be armed and ready at all times for defense.
 
Stretch

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
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.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
Click to expand...
That could very well be this is the first I am hearing of it though. And it is disturbing to me either way.
 
Ajetpilot

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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.
 
T

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
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.
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

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

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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,
Click to expand...
 
E

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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.
 
compmanio365

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.....
 
E

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
E

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Until that last sentence I was almost with you. LOL: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...
Click to expand...
+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.
 
E

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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?
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top