June 10, 2011

Do they know something we don't? "Is there some special reason the federal government is arming up its agencies?"

What does the Railroad Retirement Board need side arms for? That's what Christian Adams wants to know, because its one more federal agency that's getting weapons based on Obama administration requests. Other armed agencies, courtesy Quin Hillyer at the Washington Times:

* Department of Education
* Small Business Administration
* Departments of Health and Human Services
* Agriculture, Labor, and Veterans Affairs
* Bureau of Land Management
* Bureau of Indian Affairs
* Environmental Protection Agency
* Fish and Wildlife Service
-- Word Around the Net

Posted by Vanderleun at June 10, 2011 4:03 PM
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

If you don't have your own army, you're a nobody in this feudal world. Most of us are on the wrong side of the mote.

Posted by: Casca at June 10, 2011 4:08 PM

Well, the Dept of Education needs a SWAT team to collect those delinquent student loans.

Posted by: Cris at June 10, 2011 4:23 PM

It's a-coming folks. Be prepared!

Posted by: Frank P at June 10, 2011 4:31 PM

Welcome to Brazil Mr. TButtle

Posted by: Jewel at June 10, 2011 5:05 PM

BLM I can understand; vast stretches of country (mainly out west) and no telling what you might encounter (rustlers, meth cookers, pot growers, and Lord knows what else. All very far from any help.)

BIA I can also (maybe) understand, most reservations are wide open country far from any assistance, and while BIA is often not a welcome sight they do fill an law enforcement function when tribal law is found to be particularly corrupt.

All the rest are a frank insult to liberty.

Posted by: ThomasD at June 10, 2011 5:54 PM

STOCKTON - A man and his children are dragged out of their home when the Department of Education served a search warrant for someone who didn't live there anymore.

"Served a search warrant" is the current euphemism for an armed, flak-vest-wearing squad smashing in a guy's front door and pinning him to the floor of his home -- and they weren't after *him* in the first place...


Posted by: BillT at June 10, 2011 8:12 PM

"Is there some special reason the federal government is arming up its agencies?"

I think it's called jumping the shark. What is left to hold them back? From anything?

Everything government at any level does is, of course, for our own good. But there is always, at some level of consciousness, an understanding of unpleasant truths--it is for their own good. It makes no sense to do what they do and not be militarized.

Posted by: at June 10, 2011 9:09 PM

And with recent court decisions that it is in fact illegal to resist an illegal police raid of your home............ well, we know where this will lead.

Posted by: RagnarD at June 10, 2011 9:46 PM

Any particular reason why officials of any and all of those agencies should NOT carry guns? After all, as repeated on this site ad nauseam, it is the "God-given" right of every American to carry as much lethal hardware as he wishes. Which means that if these officials are not allowed to carry they are at a disadvantage if they run into the sort of crazies they may well meet.

As already stated, a few of those agencies send their people into the middle of nowhere far from help, too.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at June 11, 2011 12:56 AM

When it comes down to a good fight, the playing field should be even. Let them have their guns. Makes for a fair fight.

Posted by: Cilla Mitchell, Galveston Texas at June 11, 2011 2:45 AM

Carrying a gun in a federal job is a twenty-year retirement. That's why they want to carry. It's not the threat. If they're going somewhere dangerous, they can always take a real local copper with them.

Posted by: Casca at June 11, 2011 8:40 AM

There has never been a fair fight between a citizen and government, Cilla. And these are not bureaucrats, but their mercenaries. Soon we will see the war experience gained fighting Al-Queda brought home for the fight against citizens not yet terrified into submission, and patriots. Computers, drones, Orwellian surveillance, and overwhelming firepower.

Messages are being sent, and received. What is natural to our instinct is not to resist, but to join overwhelming force. They know this, not because they are brilliant, but because they have joined.

Posted by: james wilson at June 11, 2011 8:42 AM

In any combat, mental or physical, I'll never opt for a 'level' field. The opposition is going to get the short end of the stick shoved up the rectum to be pulled out their throat.

Fair fights are where I win and you get very DEAD!

Posted by: Peccable at June 11, 2011 8:50 AM

God given right of Americans.. to protect themselves from an armed government. Fletch - you'd never make it as an American.

With a government like this, who needs Leftist terrorists?

Will average citizens get a White House beer summit when armed federal agents mistreat us? No, 50year old citizen moms commit suicide to relenquish their kids of the burden of being terrorized by the feds! No beer summit for the ACTUAL victims of agents who "act stupidly".

Posted by: RedCarolina at June 11, 2011 9:50 AM

It is admirable that the government is finally demonstrating to the people that the only way they have to assure enforcement of their edicts and frivolities is lethal force. Enough people just didn't take the lesson from Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales and all by which Clinton and Reno attempted to demonstrate liberal fascist serious contempt for the individual.

Posted by: St. Thor at June 11, 2011 10:12 AM

I posted a few months ago on the possibility of another Civil War. Lee Harris has written a book called "The Next American Civil War." Neither he nor I thought it would be bloody. Perhaps I need to revise that estimate.

If Bruce Catton is right in saying that all civil wars start with the government spilling civilian blood with armed troops, then it has already started, it is just in slow motion. [Ruby Ridge, Waco, Texas.]

Posted by: Bill_K at June 11, 2011 11:21 AM

RedCarolina - If all US citizens have the right to bear arms then the people mentioned (who are presumably US citizens) do too. After all, apart from being agents of the government they are also individuals who have the rights of individuals in the USA.

Unless, of course, taking a job in government automatically deprives you of your rights as a citizen. In fact, that position I agree with (IMHO the lost rights ought to include the right to vote) but if that is your position, be honest about it.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at June 11, 2011 3:53 PM

Fletch, you're coming off as an argumentative prick. Oh, I know in your mind, you think we're all stupid and you're really smart, but I'm telling you. The crew isn't going to put you in a long boat. They'll just heave your ass off the stern on the mid-watch.

Posted by: Casca at June 11, 2011 5:43 PM

The ideas of Fletch's namesake were very poorly thought through as well.

Posted by: james wilson at June 11, 2011 9:09 PM

As I see it, there are federal Law Enforcement Agencies and federal Regulatory Agencies.

I've got no trouble at all with a federal LEO carrying a gun. An FBI agent, a U.S. Marshal, and the BIA Police officer are all LEOs.

However, where I have a problem is with the Regulatory employees being armed. The logic they use is that they occasionally have to serve a search warrant, and so need to be armed. And that little caveat allows the Dept. of Education to carry, the EPA too(what's he going to do? Shoot a polluter?), the FDIC to have armed employees (Yes. Bank audits are a high-risk endeavor. /sarcasm).

A citizen should only face a .gov gun if he has broken a law. Someone violating a regulation ought not to endure that.

Posted by: azlibertarian at June 12, 2011 6:00 AM

I had two agents from the EPA show up at my facility in 2004 to check a creek that flowed along the edge of the property (in case of pollutants from upstream). I had to ask them to secure their sidearms. EPA? Their answer was along the lines of "Well, you can never tell . . ."

Posted by: Darkwater at June 12, 2011 5:18 PM

Anyone working under the force of regulations and not actual Federal law has no legal reason to carry weapons except for personal protection. They have no need nor any legal reason to be armed to carry out their jobs. If they are armed for protection then that is a personal decision covered under the Second Amendment and has nothing to do with their federal job. The government should not be providing weapons and the individuals should be required to register said weapons as everyone else is required to do.

Posted by: Jeff at June 12, 2011 6:22 PM


BLM and BIA jumped out at me, too, as they do have mandated law-enforcement functions on Federally administered land. FWS is presumably game wardens, and one thing you know as a game warden, if you make a stop, your subject is armed. The others make very little sense.

This side of the 49 it was like pulling teeth to get the gummint to arm Customs officers. When the Liberals were in, you couldn't even get them to arm the Armed Forces ;o)

Posted by: Jim Whyte at June 13, 2011 3:33 AM

Creative questions about trx exercises images have been answered and in addition the reasons why you will want to look at every message of this specific post.

Posted by: trx pro 1040 at September 12, 2012 2:09 AM