Depth of Federal Arms Race Should Surprise and Shock Citizenry

a reply to: greencmp

The issue is the frivolous arming of bureaucrats who have no need to be.

Well, let's assume that they do -- as noted, these are law enforcement arms of federal agencies, and in the US, law enforcement officers are generally armed and require training.

The question then becomes "is this new?", as that might indicate something being ramped up, though best as I can tell, these agencies have had their armed law enforcement officers for a long time. You're just hearing about it now because the Internet lets everyone go see what the government is buying, ten years ago, short of being an ammunition manufacturer, there was probably no way for someone to find out.

The second question is whether this is potentially a good thing, and maybe it is. If there is a need for the Postal Inspection Service or NOAA to have law enforcement wings, would it be better to take them all and consolidate them into some "United States Federal Police Force" and not have them operate independently? If you're the sort to worry about a "police state", that probably sounds like a terrible idea -- if things go south, or the Feds try imposing some Draconian measures on the country, it's possible (though not likely, I'll give you that,) there's the chance that these different armed agents would fracture, and some of the leadership defy the orders that they are given. If they're all lumped into one agency, with one hierarchy, that's not going to happen.

Just some food for thought.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

What are they planning on doing, enforcing common core at gunpoint?

It may come down to that.
I am convinced that they don't want my child to know how to add... they want him to know about how to add.

is that like knowing OF someone, as opposed to knowing that person?

kinda like they know that adding is a skill that exists, but they don't know how to do it themselves?

a reply to: MrSpad

police state

— n
a state or country in which a repressive government maintains control through the police

it certainly seems accurate, should someone care to make the argument...

the way i see it, it's not about the ratio of police, or law enforcement, to citizens.....it's about how they are armed, equipped, trained, and used...

the cries of "police state" are directly resultant of the increasing militarization of law enforcement officers/agents, in terms of their training, armament, equipment, and deployment....SWAT teams are being used, with increasing frequency, for things that would be unimaginable 20-25 years ago....and less imaginable 10 years ago...

the increasing level of oppression, hostility, and brutality displayed by police across the nation is not going unnoticed, and is a most disturbing trend, to rational, thinking people..

a reply to: greencmp

You know, it just occurred to me that this is what Obama meant by his civilian task force.

These are known as civil employees. I guess many, if not most, had been thinking all along it was real civilians, you know, just plain, ordinary people.

It's no news about the Postal Inspectors, but I had no clue they had a totally seperate task force. The Postal Inspectors were actually the oldest police force in America. My husband somewhat works in the postal business, as an employee for a private company that sells meters, etc. Well, they lease them, because no one but the government can actually own the equipment once it has a postal seal on it, regardless of who actually manufactured it.

Anyway, I was just mulling this over, and it struck me. Militarize, or make all the civil employees police, and here we have Obama's new police force.

I must admit this revelation left me a bit stunned for a moment.

So one campaign promise he actually kept.

P.S. You forgot the IRS? I didn't see them on your list.


postalinspectors.uspis.gov...

As one of our country’s oldest federal law enforcement
agencies, founded by Benjamin Franklin, the United States
Postal Inspection Service has a long, proud, and successful
history of fighting criminals who attack our nation’s postal
system and misuse it to defraud, endanger, or otherwise
threaten the American public.

a reply to: greencmp

I found another great article about this, as well:

m.nationalreview.com...

APRIL 18,2014 4:00 AM
The United States of SWAT?
Military-style units from government agencies are wreaking havoc on
non-violent citizens.

By John Fund


Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven
Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management
over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised
to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of
the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.

They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have
Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an
expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that
the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what
about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement
Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel
Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT
units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of
federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.

After all, if taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill and cede
ground on their Fourth Amendment rights, they have the right to a
transparent, accountable record of just what is being done in their
name.

This is a fairly long article, and really sums up the things a lot of people have been discussing. In particular, the militarization of the police departments. Is there really a nees for every town over 25k people to have their own SWAT teams, and even a tank?

The article also lists several stories that give excellent examples of overuse and abuse of SWAT teams for small crimes such as 'angry dogs' and 'cockfights'.

a reply to: greencmp

Here is yet another great story, a shining example, to back up your OP. All thanks to the Friday news dump! Yay!



m.vice.com...

This was written by someone who's friends' home was raided over a Twitter parody account. Of the Mayor.

It apparently pissed him off so badly, he used the police force to locate and intimidate, and hold 3 people from the house in police cars for hours while they tore the home apart looking for evidence.

Read on:

The
officers tore the 28-year-old’s home apart, seizing
electronics and taking several of his roommates in for
questioning; one woman who lived there spent three hours
in an interrogation room. All for a parody Twitter account.

I know you want the thread to be about Federal stuff, but this one caught my eye simply because I think he may have had to obtain a Federal Warrant to get the owners' information, to track him down. I would think this would be the case, because it is over phone lines (internet, cellphones) and had to cross state borders. Then, would he not have to obtain a Federal warrant for a trap and trace? Under what guidelines? Or, he had to subpoena the information from Twitter, again, out of state?

What would his justification be? I thought for warrants or trap and trace, etc., and to activate this type of raid, you had to have peobable cause of some sort that a crime was being committed?

Is this not a blatant abuse of power, simply because he is thin-skinned?

The cops even took
Daniel and one of his housemates in for in-depth
questioning—they showed up at their jobs, cuffed them,
and confiscated their phones—because of a bunch of
Twitter jokes.

Showed up at their jobs?! Holy cow.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: greencmp

The issue is the frivolous arming of bureaucrats who have no need to be.

Well, let's assume that they do -- as noted, these are law enforcement arms of federal agencies, and in the US, law enforcement officers are generally armed and require training.

The question then becomes "is this new?", as that might indicate something being ramped up, though best as I can tell, these agencies have had their armed law enforcement officers for a long time. You're just hearing about it now because the Internet lets everyone go see what the government is buying, ten years ago, short of being an ammunition manufacturer, there was probably no way for someone to find out.

The second question is whether this is potentially a good thing, and maybe it is. If there is a need for the Postal Inspection Service or NOAA to have law enforcement wings, would it be better to take them all and consolidate them into some "United States Federal Police Force" and not have them operate independently? If you're the sort to worry about a "police state", that probably sounds like a terrible idea -- if things go south, or the Feds try imposing some Draconian measures on the country, it's possible (though not likely, I'll give you that,) there's the chance that these different armed agents would fracture, and some of the leadership defy the orders that they are given. If they're all lumped into one agency, with one hierarchy, that's not going to happen.

Just some food for thought.

A very well thought out and challenging series of questions.

I don't have a good solution to the occasional need for a government issued weapon to be assigned as needed, it will, can and, in some cases, must.

My intention was to point out the 'new' seeming ubiquity and undeniable swelling of up-arming every random office in the country. I'm not even talking about the 'actual' (debatable) federal law enforcement agencies.

I appreciate your minimization reflex and, personally, though I am not particularly concerned about insurrection from federal agents, all reasonable precautions should be observed I suppose.

I am emphatically arguing that these departments that have not traditionally been armed stay that way.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: greencmp

It makes sense for some of these agencies - Park Rangers definitely, but NOAA? Department of Education? What are they planning on doing, enforcing common core at gunpoint?

Yes.

Also wanted to mention again how the arms given to units to use against U.S. Citizens are increasing in firepower. I remember Boston -

The natural progression or whatever would be to slowly introduce militarized police and then slowly step up the frequency of their use and lower the criteria for their use.

a reply to: greencmp

One thing I notice that is not being discussed here is the funding for all of this. what you should be concerned about in this day of huge debt is the taxpayer is paying for this buildup for no reason. We already have agencies tasked with these operations. So, if someone has a farm in a national forest do we arm our Wildlife officers to the teeth or maybe pick up a phone and call the DEA? This is their job, isn't it? I mean come on we live in a global society we can move a hundred people across the country in a matter of hours for alot less money. Why are we the taxpayer paying for this redundency?

a reply to: pipefitter

because if we don't pay our taxes, they might SWAT team us...

a reply to: greencmp

I'm totally with you on the idea of De-Militarizing the police as it's getting way out of hand. However, how in the hell do you think that will ever happen in a society where at the same time we promote an armed populace. Not just an armed populace but also an absolute "Love" for guns and violence in media.

You really think you're going to convince anyone that Law enforcement needs less guns while citizens need more guns??? Never gonna happen.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

I'm totally with you on the idea of De-Militarizing the police as it's getting way out of hand. However, how in the hell do you think that will ever happen in a society where at the same time we promote an armed populace. Not just an armed populace but also an absolute "Love" for guns and violence in media.

You really think you're going to convince anyone that Law enforcement needs less guns while citizens need more guns??? Never gonna happen.

I am not sure how to communicate this correctly, I don't want to just sound like I am dismissing your concerns.

That is how our constitution is written, we all have the right to defend ourselves against both crime and oppression.

If we can defend ourselves against crime, there is no particular need to have an armed police force. Plus, we are discussing federal agencies not state or local.

The issue here is the proliferation of up arming traditionally unarmed agencies. It is a more narrow debate that I thought would garner near universal support.

a reply to: greencmp

I get what you're saying. I'm not pushing gun control either, I have no problem with an armed populace. My point is that Law Enforcement will never even consider being less armed as long as citizens are armed. Which isn't a big deal really except that LEO's are also paranoid so not only do they arm themselves but they REALLY arm themselves because of fear. That's the real problem. The way they are armed isn't even rational most of the time. But citizens are pushing for Gun Rights and that will always scare LEO. It's a cycle.

a reply to: SophieTish

So true, and those who are supporting these encroachments upon the citizens are as close to lemmings as it can get.
The current president is the sole proprietor of this agenda, (with his backers), and should be dragged from the white house in chains and leg irons and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Or worse because he sure deserves it..

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

I get what you're saying. I'm not pushing gun control either, I have no problem with an armed populace. My point is that Law Enforcement will never even consider being less armed as long as citizens are armed. Which isn't a big deal really except that LEO's are also paranoid so not only do they arm themselves but they REALLY arm themselves because of fear. That's the real problem. The way they are armed isn't even rational most of the time. But citizens are pushing for Gun Rights and that will always scare LEO. It's a cycle.

Our founding fathers intended for our citizens to be doubtful and suspicious of our government (thus providing a check on power) and for our government to always be in fear of the populace (thus restraining the natural tendency for government to bloat and become abusive).

originally posted by: greencmp
The issue here is the proliferation of up arming traditionally unarmed agencies. It is a more narrow debate that I thought would garner near universal support.

i'm not even sure that's the entire issue either....

i mean, i acknowledge you said "up arming", and i take that to mean turning every federal agency into a frigging SWAT/QRT/HRT/SRU team...

i think THAT'S the ball game.....turning every federal agency into a tactical team....

i don't have a problem with a forestry service officer having a pistol...or an IRS agent (enforcement division) having a pistol(which is funny, because i advocate the shutdown of the IRS), or things like this.....if you're job requires that you might be in mortal danger, you should be issued a weapon....i mean, as silly as it sounds, there was a time when CENSUS takers were issued a sidearm....

in any event, a service sidearm is one thing. THEY SHOULDN'T be equipped with military-grade weapons and combat equipment. a ballistic vest/plate carrier, sure...absolutely....but the rest of it, no...

They all seem to have itchy trigger fingers too. I think they should all start with a whistle. Then when they prove they can handle that, a club. After a while, a tazer. Then if they've proven themselves to not be a sadistic A-Hole, Abusive, Unhinged, Dog Killing, Egomaniac with Elevated Authority Issues, then maybe we give them a gun. But if they screw up and start shooting innocent folk while raiding the wrong house without warrants and all that like they do now, we take it all away and make em all into bicycle cops or meter maids. But even those jobs would be for the ones we don't fire or jail first.