Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah they'll go for that, what with armed citizens showing up and resisting law enforcement when the BLM isn't even all that armed. Apparently this guys idea of "paramilitary" goes so far as to include the fat rentacop at the front door. You know, when you deal with rednecks with rifles on a regular basis who have a horribly inflated idea of their own worth while buying into the idea the government is personally out to get them, it kind of makes sense to arm yourself.

Congratulations GOP for once again pandering to the most moronic denominator of your demographic and alienating everyone else.

Clearly private citizens with guns are a problem, and federal agencies with guns are a solution.

 d-usa wrote:


The BLM operating in BFE doesn't need guns because they can always just call the cops if they are needed and wait on an interagency response that is coming from who knows where because who knows where the closest FBI office is located.

If agencies that are tasked with the constitution to enforce the laws don't need guns (that they are allowed to have) then nobody needs constitutional guns.

The right bitches and moans about gun-free zones in one breath, then turns around and screams for gun-free departments before they even take another breath in.

I've had conversations with drunk and high schizophrenics that make more sense than you guys.

What I think most here are saying is this: BLM "ranger joe" out on the beat in his pickup, doing his job. Has "issued" pistol, just in case. All well and good. The issue is, why does BLM, whose job it is to "manage" the use of lands around the country need an MRAP, or M-4/M-16s in order to successfully manage lands? The situations with these rogue cattle ranchers are hardly an everyday occurance.

Along the same lines, why does the IRS, whose job it is to ensure people pay their taxes correctly and in a timely manner need MRAPs, "military grade" body armor, combat rifles and more to enforce the tax code?

To me, it makes sense why the FBI would have those things, as their scope is in criminal offenses, and may run into the situation where those things are more than warranted, since they are the ones who generally deal with violent or potentially violent situations.

I'm not saying that ALL federal agencies need to be stripped of arms, just that the arms need to make sense for the overall mission of that agency.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah they'll go for that, what with armed citizens showing up and resisting law enforcement when the BLM isn't even all that armed. Apparently this guys idea of "paramilitary" goes so far as to include the fat rentacop at the front door. You know, when you deal with rednecks with rifles on a regular basis who have a horribly inflated idea of their own worth while buying into the idea the government is personally out to get them, it kind of makes sense to arm yourself.

Congratulations GOP for once again pandering to the most moronic denominator of your demographic and alienating everyone else.

Clearly private citizens with guns are a problem, and federal agencies with guns are a solution.

I remember reading about a year after Waco that the ATF wanted to erect a memorial statue there of an agent walking along, holding hands with a couple of kids. There was a fair outcry about that plan and it got shelved.

 Jihadin wrote:
Remember the SWAT team charging in on Gibson Guitar for possessing illegal wood?

Yes indeed... unless there's an assault mode I'm not aware of???

Oh wait! That's the Les Paul Model!

ROCK ON! \m/

 LordofHats wrote:
The entire purpose of the executive branch is law enforcement.

Incorrect. The executive carries out the law; only part of that is enforcing it in the police sense. Not every member of the executive branch is a kind of police officer. I suppose "law enforcement" can be a broad phrase. I was using it to describe armed government agents. IMO, those should only come in two flavors: military (definitely not law enforcement) and police. Regulatory agencies do not fit into either category and so should not be armed.

The militarization of the police force has been a very serious concern of mine in my personal life as well as a large focus of my academic life. The fact that vague bureaucratic/ administrative departments have military grade equipment boggles the mind.

I'm in no way against police departments being properly equipped in case things start going seriously pear shaped, but for the BLM (who reading this post has ever heard of them until now?) to own armored vehicles designed for counter insurgency operations is beyond me.

Sadly the seriousness of this gets buried in partisan politics.

But seriously, sometimes I think these people read George Orwell for inspiration.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes and the average apartment manager has to enforce laws to.

They aren't tasked by the federal government with enforcing the law merely following it.

It's a sad day when distorting reality ceases to be enough to maintain the libertarian fiction. Now people are just plain ignoring it.

But they don’t get walk around in full riot gear with a SCAR.

I think you've confused a match of CoD with reality.

They have to call the attornies for civil issues and the PoPo for criminal ones.

They did go to court. For 20 years.

We tried it the way you're advocating from 1776 to 1885. Unsurprisingly, it didn't work. It is completely asinine to task an agency with a law enforcement mandate and give them no power to execute it. It's further asinine to expect local municipalities to foot the bill for protecting the federal government's lawn, which is an entire mess of just not going to work. Not to mention that would hardly result in a demilitarization of police forces, it would further militarize them.

All we’re saying is every government agency should not have recourse to SWAT.

They don't, so what is this discussion about? These guys are not swat;



If that's paramilitary, than Bundy's moron militia are the damn green berets. Numerous federal agencies are in a position where they need their own policing agent. Just because you don't think of them as law enforcement, doesn't mean they don't have law enforcement mandates and nearly all executive branches do have one, and those that don't have some responsibility where armed security is prudent.

See above.

That big quote block I have. Its from the above. You linked to BLM's website and said they weren't a law enforcement agency when they have an entire page about their law enforcement mandate on their website.

This conversation is mind-blowing.

I'm personally working on a device that can power a city block with this kind of internet lunacy.

 Strombones wrote:
The militarization of the police force has been a very serious concern of mine in my personal life as well as a large focus of my academic life. The fact that vague bureaucratic/ administrative departments have military grade equipment boggles the mind.

I'm in no way against police departments being properly equipped in case things start going seriously pear shaped, but for the BLM (who reading this post has ever heard of them until now?) to own armored vehicles designed for counter insurgency operations is beyond me.

Sadly the seriousness of this gets buried in partisan politics.

But seriously, sometimes I think these people read George Orwell for inspiration.

What really boggles my mind is the leftists who buy into complex "evil government" conspiracy theories (e.g., 9/11) yet are OK with police departments driving MRAPs around suburban neighborhoods.

 Manchu wrote:
Regulatory agencies do not fit into either category and so should not be armed.

Very few agencies are purely regulatory. BLM is tasked with enforcing land management laws. EPA is tasked with enforcing their laws and regulations. Neither organization is particularly well armed (BLM only has 270 armed personnel, and an arsenal mostly consisting of handguns for the entire United States). Oddly for the article in the OP, they mention the FDA which is purely regulatory as if they should have guns, which is rather baffling but then its Fox news. They're not known for brains.

If there is an issue with the executive, its that enforcement power is too dispersed among it's agencies as a by product of its own bloat and numerous redundancies. Armed federal agents themselves are not the problem.

I want to see the driver face when he/she motivated and take a turn to fast and roll a MRAP

I remember reading about a year after Waco that the ATF wanted to erect a memorial statue there of an agent walking along, holding hands with a couple of kids. There was a fair outcry about that plan and it got shelved.

Further reasons why we should disband ATF. They're like an old celebrity no one likes anymore but still thinks they're the coolest kid on the block and when they feth up they pretend nothing happened

Clearly private citizens with guns are a problem, and federal agencies with guns are a solution.

You can't really have gun rights like those of the US without accepting the immediate consequence that law enforcement is forced to arm itself to face the reality of an environment where guns are very readily available to criminals.

 Jihadin wrote:
I want to see the driver face when he/she motivated and take a turn to fast and roll a MRAP

ROLL OVER ROLL OVER ROLL OVER!!!!

Exalt DJ

 LordofHats wrote:

I remember reading about a year after Waco that the ATF wanted to erect a memorial statue there of an agent walking along, holding hands with a couple of kids. There was a fair outcry about that plan and it got shelved.

Further reasons why we should disband ATF. They're like an old celebrity no one likes anymore but still thinks they're the coolest kid on the block and when they feth up they pretend nothing happened

One quote from the time that deserves an exalt 20 years late was the question from someone who asked if the agent in the proposed memorial was completeing the job he started of getting the kids he burned up to the Pearly Gates.

I rather jerk off a Rattle Snake in a locked phone booth then be a part of that fiasco in Waco. Just saying

Relapse wrote:


One quote from the time that deserves an exalt 20 years late was the question from someone who asked if the agent in the memorial was completeing the job he started of getting the kids he burned up to the Pearly Gates.

You'd think that they'd propose a memorial and dedicate it to remembering the mistakes that were made in handling the situation and the tragedy that followed. Something simple. Like a plaque and some silly abstract art statue. But an agent holding kid's hands? wtf kind is that supposed to mean?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What really boggles my mind is the leftists who buy into complex "evil government" conspiracy theories (e.g., 9/11) yet are OK with police departments driving MRAPs around suburban neighborhoods.

I found a picture of someone who's expressed that idea here.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:


One quote from the time that deserves an exalt 20 years late was the question from someone who asked if the agent in the memorial was completeing the job he started of getting the kids he burned up to the Pearly Gates.

You'd think that they'd propose a memorial and dedicate it to remembering the mistakes that were made in handling the situation and the tragedy that followed. Something simple. Like a plaque and some silly abstract art statue. But an agent holding kid's hands? wtf kind is that supposed to mean?

Happily the stupid thing never made it beyond the stage of an artist concept picture. I believe there are some memorials down there, but fairly simple affairs, to the children. Someone from down that way could possible educate us on that.

 LordofHats wrote:
You can't really have gun rights like those of the US without accepting the immediate consequence that law enforcement is forced to arm itself to face the reality of an environment where guns are very readily available to criminals.

This is it in a nutshell.

It's hard to imagine a non-police government agency needing to use deadly force as a matter of carrying out the law. And if there are such scenarios, I submit that they be within the active jurisdiction of the police in the first place.

 Manchu wrote:
And if there are such scenarios, I submit that they be within the active jurisdiction of the police in the first place.

it's an issue of knowing for a fact it won't work. We tried it before and the inability of the Fed to enforce its own will was why the Articles of Confederation were scrapped in favor of the Constitution. This is how federalism works. The feds manage their law, the states manage theirs. Its one thing to go into a local jurisdiction and step on the locals toes. It's another to expect the locals to do the bidding of the Feds on federal land as dictated by federal regulation.

You can't charge an agency with fulfilling a mandate and then tell it that it has to rely on outside agencies* to enforce its mandate. You might as well not have the agency at all since it's a toothless body with no power.

That's asking for the government to cease functioning.

*outside agencies that have their own mandates that don't necessarily match up with the federal body's needs at that.

The definitive example here, the BLM, is a perfect example of federal law enforcement in federal land.

You seem to think I am arguing there should be no federal police agencies.

LordofHats wrote: Yeah. And there are, shock put on your surprised face, laws about how land is mean to be managed, and BLM is mandated with enforcing those laws. Given that they often end up dealing with red necks, that they have their own armed division shouldn't a shock to anyone.Read your own link;

Thank you for the use of the racist/elitist derogatory language there. Says a lot about you. Bet you wonder why blue collar southerners don't cotton to you much.

Really, your "enlightened" liberal tolerance is really shining through here.

Also, you might want to check where the majority of federally protected land is and ask why.

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to think I am arguing there should be no federal police agencies.

No. I'm arguing that you're debating an issue that isn't an issue. There isn't a big problem in the executive of armed agents in non-policing capacities. BLM and the EPA as ongoing examples do have law enforcement mandates for good reasons. Expecting others to do their job for them won't work and makes no sense. The US Mint has armed agents, but for a good reason because they're the US Mint. Fox News can rant about the Congressional Library having 'paramilitary' agents but that's taking rentacop security for an important government building and calling it something nonsensical.

The proliferation of armed federal agents who have guns but don't need them is a myth produced by the conservative blogosphere out of whole cloth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Also, you might want to check where the majority of federally protected land is and ask why.

God damn government hogging all the cacti.

Believe it or not, I'm not that liberal. It's just that so much gets posted on here about conservatives and from a conservative perspective I often find myself debating conservative insanity with more frequency than liberal insanity.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Also, you might want to check where the majority of federally protected land is and ask why.

God damn government hogging all the cacti.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
. Consider yourself reported.

I'll just add another notch to my wall.

 LordofHats wrote:
We tried it the way you're advocating from 1776 to 1885. Unsurprisingly, it didn't work. It is completely asinine to task an agency with a law enforcement mandate and give them no power to execute it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's further asinine to expect local municipalities to foot the bill for protecting the federal government's lawn, which is an entire mess of just not going to work. Not to mention that would hardly result in a demilitarization of police forces, it would further militarize them.

Exactly. I mean, come on, guys. You can't expect local municipalities to do that. And until we establish one - or maybe several - federal law enforcement agencies with well-trained agents and specialized tactical units (I like the sound of "Hostage Rescue Team," myself. I'd base it in Quantico, VA. Maybe put the organization's headquarters in DC, and then have offices in every state. Sure, they'd clash with local law enforcement from time to time, but it'd make for good drama in movies. Maybe they could even play a small but significant role in a film like Die Hard.), the federal government has nothing but the brave, thin blue line of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement.

 Seaward wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

More deliberately pointing out that expecting BLM or EPA (or other 'non-law enforcement') agencies to ask others to do their jobs for them harkens back to a day and age where we learned the hard way that doesn't work. If people can't put two and two together on that one, I got nothing.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Office

Did you know part of their mandate is, gasp, enforcing laws concerning fishing operations and that poaching is an active and ongoing problem off US coasts (no one cares about the Tuna when the Japanese are killing whales). I know a big deal was made awhile back about the Weather Services ordering rounds intended for NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, but given the NOAA released a press statement about the misunderstanding, to continue not getting the point is rather obtuse.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement is a police body operating with a law enforcement mandate. if the standard is that only police bodies should get guns, then the 135 members of NOAAFOLE seem inside the lines of kosher to me.

 LordofHats wrote:
More deliberately pointing out that expecting BLM or EPA (or other 'non-law enforcement') agencies to ask others to do their jobs for them harkens back to a day and age where we learned the hard way that doesn't work. If people can't put two and two together on that one, I got nothing.

Except that it does work, where law enforcement is concerned.

Did you know part of their mandate is, gasp, enforcing laws concerning fishing operations and that poaching is an active and ongoing problem off US coasts (no one cares about the Tuna when the Japanese are killing whales). I know a big deal was made awhile back about the Weather Services ordering rounds intended for NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, but given the NOAA released a press statement about the misunderstanding, to continue not getting the point is rather obtuse.

You'd think that Fish and Wildlife's police could cover that. Or, if we're talking about off-shore illegality, the Coast Guard.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for creating law enforcement agencies with exceedingly narrow mandates. It smacks of both efficiency and frugality.