APOD Firearms

Why does the USPS need ammunition?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Texasjack

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 50%
    1   1   0
    Jan 3, 2010
    5,867
    96
    Occupied Texas
    The only fear I have with respect to the average gov't employee is that he/she will be one of those "Good Germans" that obeys whatever terrible order they get from the idiots that run the show.

    I deal with gov't people all the time. Most of them are underpaid schmucks that are just trying to get by until they can retire. Most of them hate the idiot rules they have to follow. A few are rabid assholes that have way too much authority and way to little intelligence to be in the position they occupy. EPA, for example, probably has 50 schmucks for every nazi/commie/asshole.

    But EPA has NO LEGITIMATE reason to have armed officers. Yet they do - and even at least one SWAT Team. They NEVER go after armed criminals. Never. Their battles are in court. When I was a consultant, EPA showed up at a client's plant to seize records. The company wouldn't let them into the plant with firearms because it was a chemical plant and firearms are prohibited. After a few hours of arguing, they came to some sort of compromise and let them get the records. Had EPA simply showed up with a truck and a subpoena, they could have avoided all the angst.

    Yeah, I understand the gov't buys in bulk - and many times they're not really buying that quantity, they're just getting an option to purchase up to that quantity at a set price. But the volume of ammo they've been buying indicates that they are extremely bloated.
    Guns International
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    Dude you are free to think however you like. Nobody told you that you couldn't

    But I liken it to me telling a doctor what instruments he needs or doesnt
     

    Whistler

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 28, 2014
    3,384
    96
    Northeast Texas
    This thread got me thinking... Had firearms pointed at me on occasions but can't recall a handful of times there wasn't a badge attached to the "pointer". I'm no criminal, so is it wrong for me to fear and mistrust the Government more than the bad guys? We're all a product of our experiences, unfortunately I can't recall a single interaction with a Government entity that served to alter my perception.

    Seems to be a lot of discussion about "enforcement" and I think that's where we part company. Laws are fluid, they change with the political climate and those that hold influence at any given time. Do I think some obscure Government department should have the ability to employ deadly force while enforcing some arcane or nonsensical law designed primarily to allay irrational fears or increase profitability for some special interest? Think I'll err on the side of caution and say probably not but then I am likewise of the opinion not every law is a "good" law or even intended for the "common good".

    I'm not advocating people ignore laws but I am expressing the opinion a Postal Inspector or EPA Agent has little need to enforce postage infractions or clean air violations with threat of deadly force. I don't believe a Police Officer needs to pull his weapon during a routine traffic stop or search a vehicle in violation of the Fourth Amendment "for his safety" for example and that the purported dangers are far out of proportion with reality. It's somewhat disconcerting to have a conversation with an Officer pointing a .40 at your face for not consenting to a search after being stopped for a broken tail light.

    You say the continual incremental militarization of our enforcement entities does not concern you because in your experience they are by and large incompetent? Not sure that makes me feel better...
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    i dont think some of you know exactly the kinds of cases the postal inspectors work

    i get the impression you think they are glorified mail carriers
     

    Whistler

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 28, 2014
    3,384
    96
    Northeast Texas
    i dont think some of you know exactly the kinds of cases the postal inspectors work

    i get the impression you think they are glorified mail carriers

    You were correct I did not know the full scope however that was fairly easily remedied and following some research discovered it's such a dangerous occupation that fourteen (14) Postal Inspectors and Police Officers have been killed in the line of duty over the course of 184 years.

    Sarcasm of course but the point is more Government types with guns (inflation of the justifying dangers aside) coupled with the concerted effort to limit or deny the common citizenry access to firearms does little to diminish a healthy mistrust inferred from the thread title and tone.
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    The question was asked why. A legitimate answer was given. It was found insufficient by several who have zero law enforcement experience.

    It floors me that your logic is to bring up fatality stats. We as CHL holders wouldn't like it if that same statistical oddity were used against us in our "need" to carry a gun

    I mean, how many of you who truly carry everyday have had to defend yourself from imminent bodily harm? You don't really need to carry that gun....
     

    Whistler

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 28, 2014
    3,384
    96
    Northeast Texas
    :)

    No disrespect intended to anyone, just swapping opinions here. It's a measure of the "danger factor" in an attempt to quantify a response to your point "some of you have no idea the kinds of cases Postal Inspectors work on" implying it was inherently dangerous as the justification. I have great difficulty refuting your anecdotal assertion if we don't quantify or factualize it in some way. I'll ignore the comment regarding LE experience except to say I don't think it's relevant.

    That ship has sailed, that argument is made daily though it's a bit secondary to my point. Millions of law-abiding citizens in this country are prevented from carrying a weapon at their place of employment or travels daily and undertake a similar risk. I have no issue with them carrying a weapon as a private citizen, it is a natural right to defend oneself. I don't however think LE has a "greater" right based on their job than I do based on the Second Amendment. What I take exception to is what was pointed out in the thread which is proliferating and arming enforcement divisions within Government Departments based on inherent risk that doesn't exist, on my dime. Or to state it differently I don't believe a Postal Inspector's position any more inherently dangerous than a taxi driver but we don't arm them on the tax payer dollar. Not even saying we shouldn't just that we don't.

    I'll let it go now, new here and don't want to ruffle feathers just found it an interesting topic to debate.
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    you wont ever find me telling a police officer "you dont need a gun"......never, but i suppose if you're general belief is a strong anti-government, anti-police, i suppose i can "understand" where that comes from

    lets look at some of the things bad guys have put in mail

    David Koresh mailed a hand grenade
    Countless drug dealers routinely mail narcotics
    somebody mailed that anthrax (the fbi takes the lead on this - but there is a USPI Special Agent assisting)
    people have mailed bombs (unabomber???)

    child pornography

    the list goes on and on, fraud, etc etc

    but i'm sure all the "bad guys" that they might deal with are just the passive types who wont ever cause any type of threat.



    i just think - as a community of people who want the right to carry a gun under the premise that something "MIGHT" happen (although not likely), because you "JUST NEVER KNOW"....it's a bit hypocritical and dishonest to not afford that same right to a law enforcement agency


    if your beef is with the central government for over regulating us to the point that all the LEO's are needed - then so be it -

    regardless, i'm done with this conversation - i'm trying to provide a reasonable answer to a reasonable question - and the response is what it is

    have a great Sunday all of you!
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    The only fear I have with respect to the average gov't employee is that he/she will be one of those "Good Germans" that obeys whatever terrible order they get from the idiots that run the show.

    I deal with gov't people all the time. Most of them are underpaid schmucks that are just trying to get by until they can retire. Most of them hate the idiot rules they have to follow. A few are rabid $#@!s that have way too much authority and way to little intelligence to be in the position they occupy. EPA, for example, probably has 50 schmucks for every nazi/commie/$#@!.

    But EPA has NO LEGITIMATE reason to have armed officers. Yet they do - and even at least one SWAT Team. They NEVER go after armed criminals. Never. Their battles are in court. When I was a consultant, EPA showed up at a client's plant to seize records. The company wouldn't let them into the plant with firearms because it was a chemical plant and firearms are prohibited. After a few hours of arguing, they came to some sort of compromise and let them get the records. Had EPA simply showed up with a truck and a subpoena, they could have avoided all the angst.

    Yeah, I understand the gov't buys in bulk - and many times they're not really buying that quantity, they're just getting an option to purchase up to that quantity at a set price. But the volume of ammo they've been buying indicates that they are extremely bloated.

    If you can arrest then you have a legitimate reason for being armed. The EPA does do criminal investigations so your statement is full of it. Sure they are not busting street dealers but anyone that is arrested can be a risk.
    Oh and I can't find any reference to any EPA SWAT team. Where does your info come from? Alex Jones?
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/radDocs/consumer/Ponzi_vs_USPIS.html

    FBI ? Amerithrax Investigation

    Police Week: U.S. Postal Inspector Service investigate identity theft - San Diego Identity Theft | Examiner.com

    http://www.postalinspectorsvideo.com/uspis/AnnualReport2010.pdf (the annual report from 2010 - quite a bit of enlightening info here
    look at page 18
    Robberies not only pose a threat to postal employees,but also jeopardize the public’s trust in the mail and attack the financial integrity of the Postal Service.
    Robbers who accost letter carriers usually are seeking mail containing valuables—anything from financial information to checks, jewelry, or illegal drugs

    .



    Those who target Postal Service facilities are generally after cash, money orders, and stamps

    .

    In FY 2010, the U.S. Postal Service experienced 75robberies or attempted robberies of postal employees, Post Offices, and contractors. Postal Inspectors

    arrested 61 suspected robbers during that period and reported 43 convictions, some from cases inprior reporting periods

    .
    Since the U.S. Mail and Post Offices likely will remain compelling targets for larceny, Postal Inspectors in all parts of the country receive expert training on how to safeguard employees and facilities against criminals Inspectors actively educate employees on ways they can protect themselves on the job

    .
    Postal Inspectors aggressively investigate all postal robberies and attempted robberies, such as these examples from 2010


    In January, two armed suspects robbed a postal truck driver of two Registered Mail pouches shortly after the driver arrived at the Porter Square Finance Station in Cambridge,

    MA. Postal Inspectors visited Post Offices in the area to talk to employees about the robbery and distribute prevention information; they also handed out 1,000 fliers to

    letter carriers on nearby routes advertising a $50,000 reward, and posted fliers at bus stops, train stations, and local businesses

    .
    Resulting leads identified three suspects who were planning another robbery in March at the Charlestown Post Office. Inspectors conducted surveillance at Charlestown, arrested

    the men, and seized a handgun and masks When Inspectors executed a search warrant at one suspect’s home, they seized additional weapons, a jacket used in the robbery, and
    cocaine, and arrested the three suspects
    .
    The Boston U.S. Attorney’s Office accepted the case for prosecution

    .

    In March the man who robbed the Ampere Finance Station in East Orange, NJ, was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison and five years’ supervised release, and was ordered to pay $9,054 in restitution to the Postal Service When he robbed the station at gunpoint in May 2009, he bound a postal employee with duct tape and made off with cash and checks. Postal Inspectors identified

    the man after developing several leads
    .

    A California man with two previous federal offenses was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison for the armed robbery and carjacking of a letter carrier from the Greenmead

    Station Postal Inspectors’ pursuit of DNA evidence from a discarded cigar tip was critical in the conviction




    Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff
    Joe Arpaio had a bomb sent to him in the mail that was powerful enough to maim or even kill him, his office said. “Had someone opened that package, it would have caused a major explosion and caused serious physical injuries, burns and maybe death,” Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Jerry Sheridan announced at a press conference. The mail bomb was discovered on April 11 by a very astute postal worker in Flagstaff, a city 140 miles north of Phoenix, who noticed what he thought was gunpowder residue leaking from the package. The Flagstaff police department bomb squad X-rayed the package, noticing what appeared to be an explosive device inside. The bomb was neutralized when the police department bomb squad blasted it apart with a water cannon. An investigation is under way involving the United States Postal Inspector, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The sheriff’s office has a “person of interest” in the case whom they are trying to locate, said Sheridan. Arpaio said whoever is responsible for mailing the package, if found, would be brought to justice.


    the more you know...
     

    HillRider

    Active Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 5, 2013
    335
    1
    Helotes, TX
    you wont ever find me telling a police officer "you dont need a gun"......never, but i suppose if you're general belief is a strong anti-government, anti-police, i suppose i can "understand" where that comes from

    lets look at some of the things bad guys have put in mail

    David Koresh mailed a hand grenade
    Countless drug dealers routinely mail narcotics
    somebody mailed that anthrax (the fbi takes the lead on this - but there is a USPI Special Agent assisting)
    people have mailed bombs (unabomber???)

    child pornography

    the list goes on and on, fraud, etc etc

    but i'm sure all the "bad guys" that they might deal with are just the passive types who wont ever cause any type of threat.



    i just think - as a community of people who want the right to carry a gun under the premise that something "MIGHT" happen (although not likely), because you "JUST NEVER KNOW"....it's a bit hypocritical and dishonest to not afford that same right to a law enforcement agency


    if your beef is with the central government for over regulating us to the point that all the LEO's are needed - then so be it -

    regardless, i'm done with this conversation - i'm trying to provide a reasonable answer to a reasonable question - and the response is what it is

    have a great Sunday all of you!

    I think you get it! That's the whole point of the debate pal.

    It's just your arrogance and blind defense of LE and the Federal government that is disturbing.
     

    Whistler

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 28, 2014
    3,384
    96
    Northeast Texas
    you wont ever find me telling a police officer "you dont need a gun"......never, but i suppose if you're general belief is a strong anti-government, anti-police, i suppose i can "understand" where that comes from

    lets look at some of the things bad guys have put in mail

    David Koresh mailed a hand grenade
    Countless drug dealers routinely mail narcotics
    somebody mailed that anthrax (the fbi takes the lead on this - but there is a USPI Special Agent assisting)
    people have mailed bombs (unabomber???)

    child pornography

    the list goes on and on, fraud, etc etc

    but i'm sure all the "bad guys" that they might deal with are just the passive types who wont ever cause any type of threat.



    i just think - as a community of people who want the right to carry a gun under the premise that something "MIGHT" happen (although not likely), because you "JUST NEVER KNOW"....it's a bit hypocritical and dishonest to not afford that same right to a law enforcement agency


    if your beef is with the central government for over regulating us to the point that all the LEO's are needed - then so be it -

    regardless, i'm done with this conversation - i'm trying to provide a reasonable answer to a reasonable question - and the response is what it is

    have a great Sunday all of you!

    Your response is to mischaracterize my comments and imply comments I did not make impugning my honesty and integrity while ascribing to me a position I do not hold. I don't perceive that part a "reasonable answer to a reasonable question" and quite honestly was trying to have an on-topic friendly debate, wasn't that the point of the thread? For your edification I am neither anti-government or anti-police though I do hold a healthy mistrust due to the accumulation of power and personal experience. Not picking on Postal Inspectors specifically, maybe they weren't the best example.

    My "beef" is with the proliferation of armed Government entities, the potential for abuse and the associated cost while simultaneously engaging in a concerted effort to deny the remainder of the population the same protections. I am very much anti-bloated and anti-overreaching Government and I do hold the opinion we have more than enough armed Law Enforcement agencies that could be engaged should the need arise without creating a separate one for every Department. I don't care if the Police have guns in fact I expect them to, things can and do "happen" but as you point out those things "might" happen to anyone.

    Apparently the topic touches a nerve and it appears you are too emotionally invested to simply engage in a discussion of differing view points. That's okay and I saw it was going that direction which is why I'd said I'd let it go, it's just a discussion to me. Armed Postal Inspectors have existed since the inception of the USPS and I sincerely doubt my opinion will affect that but I did think the discussion would be interesting.

    Thanks for the wishes for a great day and I wish you the same.
     

    Texasjack

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 50%
    1   1   0
    Jan 3, 2010
    5,867
    96
    Occupied Texas
    If you can arrest then you have a legitimate reason for being armed. The EPA does do criminal investigations so your statement is full of it. Sure they are not busting street dealers but anyone that is arrested can be a risk.
    Oh and I can't find any reference to any EPA SWAT team. Where does your info come from? Alex Jones?

    Boy, first time for everything. This is the first time that I've ever had to respond to another poster by saying, "**** you!"

    I deal with the EPA every day. It's what I do for a living. You don't have to look very far to reference their armed raids. (EPA facing fire for armed raid on Alaska mine - Washington Times)

    Doing criminal investigations doesn't have a damned thing to do with conducting an arrest. All they have to do is obtain a warrant and hand it to law enforcement. EPA investigations are not like busting drug dealers. What they usually involve is working through paperwork and test results to show that someone has knowingly violated the law. It might be a sewage plant operator that submits fake water test results to keep from having to fix some equipment.

    Next time you feel the need to tell someone that they are "full of it" and pull out the "Alex Jones" card, take your half-assed opinion and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    Boy, first time for everything. This is the first time that I've ever had to respond to another poster by saying, "$#@! you!"

    I deal with the EPA every day. It's what I do for a living. You don't have to look very far to reference their armed raids. (EPA facing fire for armed raid on Alaska mine - Washington Times)

    Doing criminal investigations doesn't have a damned thing to do with conducting an arrest. All they have to do is obtain a warrant and hand it to law enforcement. EPA investigations are not like busting drug dealers. What they usually involve is working through paperwork and test results to show that someone has knowingly violated the law. It might be a sewage plant operator that submits fake water test results to keep from having to fix some equipment.

    Next time you feel the need to tell someone that they are "full of it" and pull out the "Alex Jones" card, take your half-assed opinion and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

    Bugger off you whiny little girl. That link about Alaska proves my point about where you get your info and if that is where you get your EPA swat crap from it just shows how ignorant your are. Now so I won't just be insulting I will break it down a bit for you. 4 to 8 officers wearing pistols and body armor doesn't equate to a swat team. And since it was a multi-jurisdictional task force you can't even ascribe all the guys being epa. That you get your panties in a bunch every time someone says EPA! makes no difference to me. Neither does the logic that they should "hand" over to other people who may have other tasks and might not really be interested in what some other agency wants. Not to mention there can be risk in just collecting evidence itself. I know we can just assign each agent a personal FBI to shadow them so we can keep the few EPA guys from having guns while we scream about others trying to take ours! What kind of sense does that make?
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    I think you get it! That's the whole point of the debate pal.

    It's just your arrogance and blind defense of LE and the Federal government that is disturbing.

    not nearly disturbing as your inability to accept a fact - and that your initial statement that postal inspectors "dont need guns" is incorrect
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    Your response is to mischaracterize my comments and imply comments I did not make impugning my honesty and integrity while ascribing to me a position I do not hold. I don't perceive that part a "reasonable answer to a reasonable question" and quite honestly was trying to have an on-topic friendly debate, wasn't that the point of the thread? For your edification I am neither anti-government or anti-police though I do hold a healthy mistrust due to the accumulation of power and personal experience. Not picking on Postal Inspectors specifically, maybe they weren't the best example.

    My "beef" is with the proliferation of armed Government entities, the potential for abuse and the associated cost while simultaneously engaging in a concerted effort to deny the remainder of the population the same protections. I am very much anti-bloated and anti-overreaching Government and I do hold the opinion we have more than enough armed Law Enforcement agencies that could be engaged should the need arise without creating a separate one for every Department. I don't care if the Police have guns in fact I expect them to, things can and do "happen" but as you point out those things "might" happen to anyone.

    Apparently the topic touches a nerve and it appears you are too emotionally invested to simply engage in a discussion of differing view points. That's okay and I saw it was going that direction which is why I'd said I'd let it go, it's just a discussion to me. Armed Postal Inspectors have existed since the inception of the USPS and I sincerely doubt my opinion will affect that but I did think the discussion would be interesting.

    Thanks for the wishes for a great day and I wish you the same.

    my "hypocritical and dishonest" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you - but rather anybody that states unequivocally that certain LE agencies dont need guns

    if the shoe fits - then wear it proudly - if not, then great
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom