Why does the USPS need ammunition?

[Texasjack]

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?

Somebody edited my post. I didn't use funky characters. I used the actual f-word. I guess the moderator decided that was better than banning me.

bones_703 should go to bed tonight very thankful that we were not in the same room today. He has no clue what he's talking about or who he's talking to.

 

[bones_708]

Somebody edited my post. I didn't use funky characters. I used the actual f-word. I guess the moderator decided that was better than banning me.

bones_703 should go to bed tonight very thankful that we were not in the same room today. He has no clue what he's talking about or who he's talking to.

Are you happy that you sound like a 15 yo with your internet tough guy routine? Even if you could do something does that somehow affect your weak ass arguments? You get pissy and insulting and if someone tell you that you are full of it then violence is your answer? Yep I think I know who I'm talking too. And by the way go look who got insulting first, hint it wasn't me.

 

[HillRider]

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

You can go ahead and build a straw man and mischaracterize my earlier statements, but to refresh your memory and for the record, I originally posed this question.

why does every Federal department need a LE/swat division?

The part about not needing guns related to idea that these LE units are superfluous at best. This point was was pretty much summed up perfectly by Texasjack.

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.

You went on to mischaracterize his statements and build a straw man against him as well, which seems to be what you are good at. A good little slimy Fed trick. Then have some of your other buddies come to your defense and call me a troll. This is just hilarious.

 

[robocop10mm]

Wake up Hillrider, the POTUS IS the head LE Officer in the Country. Interpreting law is part of the mission of one of his employees (the Attorney General). This is EXACTLY how the framers of the Constitution intended it.

You have disdain, contempt and mistrust for the current (and probably the past few Presidents). That may well be justified, but it does not detract from the Constitutionality of it all.

Yes there are a plethora of Federal agencies with enforcement powers. Yes they need guns to fulfill their missions. Does NEA need a SWAT team? I personally think not, but that is another topic. Look no further that Texas. There are a number of regulatory entities who have armed enforcement sections. Pharmacists, funeral directors, Attorney General, etc. Is it a conspiracy? Only in the minds of the few who choose to believe it.

 

[robocop10mm]

Each agency has its own enforcement arm because they would not get much cooperation from the FBI in providing armed assistance for the completion of their tasks. Imagine if the IRS needed to serve a forcible eviction of a residence they had seized for non-payment of taxes (the legality of such taxes is a different topic entirely). Do you actually think the FBI has the personnel to assist the IRS EVERY TIME they need such assistance? The FBI would have to have a stand alone unit in every major city to carry out such tasks, thus negating the entire concept.

And yes, some of you have gotten particularly ugly in your criticism of other members. The Mods and Admin should look carefully at this entire thread and do some housekeeping.

 

[benenglish]

Each agency has its own enforcement arm because they would not get much cooperation from the FBI in providing armed assistance for the completion of their tasks. Imagine if the IRS needed to serve a forcible eviction of a residence they had seized for non-payment of taxes...

I hate to nitpick, so please don't take this the wrong way, OK? It's just a minor data point.

The IRS never evicts anyone.

With a different example, of course, your point remains valid; I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Southpaw]

Somebody edited my post. I didn't use funky characters. I used the actual f-word. I guess the moderator decided that was better than banning me.

Check your User Settings. You must have your "profanity filter" on, as your wording came out just fine here.

 

[HillRider]

Wake up Hillrider, the POTUS IS the head LE Officer in the Country. Interpreting law is part of the mission of one of his employees (the Attorney General). This is EXACTLY how the framers of the Constitution intended it.

You have disdain, contempt and mistrust for the current (and probably the past few Presidents). That may well be justified, but it does not detract from the Constitutionality of it all.

Yes there are a plethora of Federal agencies with enforcement powers. Yes they need guns to fulfill their missions. Does NEA need a SWAT team? I personally think not, but that is another topic. Look no further that Texas. There are a number of regulatory entities who have armed enforcement sections. Pharmacists, funeral directors, Attorney General, etc. Is it a conspiracy? Only in the minds of the few who choose to believe it.

The Constitution does not establish or authorize most of the Federal departments and agencies in question. It certainly does not authorize the endless creation of "agencies with enforcement powers."

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

States have the right to nullify Federal law when it violates the tenth amendment. They also have the authority to prevent Federal agents from executing such laws.

The saddest part is that there are members of this forum, gun owners and Texans, that would go to such lengths to justify the Federal expansion of power, even saying that it is Constitutional, when it clearly is the violation of the very spirit of the Constitution.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

HillRider, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you keep bringing a bad attitude and continue trying to antagonize other members based on their having different views from yourself, you're not long for this forum.

This thread is done.