TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Those in government want government to grow in size, control, authority and power. Creating armed agents within the various areas of government helps accomplish all of those.

Before long, we'll have local building inspectors, permit department employees, health inspectors, ordinance enforcement employees, etc carrying guns and badges. They are enforcing laws and ordinances aren't they? You never know when a contractor, building owner, plumber or electrician may get mad and go off the handle over where a plumbing pipe is located or an illegal pigtail in the wiring.

Code violations are not criminal violations. If they were then yes they should be armed. For the most part they already have badges.
It's kind of funny that someone on this board is advocating people be disarmed. Here is the tipping point to me. If they can arrest you on the spot, which building inspectors can't do, for a violation within their purview, then I'm ok with them being law enforcement. You worry about who they work for I worry about the job that they do.

How about the Texas Department of Insurance? They enforce laws. You never know when they may need to pistol whip a rogue insurance agent. How about IRS auditors? I bet some folks get pretty hot when sitting across from one of those fine folks when they are scrutinizing people private money affairs.

What the whole Department should be a cop? Or why should someone like a State fire investigator who would investigate things like arson be law enforcement?

My point is, not every department or area of government needs their own police force, especially with automatic weapons, MRAP's and other military style weapons. This leads to many issues, some of which are waste from duplication, desire and tendency to use more force than necessary, bad relations between the government and mere citizens and further distrust of government. Have divisions of the government that are set up to handle making the arrests and executing the raids when necessary. Then each administrative department of the government can refer their cases to the law enforcement division for execution of an arrest, seizure or raid.

So you are not really complaining about the number or specilazation of law enforcement just who pays them. At least that is the logic you use but I haven't seen you complain about having a city and county law enforcement? Heck we should just have one Texas police force and have no smaller groups at all right? But wait a second that just doesn't sound right does it.

It's obvious you just want to argue and shoot holes in what people say.

My point was clear. We don't need separate police forces for each department of government. I know that is hard for you big government government is always right guys fathom bit that is what I believe. Nothing you say here will change that.

Those in government want government to grow in size, control, authority and power. Creating armed agents within the various areas of government helps accomplish all of those.

Before long, we'll have local building inspectors, permit department employees, health inspectors, ordinance enforcement employees, etc carrying guns and badges. They are enforcing laws and ordinances aren't they? You never know when a contractor, building owner, plumber or electrician may get mad and go off the handle over where a plumbing pipe is located or an illegal pigtail in the wiring.

How about the Texas Department of Insurance? They enforce laws. You never know when they may need to pistol whip a rogue insurance agent. How about IRS auditors? I bet some folks get pretty hot when sitting across from one of those fine folks when they are scrutinizing people private money affairs.

My point is, not every department or area of government needs their own police force, especially with automatic weapons, MRAP's and other military style weapons. This leads to many issues, some of which are waste from duplication, desire and tendency to use more force than necessary, bad relations between the government and mere citizens and further distrust of government. Have divisions of the government that are set up to handle making the arrests and executing the raids when necessary. Then each administrative department of the government can refer their cases to the law enforcement division for execution of an arrest, seizure or raid.

On the other hand, if guns and military style equipment is necessary to carry on such activities, maybe everyone should be allowed to carry their guns while working.

Show me the head of any government agency that recommended, without being coerced and forced, to reduce their budget, workforce, authority, power or eliminate their department in total. There may be one out there. I haven't come across him or her yet.


Dang, sorry about the soapbox rant. Kind of pulled my chain.

Consider me silly then.

All it takes is for each department/division of the government to request more tax money in their budget so they can set their own police/law enforcement department. Doesn't each division of government need it's own police/law enforcement force? {{{{{{{for the less astute, that was a sarcastic rhetorical question }}}}}}

A couple years ago I say with the regional head of the south Texas FBI region. We discussed their missions. Counter terrorism is definitely a big part of their responsibility but they still have responsibility for child pornography, banking fraud and they, organized crime, and many other areas of law enforcement and investigations. They also have agents that specialize. I don't see the need for each agency to maintain their own armed agents.

My question is, do all federal agencies really need their own armed "special agents"? Why not do the investigations and then turn it over to the FBI to handle the arrests and prosecution if warranted? What am I missing?

Hope the Amish farmers get in line and stay there for their own good.