mojo84 wrote: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.
Do you know how many different peace officer categories their are in Texas? Last time I tried to count we got around 170+. Postal inspector, fire marshall, dental examiner, state trooper, city marshall, parole officer, bailiff, private investigator, airport police, port police, etc. Every agency in Texas that can arrest you for some sort of violation or crime, has their own people to do it. (Or most of them anyway.) If we only needed one type of agency to cover it all, a lot of things would get overlooked, even on the state level. Same goes on the federal level. The FBI has enough to work on, let alone executing warrants and seizures of animal registration papers and finance reports. Big agency = big government. More small agencies with certain specialties = more thorough work, and less to try and prioritize.
