OT: IRS is buying shotguns

[erps]

imported post

I ask again, erps: Is that enough?!

I don't have an opinion and if I did, it wouldn't be an expert opinion.

This is about prohibiting agents with arrest authority from purchasing shotguns. I'm not against that. Are you?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

erps wrote:

I ask again, erps: Is that enough?!

I don't have an opinion and if I did, it wouldn't be an expert opinion.

This is about prohibiting agents with arrest authority from purchasing shotguns. I'm not against that. Are you?

I'm against the fact that IRS agents should have arresting authority. Where's the checks and balances in that?

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

Since you won't answer my question, erps, I won't tell you what I'm against. Instead, I'll tell you two things, among many,that I am for. Maybe you can agree with me.

1. I am for afederal government that is far more limited in scope than the one we currently have. Something more in line with what the writers of the Constitution had envisioned. A limited federal government would need only alimited federal police force instead of the 68 agencies (more than one agency for every state in the union)that we currently have.

2. I am for permittingLACto ownany weapon that any LEO is allowed to have for self defense. If LE needs a particular tool to protect themselves against BGs, then certainly LAC should have the same tools for their own protection. Remember, LE is not required to protect individual citizens, only society as a whole.

Let's stick with just these two items since they are somewhat on topic. Do you have any disagreement with these?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Many pluses to above post.

 

[kparker]

imported post

If you mean ajetpilot's post, then yes indeed!

I'd just take part of the statement:

I am for permitting LAC to own any weapon that any LEO is allowed to have for self defense.

and add

and to carry it anywhere any LEO is allowed to carry it.
​

 

[erps]

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

Since you won't answer my question, erps, I won't tell you what I'm against. Instead, I'll tell you two things, among many,that I am for. Maybe you can agree with me.

1. I am for afederal government that is far more limited in scope than the one we currently have. Something more in line with what the writers of the Constitution had envisioned. A limited federal government would need only alimited federal police force instead of the 68 agencies (more than one agency for every state in the union)that we currently have.

2. I am for permittingLACto ownany weapon that any LEO is allowed to have for self defense. If LE needs a particular tool to protect themselves against BGs, then certainly LAC should have the same tools for their own protection. Remember, LE is not required to protect individual citizens, only society as a whole.

Let's stick with just these two items since they are somewhat on topic. Do you have any disagreement with these?

#1. I answered that previously (see below). As to your opinion that the number of agencies being too high, I'm sure there are others that will say too low and just right. Whatever.

That's not my position jet. I would like to restrict the size of the federal government and their influence over our lives. I'm not one to restrict another person from tools used to defend their lives.

#2., don't have a problem with that at all.


Hey, if you're for prohibiting this gun purchase, that's fine by me. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. That's taking it further than even the Brady bunch takes their gun prohibitions though but there is lots of room in between the extremes.

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

erps wrote:

Hey, if you're for prohibiting this gun purchase, that's fine by me.

I'm glad you agree with me. But, where did you ever see me state I want to prevent gun purchases? As stated several times in this thread, I would like to see all LAC be able to own, and carry, any weapon that any LEO is allowed to carry. Here's is an example:

Ajetpilotwrote

A point that may have been missed, but was noted by Dave Workman in his article here:

Fitted with 14-inch barrels (that’s 4-inches shorter than the legal minimum length for a shotgun owned by a private citizen without a special license; Washington residents can't have one because it's classified as a short barreled shotgun, and they're illegal under state statute), these are what one might call “wallpaper guns.” Shoot someone with one of these, and you’re going to turn him into wallpaper.

Since the IRS feels that they need these weapons to protect themselves, why can't LAC possess the same? Are we and our families not worth the protection these weapons can provide?

 

[erps]

imported post

But, where did you ever see me state I want to prevent gun purchases?

I haven't seen you state your position one way or the other. I saw you refuse to state your position .

So I guess I can assume we're in complete ageement then? That neither one of us are against the IRS making this purchase?

So the point of your post was not that it was outrageous that the IRS was making this purchase, but that citizen's ought to be able to make the same purchase?

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

erps wrote:

So the point of your post was not that it was outrageous that the IRS was making this purchase, but that citizen's out [sic] to be able to make the same purchase?

Why not?

 

[erps]

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

erps wrote:

So the point of your post was not that it was outrageous that the IRS was making this purchase, but that citizen's out [sic] to be able to make the same purchase?

Why not?

I"m not against that. So looks like we're in complete agreement then. So I wonder how long before you start getting a troll?

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

Good grief, The Federal Government LE agencies can't even hold on thefirearms they have! Customs, Border Protection, ICE, Coast Guard, Secret Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Service LOST 243 guns between FY 2006 and FY 2008. Take a look at this: http://tinyurl.com/yadfsnb