What they hate is firearms in the hands of citizens.
Just yesterday, KrisAnne Hall posted this video detailing efforts to beef up the IRS by more than doubling their numbers. She also explored a screenshot she received of an apparent ad for new IRS agents.
According to Ms. Hall, this ad has since been removed. However the horse has already escaped. Many people ask why? Why do IRS agents need to be armed? Why does the IRS need an additional 80,000 plus new agents?
After talking to my resident tax expert, I’m reminded the IRS apparently does not have sufficient personnel to answer phones in a timely manner. What is certain is they do NOT answer phones in a timely manner, not now, certainly not during “tax season”. This point aside, the other question remains to be answered – why arm IRS agents and why insist they be willing to use deadly force?
Again I’ll refer to my tax expert. Her clients are average citizens. An overwhelming majority (greater than the majority of Washington D C voters who voted for Biden) only see my tax expert during tax filing system. They bring their income and expense paperwork and she sorts it all out and files it. All any of them want to do is pay what the government says they owe. That’s it. For those few with mistakes on their return, they are quick to try to resolve them. None of them want to muck with the IRS. Not one even considers an agent might be armed and willing to use deadly force. They simply don’t want any trouble.
So let me restate the question: WHY arm IRS agents? I can think of one reason and one reason only: someone wants to intimidate the living hell out of taxpaying citizens. There are no hoards of tax “criminals” defying the IRS, daring them to “come and take it”. Surely one might be able to identify a handful of such people, but from my experience and observation, even those most adamantly opposed to income tax – the “tax is theft” crowd – pose no threat worthy of armed intervention. They just don’t.
Contrast this to those “representatives” bent on stripping American citizens of our right to keep and bear arms. These are the same crazed fanatics who have no problem at all arming just about anyone carrying a government employee ID. Thus my contention – these gun control nuts don’t hate guns. Not at all. They happily arm the IRS, the United States Postal Service, and the Library of Congress to name a few. For a more complete list try here. Not to mention those who have their own private security teams, all armed to the teeth. Not only that but there are few, if any, restrictions barring Federal law enforcement personnel from carrying fully automatic weapons. That’s right. The very same weapons a citizens must apply and pay for a special permit to own are readily available to certain Feds. No permit required.
What’s more is all those restrictions the average citizen must face about where one can and cannot carry a firearm typically does not apply to those carrying with a government ID as part of their job. Flash the right badge and get a free pass just about anywhere.
One can only conclude these gun control fanatics are exactly as advertised. They don’t want to ban guns at all. What they do want is to control who can and who cannot have a firearm. And that means you and me. Unless, of course, we are able to secure “proper” government employment. Granted, at this point, such courtesy to wield firearms (and just about anyplace at that) also extends to local law enforcement. As I said, at this point. I fully expect that should the gun control fanatics ever get their way, they will then begin to eat away at local law enforcement privileges until only those blessed by the federal elites will carry the Platinum Pass. In the Bond movies it was called the “license to kill”. I’m not so sure how far off that description really is.
In light of all this, let us consider just one federal agency and their actions of late – the FBI. The news is still packed with details on the FBI raid on former President Trump’s home Mar-a-Lago. While the actual number of agents participating in the raid varies, the figure I heard most was 30 agents, so let’s go with that. Think about that, thirty armed federal employees descending on the private home of the former President of the United States ostensibly to collect 15 boxes of papers. They must have been some massive boxes if it takes two FBI agents to tote one box out. Maybe one would carry the box while the other carried two fully automatic firearms? I can only guess. Also note that per my information, those boxes were carried to Mar-a-Lago by GSA employees, likely the few federal employees not authorized to carry firearms… yet. But wait! That’s not all!
James O’Keefe of Project Veritas faced federal firearms as the FBI searched his apartment looking for Ashley Biden’s diary. Roger Stone was led out of his home in the wee hours in the morning, in handcuffs by fully armed FBI agents. Rudy Giuliani was also subjected to an armed FBI raid. These are just the individuals I can name off the top of my head. What do they all have in common? None of those targeted were known to be violent. The ostensible reasons for the raids themselves were relatively mild. Mostly they were after papers and/or electronically stored files. The only danger anyone faced was from the armed law enforcement personnel themselves.
Back to the raid on Trump’s home, indeed if Trump had actually been present, there may well have been armed individuals to consider in the form of our own Secret Service, the federal agency charged with protecting former Presidents. So the question is… did the FBI expect to be fired upon by Secret Service agents? Was the FBI prepared to shoot those protecting Trump? Is one government agency at war with one or more other government agencies? So why show up with lethal force?
On Second Thought, Maybe Gun Control Is a Good Idea
I am being totally serious here. It’s time to rethink gun control. Some of you are not going to like it. Not one bit. However there is simply too much at stake here. I’m talking about the lives of citizens here, both us private citizens and those employed by the federal government. I also think we should seriously consider gun control on the state and maybe even the local level. There are simple too many guns out there and they need to be scaled back.
To that end, I propose we simply ban guns from most federal agencies. Instead, I’m suggesting we consolidate most of the duties requiring guns to a single agency. Now, granted, I do see some specific areas were firearms would be necessary such as border patrol agents and within the fish and wildlife service. For the rest, they should depend on a single agency should they need to execute a warrant. This same agency could provide armed security for those agencies who need it. Other agencies, particularly those that are mostly regulatory, need not be armed at all. Arrests would be the duty of the armed agency and they should be required to work in conjunction with the local sheriff. The FBI should be forever banned from ever raiding another citizen at their home or business or anywhere else for that matter. I see their role as one of support rather then enforcement. Let them do what they are best known for, collecting and analyzing evidence.
Granted, this is a bold, new concept so it may take some getting used to but why not? Instead of a mishmash of federally employees running around armed potentially shooting at anything that moves, we can replace them with a single well-trained agency charged with protecting agents and citizens alike. They need not worry about being distracted by investigating crimes and collecting evidence. They would only be called upon when circumstances are deemed dangerous. As such, woe to the agent who calls in “The Calvary” to take down a 90 year-old grandmother with one too many pot plants in her garden.
Gone would be the wild-eyed agent who draws at the slightest hint of resistance. More to the point, gone would be the federal office that shows up armed to the teeth to apprehend a meek septuagenarian whose only “crime” is defying one or more politicians. No, this agency would be far to professional for that, the stakes too high. What agent would want to be booted from such service? To add teeth to such a threat, any agent dismissed from this agency would be barred from federal service. This may seem harsh but I see it as an incentive to keep one’s nose squeaky clean.
Put this way, I can almost see the fanatics’ love for gun control. It’s invigorating. How refreshing it would it be to face a federal employee knowing full well s/he cannot gun me down should I say or do something unpleasing to the agent? How comforting is the thought of walking into any government office without taking one’s life in one’s hands? Why… it would almost be like government really is there to help.