- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dept of Agric wants sub machine guns
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:40 am to DanTiger
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:40 am to DanTiger
quote:
. Lots of bad guys carry rifles so why would you want to send agents in lacking in firepower?
quote:
If they need heavy firepower they can call upon the FBI or BATF to assist
I answered that in my post. Again its the Dept. of Agriculture. They should be doing inspections and research not policing.
1
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:41 am to mauser
quote:
If would nice to know how many they want and why exactly do they need them.
Please read my post directly above yours.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:44 am to Capital Cajun
quote:
I answered that in my post. Again its the Dept. of Agriculture. They should be doing inspections and research not policing.
That is not part of the FBIs responsibility. The Dept. of Ag has it's own agents and they do not call other agencies when a problem arises. Should the Dept of Homeland Security call the FBI when they have an active shooter situation?
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:46 am to Zach
Government officials aren't allowed to defend themselves from right wing wacko bigots.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:49 am to Zach
It's really starting to be alarming that every branch of our government is buying up so many firearms.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:50 am to Zach
quote:
Do we really want Mr. Kimball to have a weapon?
We'll let him conduct classroom training. It would take the first class 10 years to complete a one-week course.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:51 am to DanTiger
quote:
Lots of bad guys carry rifles so why would you want to send agents in lacking in firepower?
Close quarters combat. AKA SWAT raids.
Either that or they want something they can easily wield while in their vehicles.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:53 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
It's really starting to be alarming that every branch of our government is buying up so many firearms.
This is the point I'm trying to make. Does every government department need a police force that requires small arms and equipment on par with a military unit?
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:53 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
It's really starting to be alarming that every branch of our government is buying up so many firearms.
Which branches, specifically, are buying up so many firearms? I try to bring some measure of reason into this discussion every time I see it come up. Please don't blindly believe what you see posted on rendom internet sites that have agendas. The government is certainly far too big and bloated but there is nothing nefarious going on in relation to weapon and ammo purchases they make.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:55 am to Capital Cajun
quote:
This is the point I'm trying to make. Does every government department need a police force that requires small arms and equipment on par with a military unit?
I totally agree with you in regard to the number of law enforcement agencies we have within the federal government. I certainly believe many functions should be consolidated and certain agencies liquidated but as we all know governments generally don't shrink until they fold.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:55 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
mad cow?
Came here to post this!
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:56 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Government officials aren't allowed to defend themselves from right wing wacko bigots.
Hmmm, I've never thought of farmers as right wing wacko bigots.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:56 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Does it bother you that our Government officials have more leeway to use force against citizens than our soldiers in Afghanistan do against our enemies.
Government officials aren't allowed to defend themselves
Posted on 5/15/14 at 11:59 am to Zach
quote:
Hmmm, I've never thought of farmers as right wing wacko bigots
Farmers have access to many volatile substances, that can be made into explosives, that the general public cannot purchase. Domestic terrorism does occur in rural America.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:00 pm to dante
quote:
Does it bother you that our Government officials have more leeway to use force against citizens than our soldiers in Afghanistan do against our enemies.
No, because that is simply not true.Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:02 pm to Zach
Mr Haney would make a good profit on Craigslist for that toy after getting it for free.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:03 pm to DanTiger
quote:
Farmers have access to many volatile substances, that can be made into explosives, that the general public cannot purchase. Domestic terrorism does occur in rural America
That falls under the ATF. They conduct regular inspections at agricultural facilities.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:03 pm to DanTiger
quote:
Farmers have access to many volatile substances, that can be made into explosives, that the general public cannot purchase. Domestic terrorism does occur in rural America.
OK, name a farmer who committed an act of terrorism with an explosive in the last half century.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:03 pm to DanTiger
Dan you are not bringing reason here you are making excuses. Can you please provide any information about a Department of Agriculture agent killed in the line of fire. This is one of the most absurd things I have read this week. Some meatheads want to play cowboy and have Joe taxpayer pick up the bill. This is almost as idiotic as BRPD needing a freaking armoured assault vehicle that can not navigate most streets and take hours to deploy. And for the record I am as pro gun as they come but there is no way to justify this nonsense at all.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 12:41 pm to DanTiger
quote:Really? How many times have police used the "I feared for my life" when shooting someone?
No, because that is simply not true.
quote:[link=(content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2001936,00.html)]LINK[/link]
For many troops, the strict rules of engagement — overlaid with tactical directives meant to limit civilian casualties — are a source of confusion and, they contend, are putting U.S. soldiers in greater danger. "We have all of these stupid rules that in the end wind up hurting more people. I mean, hesitation can mean death out here," says one disgruntled soldier serving in the volatile south.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News