EPA wants Glocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dunno. They shut down my town a few weeks ago because a chemical plant was burning. There's no worse feeling than being told by a highway patrolman on the way into town "you can't go there, it's not safe". I lit up a marlboro and told him he had my word I was just going to get my dog and leave. My wife eventually went in from the other side of town and got a hold of a veternarian who was helping folks retrieve their animals from this "deadly" environment....and he was the only fella with a pass into town. The police were "too busy" to escort folks home, and they didn't trust us not to stay there and kill ourselves in this "deadly" atmosphere. The cops had the guns...so I guess my dog was just left to sit around breathing the "deadly" fumes. By the time my wife retrieved our 7 lb Papillion around 8pm, he was thirsty but otherwise unaffected by breathing "deadly" fumes all day long, that the EPA told the media "would kill a 180lb man in 6 hours of exposure" and "eats paint off of cars left in the fallout from the smoke"

When I was a kid, they told everyone to stop bathing in, let alone drinking, well water in my area (Riverview, KS).... so the city of Wichita brought municipal water to the area and added specials to all the houses in the area, plus you had to pay a plumber to hook up to the water. A tanning factory was to blame for the chemical pollution of the well water, and was long since out of business. Nobody left to sue, but property values dropped by thousands if you didn't hook up to the city water. EPA should have at least subsidized the price to bring water out to the area.

EPA doesn't do anything but fine businesses and leave homeowners to fend for themselves, at least they're doing something, but Lord knows where all the business fines go, it's not to the families that they hurt. I'm glad they're taking these fines to buy Glocks to protect themselves against the folks they're kicking out of their homes. Now that you've heard my rant, you can understand how they make people angry. I was angry at the EPA, not the police for keeping me from my home. We were reimbursed $70 for the "hardship" of being kept out of our home for one night (or more if you had any reciepts for lodging), as long as we signed away our legal rights. I signed and took the $70, because the "deadly" fumes that "take paint off of cars" soon became a note on the public service channel of "wash your garden vegetables with water before you eat them"
 
I read an article last week about how a number of goverment agencies are seeking approval to carry weapons, whereas they haven't had them in the past.
 
:confused: I recall reading at least ten years ago about EPA armed agents (they do have some, perhaps 200 IIRC) selecting the Glock 19. Why they would need armed agents is probably best for the L&P section. :rolleyes: Probably to take down the shade tree mechanic dumping oil in his back yard. ;)
 
Shouldn't they select a more environmentally friendly pistol that doesn't have a tennifer slide?
 
I read an article last week about how a number of goverment agencies are seeking approval to carry weapons, whereas they haven't had them in the past.
Click to expand...

The "gunning up" of all varieties of federales has been going on for at least a decade. I too remember reading about this, back when we thought Bill Clinton was our biggest problem.
 
they wanna play cop. How many older people, and people with mental challanges have been trained to the following conditioning:

man/woman in some kind of authority with weapon = cop
cop= person to be obeyed at all times

and dont forget this, they can now use the threat of force to make you obey their ridiculous conclusion that public sewer is better then septic tank as well as public water supply that is always being contaminated every week with god knows what kind of toxic bacterium.
 
What sort of dangers do the EPA face? I'm honestly clueless here.
Click to expand...

I said the same thing about postmasters carrying HK in HK board. I got flamed for that, a guy went all postal about that on me.
I guess they need protection against their coworkers in case they go postal. :eek:
 
Another useless government agency arming itself in the interest of totalitarianism.

For the record I'm all for any government worker being able to carry a personal gun at their job, as long as that means all Americans can do the same.
 
Almost every federal agency...

Almost every federal agency has a division/department whose employees are authorized to carry guns. To name a few: HUD, NRC, and US Agency for International Development. Most of the time these employees work in the Inspector Generals division or provide some sort of oversight.
 
Unauthorized waste disposal is a big illegal business. Guys who have been glorified in The Godfather and The Sopranos run that business. If it were your job to deal with such folks in an investigatory capacity would you want a gun?
 
The vast majority of folks at the EPA are scientists and engineers, but the EPA has had armed Special Agents in their law enforcement division for years (Criminal Investigation Division). They handle criminal investigations and arrests of the worst criminal polluters and like any other federal law enforcement officer they're armed. They're not the folks that show up for accidental spills. Instead they're the folks that pursue criminals running illegal wast incinerators with protection from organized crime and corrupt politicians or the creeps running a "business" dumping toxic waste into streams and lakes.

BTW, THR has members in very good standing that are part of that group.
 
I hate to say it, but this is a strong case in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. While I agree with Jefferson et al that citizens should be well-armed and well-trained, I think it's reasonable and necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of government employees. They're already too dangerous as it is.

--Len.
 
Thanks for the info Joe Demko, hso. Like I said, I really had no idea what the EPA did that would necessitate its agents being armed. :)
 
Whole heap of ignorance in this thread
Click to expand...
Please enlighten us meer subjects:rolleyes:

I hate to say it, but this is a strong case in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. While I agree with Jefferson et al that citizens should be well-armed and well-trained, I think it's reasonable and necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of government employees. They're already too dangerous as it is.
Click to expand...

right now in america the tail is wagging the dog.
Govt gets what Govt wants
and it is "we the peolpe" that have "reasonable restrictions"
 
Unauthorized waste disposal is a big illegal business. Guys who have been glorified in The Godfather and The Sopranos run that business. If it were your job to deal with such folks in an investigatory capacity would you want a gun?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of folks at the EPA are scientists and engineers, but the EPA has had armed Special Agents in their law enforcement division for years (Criminal Investigation Division). They handle criminal investigations and arrests of the worst criminal polluters and like any other federal law enforcement officer they're armed. They're not the folks that show up for accidental spills. Instead they're the folks that pursue criminals running illegal wast incinerators with protection from organized crime and corrupt politicians or the creeps running a "business" dumping toxic waste into streams and lakes.

BTW, THR has members in very good standing that are part of that group.
Click to expand...

My criticism of this whole debacle is simple. While I personally can make an excellent argument that the state does have authority to police improper waste disposal, where in the Constitution is that power granted to the federal government? I don't see it in my copy of the document.

Thus Point 1: The EPA is nothing more than an example of the federal government overextending its authority beyond its legal boundaries.

Point 2 was summarized nicely earlier in the thread and I repost it here:

I dunno. They shut down my town a few weeks ago because a chemical plant was burning. There's no worse feeling than being told by a highway patrolman on the way into town "you can't go there, it's not safe". I lit up a marlboro and told him he had my word I was just going to get my dog and leave. My wife eventually went in from the other side of town and got a hold of a veternarian who was helping folks retrieve their animals from this "deadly" environment....and he was the only fella with a pass into town. The police were "too busy" to escort folks home, and they didn't trust us not to stay there and kill ourselves in this "deadly" atmosphere. The cops had the guns...so I guess my dog was just left to sit around breathing the "deadly" fumes. By the time my wife retrieved our 7 lb Papillion around 8pm, he was thirsty but otherwise unaffected by breathing "deadly" fumes all day long, that the EPA told the media "would kill a 180lb man in 6 hours of exposure" and "eats paint off of cars left in the fallout from the smoke"

When I was a kid, they told everyone to stop bathing in, let alone drinking, well water in my area (Riverview, KS).... so the city of Wichita brought municipal water to the area and added specials to all the houses in the area, plus you had to pay a plumber to hook up to the water. A tanning factory was to blame for the chemical pollution of the well water, and was long since out of business. Nobody left to sue, but property values dropped by thousands if you didn't hook up to the city water. EPA should have at least subsidized the price to bring water out to the area.

EPA doesn't do anything but fine businesses and leave homeowners to fend for themselves, at least they're doing something, but Lord knows where all the business fines go, it's not to the families that they hurt. I'm glad they're taking these fines to buy Glocks to protect themselves against the folks they're kicking out of their homes. Now that you've heard my rant, you can understand how they make people angry. I was angry at the EPA, not the police for keeping me from my home. We were reimbursed $70 for the "hardship" of being kept out of our home for one night (or more if you had any reciepts for lodging), as long as we signed away our legal rights. I signed and took the $70, because the "deadly" fumes that "take paint off of cars" soon became a note on the public service channel of "wash your garden vegetables with water before you eat them"
Click to expand...

The EPA is not only unlawful, it is inefficient, insensitive to the needs and wants of the people it is supposed to serve, and in some cases directly harmful.

I have nothing against anyone being armed on the job, however I am outraged by this for the same reason I'd be outraged if the government bought 20 staplers for EPA employees. They are taking my money from me, by force, to fund an inefficient and potentially harmful agency which is illegal to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Rifles for the U.S. Secret Service
Replies
14
Views
1K
Pat_Rogers
P
U
  • Locked
Court rules against environmentalists seeking EPA regs for lead bullets
Replies
6
Views
685
lemaymiami
lemaymiami
P
  • Locked
EPA denies bid to ban lead in hunting ammunition
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
wvshooter
W
C
  • Locked
Quietly, EPA trying to ban all lead ammunition!
Replies
1
Views
514
TexasRifleman
T
C
  • Locked
USA: "EPA Award Group for Promoting Environmental Practices at 100 Shooting Ranges"
Replies
17
Views
674
Zander
Z
Back
Top