Autolycus
Member
Do we need more guns in the hands of the government is my question? When they need to investigate can't they have the locals or the FBI make the arrest? We dont need more government agents who have guns.
So they don't do SWAT-type no-knock raids at the wrong address? That's nice to know.it makes perfect sense to arm them
Tecumseh said:Do we need more guns in the hands of the government is my question? When they need to investigate can't they have the locals or the FBI make the arrest? We dont need more government agents who have guns.
I think I hear ghostly voices in Waco saying, "Hey, it's worth a shot!" Maybe the FBI would hesitate to slaughter innocents in a grand-standing play to justify more funding for the then BATF.BATFE? They can go to the FBI too.
The founders' writings on RKBA make it very clear that the whole point was for citizens to be better armed than government. They were even violently opposed to a standing army.I never thought I'd see the day when a THR member suggested someone shouldn't have a gun. Why would you say any person, government or otherwise, doesn't need a gun? Such an argument weakens our argument that our guns are for self-defense.
I think that's a great idea. With one stipulation, though: armed government agents should also have no extra powers with respect to deadly force. The problem isn't the gun itself: it's the fact that a civilian who uses a gun faces a presumption of guilt; but an official who uses a gun is presumed innocent.Now, maybe we can take this to the logical conclusion and say that EPA agents may be armed only in states that allow citizens to carry. That might make 'em think twice.
It does indeed. Except for one vital difference: the set of "federal laws" to be enforced was amazingly tiny. Collection of import duties, and corresponding measures against smuggling, were almost the whole of federal law. That has metastasized into something the founders wouldn't recognize, but would draft a fresh declaration of independence over.Article II, Section 3 says the president "...shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...".
That sounds like federal enforcement to me.
I can answer that question, but it would take us off-topic. The basic answer is that "law enforcement" can, and should, be fully privatized, and private property rights absolutely respected. "Fat Tony" isn't allowed to put waste on anyone else's property; if he puts it on his own property, that's one thing--but he isn't allowed to let it escape onto anyone else's property. Any violation can, depending on the circumstances, be met with lethal force, or else result in "Fat Tony" being compelled to clean up his mess.So just how do you see, sans armed enforcement agents, apprehending Fat Tony and associates for disposing of pollutants and toxins in illegal ways? Especially address, if you would, how you see this being handled when the actors involved cross multi-jurisdictional and state lines in the process of committiing the offenses?
The founders claimed that "general welfare" covered no more nor less than the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The anti-federalists who wanted it left out, for fear it would become an open-ended source of federal power, have turned out to be right.The "general welfare" clause has got out of hand but seems to allow Congress to pass a law for what they consider "general welfare".
When did it used to be that way? (Hint: never.)Do you think we would be better off if you could rob a bank, cross the state line and not have to worry about being arrested as it used to be?
Federalist 41. Excerpt:Source?The founders claimed that "general welfare" covered no more nor less than the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
What sort of dangers do the EPA face? I'm honestly clueless here.
I said the same thing about postmasters carrying HK in HK board.