Why is the Federal Government Arming the IRS with AR15s?

Filed under News, Police State   June 12, 2013 Posted by:

Leave a comment

Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) is warning the American Public that the IRS is actively training and arming themselves with AR15s.

Late last night, the Congressman took to twitter to let the public know that he personally observed IRS agents training at a Maryland Department of Homeland Security Training Facility with AR15s. He made the discovery during a tour of the facility on May 23rd, as part of his investigation into the amount of ammunition purchases the agency conducts.

Representative Duncan Tweeted:

He followed that up by tweeting:

Early this morning Duncan told a Maryland News Station that he saw about eight or nine shooters identified to him as IRS agents practicing at an indoor 100-yard range.

He told the news agency:

“Why do IRS law enforcement agents need standoff capability that you would have with a long rifle or with a weapon similar to an AR-15?  They’re generally investigating tax evasion, fraud and money laundering.  We think of the IRS as an audit agency more than doing the type of law enforcement where they have to use an AR-15.”

In the midst of so many government scandals, we really have to ask ourselves why the federal government is arming themselves to the teeth. From the Department of Homeland Security’s purchase orders for billions of rounds of ammo, to speculation that they are trying to dry up ammo supplies for American Citizens, it’s sure starting to seem like they are preparing for something big.

Comments

48 Responses to " Why is the Federal Government Arming the IRS with AR15s? " Please share your thoughts...

  1. μολὼν λαβέ says:

    How much more proof do the American zombies need? WAKE UP AMERICA. It can no longer be called a conspiracy theory it’s pretty clear what they are preparing for.

  2. Gomiville says:

    Are AR15′s really “heavy firepower?” Is possessing one really being “armed to the teeth?” Seems like the same paranoid exaggeration as the rest of the gun grabbers.

    • ObamaBots says:

      You obama supporters are ridiculous. The government can’t have it both ways. They can’t argue that these are weapons meant for the military and then start arming federal agencies like the IRS with them at the same time.

      And how exactly is this paranoid? Why would the IRS need ar15s? Who exactly are they planning on using them on? The IRS is not a law enforcement agency they have no need for tactical training.

      • Gomiville says:

        I’m an Obama supporter because I pointed out AR15′s are hardly heavy weaponry and getting paranoid about them is what gun grabbers do?

        Right. Sure. You got me pegged.

        I never said the IRS should have these guns. Just that panicking that AR15s (semi autos, btw) are being “armed to the teeth” is silly and irrational gun fear.

        But hey, that must mean I voted for BHO, right?

        • Mike414 says:

          It’s about reasonable firepower a pistol is low velocity by comparison and typically you carry fewer in the weapon a rifle now allows for better accuracy better penetration and more ammo is all they mean not to mention it is very similar to the weapons carried by infantry soldiers to shoot soldiers wearing body armor

          • Gomiville says:

            So, pretty much all the arguments against me owning one? “High capacity clips” and magic armor piercing ability?

          • Mike414 says:

            Not that all rifle rounds are amor piercing but a rifle bullet moves at 3200 feet per second a pistol round closer to 1500. common sense says it will do more damage.You’re right they aren’t big machine guns to gun down hundreds of people. But it’s the thought of heavily armed men from the IRS. I could justify a pistol some people are crazy. But a rifle to fight a war?

    • Lisa says:

      Well I consider a government who purchases 2 billion rounds of ammunition for nonmilitary agencies like DHS and the IRS to be “armed to the teeth”.

    • George says:

      Just when you think the public might finally wake up someone like Gomiville comes along that makes you realize how dumb the public really is.

      • Chrissblair says:

        I’m confused… It seems like a gun right’s proponents are using anti-gun rhetoric to justify why the government should not arm and have same access to weaponry as the gun right proponents…

        I am all for private citizens rights to arm themselves as they see fit, but I find it strange when they speak up against others arming themselves.

        The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun… Ergo more people armed/trained in firearms the better.

        It is a big leap of faith to assume that an IRS agent will be called upon to wage war on American citizens in tactical situation. The far more normal explaination is they are law enforcement officers, just like police, and in a national emergency, having familiarity with weaponry they can become a tool for the US government to use to help protect us, not attack us.

        • chrissbalir says:

          I withdraw my previous comments…. I should have read all other conversation before jumping in. I agree with where the group of comments ended at the bottom. We are all saying similar things.

        • Listenup says:

          This is not an arguement against private gun ownership. It’s asking why does the U.S. Government think that it is necessary to arm it’s service industries like a para military organization? This is exactly what Hitler did before seizing power. All government organizations became militarized. The Police became part of the SS and were used to run the Extermination camps.Buying up weapons and ammo sounds like they are either preparing to have a battle or dry up the market for private gun owners. You really need to wake up and start asking more questions. You will think you are being protected until they tell you to put a mark on your hand and forhead!

  3. JAS says:

    Face the facts, the government is slowly arming every employee they have. Pretty soon every secretary and clerk will be carrying a Glock. This is the only way they can advance their agenda against the American people is to make every government employee part of the force.

    • DT says:

      These civilians want to take your pension, you want to protect your pension don’t you? Then you better take the tactical training every month to protect us all from those “crazy conspiracy militias”

  4. Marcus says:

    This could be nothing. Maybe they were just practicing with their personal weapons at an available facility. Military bases in the states let anybody who works on the base register their personal weapons and take them to ranges on base, so to an outsider touring it would look like “Federal contractors training with AR15s on military installation”.

    Of course, it is something that should be checked out, just to be safe.

  5. Mike414 says:

    Last week I would have brushed this off as another agency trying to justify its existence but after everything to come out it doesn’t seem so innocent anymore. Will all federal branches become part of the United States police force

  6. Christine says:

    They are arming themselves because they are preparing to tell everyone they are out of money. Haven’t received your return yet? Don’t hold your breath.

  7. jtv says:

    Gomiville is a sample of the same kinds of idiots that said Hitler was going to bring the Germans back to prominence again. The sad thing is these poor slugs are amazed when everything they couldn’t see comes true. Of course by the time the dawn breaks for these morons, it’s way too late to do anything but they have condemned all of us to slavery. Thanks Comiville

  8. Catfish Prepper says:

    What i dont understand, is that the government doesnt want any law abiding citizen to even own a gun anymore, but they are arming everyone and there brothers and sisters! Sounds to me like they are trying to make it easier to control “We The People”!

  9. Gomiville says:

    I think a greater issue is a lack of basic reading comprehension coupled with knee jerk groupthink.

    Should I use smaller words?

    Calling AR15s “heavy weaponry” is the issue I brought up. NOT any legitimacy you imagined I granted the IRS to have them.

    When you start panicking and saying that possessing a sporting rifle is being “armed to the teeth,” that’s an issue. The IRS has had armed agents for years and years, and yet you don’t start screaming until someone says they saw a big scary black rifle, like an AR15? Kinda late to the game, ain’t ya?

    To me, that says your fear is the particular style of gun, not them being armed in the first place. That’s the problem. The same problem with all the gun grabbers, jumping on the “but, but, it has high capacity clips, armor piercing bullets and black pistol grips” bandwagon.

  10. GUNGUY says:

    Heres the thing Gomiville,We(or at least me)aren’t saying that they have no right to own ar15′s but we can (like the government does)All we are saying is that isnt it odd that glorified acountants would be training with ar15s in a government base(like it is a secret.Now dont get me wrong, every body including government goons have a right to own a gun,but think about it non-military agenties are buying billions of rounds of hollow points(fancey guntalk for REALLY DEADLY BULLITS!)and at the same time WE THE PEOPLE are being dissarmed!!! JUST A LITTLE ODD DONT YOU THINK (BUT GOMIVILLE YOU WERE PUBLIC SCHOOLED SO YOU CANT SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING)

  11. Gomiville says:

    Actually, I don’t think they have a legitimate reason for AR15s, and have never, ever said they do. That’s just been assumed by the lockstep groupthink here that figures any disagreement must be an Obama supporter or idiot. Like I did say, reading comprehension seems to be the big problem here.

    However, that still doesn’t mean they’re heavily armed to the teeth, with a freakin’ semi auto, intermediate caliber, sporting freaking rifle.

    And I never attended public school. Maybe that’s why I seem to be only one around here who reads the words on the page.

    • Henry says:

      Gomiville, I do agree with part of what you are saying, but the problem is that we the people are now at a point were anything like this that the Government does we the people do not trust them. We the People do not trust the Government.

      • Gomiville says:

        I agree, but then I’m philosophically opposed to the state anyway.

    • Duck and Cover says:

      Person “A” has an AR-15, person “B” is unarmed.
      I think it can safely be said that person “A” is “armed to the teeth.”

      • Mike414 says:

        I think if person a had a .22 and person b had nothing person a is heavily armed. I think what my friend is trying to say is the same argument that is made to get rid of ars is the same argument being used to justify why the its shouldn’t have them. You can’t say that it’s over kill for them cuz then it would be over kill for you too. If the IRS doesn’t need them than we do you.

        • Duck and Cover says:

          Mike, are you OK, have you had a stroke or have you been drinking? Did you read what you wrote before posting it? Next time proofread before posting.

          • Mike414 says:

            Sorry it was typed in a hurry. Ill make sure to proof read spell check and have my teacher grade it next time. Loser.

      • Gomiville says:

        By that logic, a baseball bat is a heavy weapon and having one makes you armed to the teeth. Or just a rock, for that matter. Situational definitions can get pretty silly pretty damn fast.

        However, the fact is that AR15s aren’t big scary heavy weapons. That’s the frequent (il)logic used to disarm the public, sure, but that doesn’t mean it suddenly makes sense when you use it. There are arguments to be made that agents of the IRS don’t need long arms, for example, or rifle caliber arms, but shrieking about them being “armed to the teeth” for having AR15s is silly gun panic.

        Gun panic using very familiar irrational arguments, to be specific.

        Maybe I should just be grateful the article didn’t wring its hands over the guns being “tactical black.”

        • Duck and Cover says:

          Why must an IRS employee be armed in the first place?
          Play ball.

          • Gomiville says:

            The IRS has fielded enforcement agents that perform basic law enforcement tasks for almost 100 years. They’re involved in cases against organized crime, gangs and narcotics. As much as any other cop (local, state or federal) might have reason to be armed, so to do IRS agents. Not every IRS employee, just like not every employee of the police has need to be armed. But unless you argue no police need guns, there’s reason for the IRS to be armed.

            However, there’s a distinction between carrying a gun for defense and the general trend of militarization seen across the board of law enforcement. IRS agents, while they operate in the field during criminal investigations, arguably have no need for the tactical abilities of long arms. Such needs could be met by other agencies, like local cops or the FBI.

            So, what’s your argument for why the IRS agents should all be disarmed? Play ball.

        • GunGuy says:

          Gommiville, if a bad guy came in your house with an AR15 and all you had was a pen and notebook would you consider the bad guy to be heavily armed or not.And yes baseball bat beats the guy with a remote controle!

          • Gomiville says:

            I’d consider them *better* armed than I, but that the difference between a relative comparison and absolute metric.

            Some who’s “heavily armed” is carrying significant weaponry, regardless of relative comparison. Two opponents with assault rifles, grenades, handguns, a knife or two, and maybe an anti-tank system, are heavily armed, even though comparably armed.

            A person with simply a more damaging, though still light, weapon is not heavily armed, simply because their opponent is unarmed.

            Not to repeat myself, but its this framing of simple rifles as “heavy” that’s the common propaganda of the gun grabbers. It’s a redefinition of language meant to change perception of the object.

          • Mike414 says:

            I am convinced gomville is the only one thinking in here. Heavy weapons is a term from military science which refers to an infantry platoon equipped with machine guns, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, grenade-launchers, anti-tank weapons, and/or other portable crew-served weapons.

          • Gomiville says:

            That’s the meaning of “heavy weapon,” Mike, but not necessarily “heavily armed.” You can be heavily armed with nothing but small arms, I think, but a civilian semi-auto sporting rifle doesn’t qualify on its own.

            Though a pseudocommando active shooter carrying an AR15 as part of his personal arsenal could be called heavily armed, that’s more about the tendency of such individuals to carry two or three long arms and as many handguns, than the nature of any one weapon.

          • tom johnson says:

            Please shut up, Everyone knows Obama is a socialist. YOU MUST ARM THE GOVERMENT TO CONTROL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

    • GUN GUY says:

      shoot, sorry about the public school insult.

  12. Runner says:

    Lot of anger here lately. Most of us haven’t really been disagreeing with each other, in general. We’ve just been speaking to different points and let the anonymity of the internet (except for government spying) allow us to speak without the manners we would likely use in person. Then as we get heated up by a perceived (or real) attack, we attack back and the shots keep ringing.

    I’m not so foolish as to think that this will really make the arguing stop. Likewise, I anticipate being attacked myself (possibly from all sides) for appearing to agree with the wrongheaded enemy (whoever that may be to you). Nevertheless…

    Though much has been said, Gomiville’s main point (if I am summing it up correctly) was that we should be wary of using the same arguments against the gun-control crowd that they use against us. After saying this, his message was perceived as being pro-government, pro-obama, etc. He was (roundabout) accused of being a government sympathizer and stupid.

    The bulk of the other posts center around the idea that the IRS has no particular need to be armed with AR-15s, and that the government’s trend of arming up is more than a little disturbing. And also that they, relative to us, are very highly armed.

    These are just summaries, of course. But it’s all there above my post so you can just scroll back up for all of the details and side-issues. My point is that these ideas don’t conflict with each other, and I believe they are both right. I believe Gomiville even spoke to this effect earlier. I could be wrong, but I think this is just a misunderstanding that got out of hand.

    Lastly (and this is a bit off-topic), I view language as art; not as a lord over our voices and typed text. While I personally do not enjoy some forms of this art (vulgarity, “txt speak”, or what we would consider “poor” grammar) I do not think that they are conceptually illegitimate. Language is subjective to the people using it. As long as a person can communicate his ideas, he has not spoken or typed wrong, regardless of the academically accepted grammar rules. Attacking a person based on misspellings and typos is in poor form and dodges the message of his words. This isn’t a term paper, after all. We all speak “wrong” from time to time (especially in casual conversation), and I would be very surprised if I had made a few mistakes in a post of this length. So I say to the entire internet, give people a break on the spelling and grammar corrections. A person’s worth and intelligence do not hinge on there/their, hear/here, to/too/two or his tendency to use spell check.

    I only hope that this post contributes to positive discourse and does not rouse additional discord. Thank you for your time.

    • sick & tired says:

      Well said. Thank you.

    • Henry says:

      Agree 100% Gomiville made some very good points on why we call the gun control group nuts when they call the AR15 a military rifle when it is not but we all think AR15 is not a good thing when the IRS has them.

      Also the problem is that with what is going on with the IRS, NSA, and so many other scandals going on in the government We the People do not trust anything that the government is doing. So when the IRS, NSA, HLS is buying ammo and AR15′s we all think this is not good.

      I personally think that we all are on there list just by posting here. But freedom is very valuable and we can’t be stopped by all of this.

      May God Bless all of you.

    • GunGuy says:

      Wow,that was pretty cool the way you summed all that up! Come to think about it we all have beed acting a little foolish(even me!)

  13. Grandma says:

    We’re about to go to w*r. This time not a civil w*r, but a w*r between Americans and the government. They have the best g*ns, they will win. Hide and prepare your families.

    Or, the IRS is just gearing up to collect the Obamacare fines from the poor next year.
    Oh, I’m being silly. Everything is fine.

  14. Rhaid says:

    The government can buy all the AR 15′s it wants. My money is on the guy with a bolt action 308 and a good scope. Many hunters make shots that most government agents only dream of. I hope it never comes to it, but the people are the ultimate power.

    • sherman says:

      I,m with you on the 308,but what do you do about the armored tanks?or the air power?

  15. AZ Tekmen says:

    These fed goons can shoot AR’s all they want, we Patriots have been practicing for years with less ammo available to us so we make sure each shot counts. Let’s not forget all that high quality .223 5.56 ammo we’ll be collecting :)
    Nazis are little late to the party it seems.

  16. Pete Miller says:

    Perhaps they’re bracing for confrontation with the angry right wing element. Probably cheaper to let the IRS agents handle their own enforcement and property confiscations than to rely on U.S. Marshals.
    Just a theory.

  17. Steve says:

    Interesting responses. More so from Gomiville than others. I do not find the idea of the IRS arming themselves making any sense. Whether it’s a rifle or not – they should not be an armed branch of our government. There are already enough agencies that already have armed themselves.

    • Listenup says:

      Thanks Steve for summing many up. This is a Congressman that is making these observations! There is something clearly going on. Is our government afraid of the mass panic when the market collapses under all our debt and the world with no longer prop us up? We all know there are consequences to living beyond ones means indefinately!

Tell us what you're thinking...