Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Guns of 1111 Constitution Avenue Northwest

The IRS intends to purchase 60 shotguns. Not just any run-of-the-mill off-the-shelf shotguns, either. Super-sweet badass Police Model Remington 870's, in 12 ga., with a fourteen inch modified choke barrel, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend. Wow. I wish I had one. It would be illegal, however, for a lowly citizen to own a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches.

Why does the IRS need these guns? According to MediaSplatters , asking such a question is "baseless fearmongering." Here is their response:
IRS CI employs 2,700 [!] special agents who are required to "carry and use a firearm," and as the purchase request itself indicates, the IRS has previously purchased shotguns, as the type was selected "based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory."

Why does the IRS employ 2,700 Criminal Investigation "Special Agents?" Are there not other federal officers in the Department of Justice, such as the FBI, who already perform the same duties as these 2,700 "CI Special Agents?" I thought the IRS was tasked with raising revenue, not SWAT type midnight raids on drug dealers.

Let's go back to my first question. The question of need. The IRS has 2,700 "CI Officers" who carry firearms. These officers already have shotguns (and presumably all manner of other firearms) "based on... IRS existing shotgun inventory." Does the IRS really need more shotguns? Or any type of firearm? This is exactly the argument the statist makes against a citizen who wish to own a firearm. You don't need that menacing-looking firearm. If your ownership of a firearm is not for hunting, military, or law enforcement purposes, it is illegitimate and should therefore be illegal.

An honest government has nothing to fear from an armed citizen. A citizen has everything to fear from a government who arms the tax collector.