irs getting shotguns

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 3, 2008
    3,639
    63
    central indiana
    its for their armed agents..

    "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts."
     

    bigg cheese

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 17, 2009
    1,111
    36
    Crawfordsville
    There have been some highly publicized events where people won't leave their home and won't pay back taxes, all the while being armed to the teeth. Can't remember where the last one was, but the house was a fortress!
     

    45calibre

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Jul 28, 2008
    3,204
    38
    NWI
    Yes I remember what your talking about. The city had SWAT enter the house and the house was on a hill. The guy had the advantage and began shooting at SWAT with a 300 winchester magnum. I believe he also put steel plating behind the walls in his house.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 19, 2009
    2,191
    36
    Central Indiana
    Like it or not, we live in a nation of laws. Those laws need to be enforced, and often times that means an armed conflict. I would much rather those individuals be properly armed to do their job than to have them be mowed down by some crazy who thinks he can get away with not paying his taxes.
     

    shibumiseeker

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    52   0   0
    Nov 11, 2009
    10,767
    113
    near Bedford on a whole lot of land.
    Like it or not, we live in a nation of laws. Those laws need to be enforced, and often times that means an armed conflict. I would much rather those individuals be properly armed to do their job than to have them be mowed down by some crazy who thinks he can get away with not paying his taxes.

    To a degree I agree with you. But I also feel that the only time that lethal force is justified by a governmental agency is in direct defense of agent's lives, not to enforce laws. Waiting someone out may take time and resources but it's better than killing them because they didn't pay their taxes.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 19, 2009
    2,191
    36
    Central Indiana
    To a degree I agree with you. But I also feel that the only time that lethal force is justified by a governmental agency is in direct defense of agent's lives, not to enforce laws. Waiting someone out may take time and resources but it's better than killing them because they didn't pay their taxes.


    I agree 100%. I didn't intend to imply that they're just going out there willy-nilly and executing scofflaws. I only meant that sometimes, doors have to be knocked in, and you never know what is hiding behind them.

    As to the legality of the Federal Income tax, I'm not a constitutional scholar and couldn't keep up in that argument if I tried.
     

    JetGirl

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 7, 2008
    18,774
    83
    N/E Corner
    This one is actually better...it's the one I was looking for first.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r37Fm7paVjs]YouTube - You don't have to pay Federal Income Tax?[/ame]
     

    qwerty99

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 29, 2009
    51
    6
    North Central Indian
    The question here isn't whether force is sometimes needed to enforce laws... the main question (at least in my mind) is why are IRS agents using force? If a law is broken, there are means in place to involve armed/trained LEO's, and I don't think the IRS needs to maintain its own standing army. Unless maybe the auditors are just buying guns for hunting and doing it under this guise so it's tax dedductable (wouldn't that be ironic?).
     

    tedbower

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 21, 2009
    357
    16
    mooresville
    After watching that video i have a question . If you dont file how do you get your money back because your employer takes it from you , I dont think you can claim exempt like you could many years ago on your w-4. Can anyone explain this ?
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    And right there is the heart of the Federal Income Tax debate.
    *IF* a law is broken...
    Well, you can't break a law that doesn't exist...now can you?

    On the opting out of SS thread there's a pretty good explanation of this. I hate taxes as much as anyone, but I'd have to put myself in the camp of those who say they are legal and Constitutional.

    I think there's a much better argument that much of the spending is unconstitutional.
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    I think this could be solved by taking the criminal penalties out of the tax code.

    To me, a contract I enter voluntarily has much more moral weight than any taxes I owe. Technically, I can't OWE taxes, since I didn't enter that contract voluntarily. I can't owe taxes, it's just that the law requires me to pay them.

    Decriminalize the tax code and let the government go after their money in the same way private business must do it - through the civil courts.

    Then they won't need the shotguns.
     

    IndyMonkey

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 15, 2010
    6,835
    36
    To a degree I agree with you. But I also feel that the only time that lethal force is justified by a governmental agency is in direct defense of agent's lives, not to enforce laws. Waiting someone out may take time and resources but it's better than killing them because they didn't pay their taxes.

    Great post.:ingo:
     
    Top Bottom