The Civil War of 2016

[longeyes]

Not to bring some common sense into this thing or anything, but why shouldn't fisheries guys be armed? As I understand it they operate out in wild areas, and I personally would rather not get turned into an all-you-can-eat buffet for a bear or mountain lion, or hell, even an overly aggressive shark that you accidentally landed when trying to take a sample of a particular fish. Then for the guys operating on high seas in and about the coasts there's of course the ever-present issue of small-scale piracy which despite popular belief is still an issue in areas like the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

Those are places I wouldn't go unarmed and I wont demand someone else do so just because of their employment.

You're not going to fight brown bears or pirates with .357 SIG.

[kgbsquirrel]

You're not going to fight brown bears or pirates with 357 SIG

No and yes. But that really is more a capability and logistical question than the philosophical one of should they be armed to start with.

[longeyes]

I don't think so.  It's not just logistical if the real reason for ordering ammunition is based on a lie.  You bring the tools you need.  In "wild areas" you don't want a handgun and/or ammunition designed for close-quarters shootouts.  I think we all understand that here.

[kgbsquirrel]

I don't think so.  It's not just logistical if the real reason for ordering ammunition is based on a lie.  You bring the tools you need.  In "wild areas" you don't want a handgun and/or ammunition designed for close-quarters shootouts.  I think we all understand that here.

I say logistical in that it wouldn't be my first choice. A 12 gauge would be better for wooded areas, and perhaps an M14 for waterborne environments in-case extra reach is needed, and that's an issue that should be addressed by their supply branch who makes the purchases. The philosophical question of "should they be armed at all?" seems a non-issue to myself as I believe everyone should be able to defend themselves to the best ability possible regardless of occupation or location. I understand that this may clash with the notion of "if the feds are all armed it'll make it easier to subdue the citizenry" but again, refer to my previous sentence, that includes Joe Citizen who should be able to buy the exact same equipment as the local National Guard if he feels like it.

Odd thought: For public sector jobs that require lone or paired activities in wilderness/remote areas, would you find it acceptable that the employees receive a single payment to purchase a defensive firearm (say, a remington 870 or other suitable item) and then a monthly or annual stipend for ammunition?


And while I'm going off on tangents that include armed citizens, I wonder about all those reservists, national guard soldiers or even Active Duty folks who hold the keys to the armories and depots scattered across the nation (god bless the Cold War decentralization strategy). How many of them would refuse orders to subdue a citizen uprising by force, and in turn open said armory doors and start handing out the .mil's gear to various citizen resistance movements?

[Tallpine]

Not to bring some common sense into this thing or anything, but why shouldn't fisheries guys be armed? As I understand it they operate out in wild areas, and I personally would rather not get turned into an all-you-can-eat buffet for a bear or mountain lion, or hell, even an overly aggressive shark that you accidentally landed when trying to take a sample of a particular fish. Then for the guys operating on high seas in and about the coasts there's of course the ever-present issue of small-scale piracy which despite popular belief is still an issue in areas like the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

Those are places I wouldn't go unarmed and I wont demand someone else do so just because of their employment.

I'll agree with you just as soon as we have 50 state constitutional carry 

[MrsSmith]

Not to bring some common sense into this thing or anything, but why shouldn't fisheries guys be armed? As I understand it they operate out in wild areas, and I personally would rather not get turned into an all-you-can-eat buffet for a bear or mountain lion, or hell, even an overly aggressive shark that you accidentally landed when trying to take a sample of a particular fish. Then for the guys operating on high seas in and about the coasts there's of course the ever-present issue of small-scale piracy which despite popular belief is still an issue in areas like the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

Those are places I wouldn't go unarmed and I wont demand someone else do so just because of their employment.

Few things here. First, Fisheries handle open water, not state waters like lakes and such, if I'm not mistaken, so they're not dealing with locations in which facing down a bear is really a concern. And you don't accidentally land a shark on your boat. Not one big enough to require a gun and even if you did, you don't shoot at your deck.
Second, I don't have a problem in the world with anyone carrying a weapon for self-defense, no matter what position they work in, from kindergarten teacher to clerk in the secretarial pool at the FBI. But most federal employees are prohibited from carrying firearms at their place of employment (including many soldiers on base). Which is ludicrous.
Third, government employees tasked with monitoring non-violent and/or misdemeanor offenses (like fishing for reds during a closure or feeding dolphins, which is what Fisheries does) or that don't have the powers of arrest, have NO BUSINESS bringing a weapon to bear on civilians. Period. Mailmen deal with more obnoxious folks and face far more danger by going into bad neighborhoods than any fisheries agent has ever faced in the 30+ year history of their existence. You want your mailman enforcing postal codes with a gun?

[kgbsquirrel]

Second, I don't have a problem in the world with anyone carrying a weapon for self-defense, no matter what position they work in, from kindergarten teacher to clerk in the secretarial pool at the FBI. But most federal employees are prohibited from carrying firearms at their place of employment (including many soldiers on base). Which is ludicrous.

Sweet jumping Jesus on a pogostick, yes it is, which is why it's wrong.

Third, government employees tasked with monitoring non-violent and/or misdemeanor offenses (like fishing for reds during a closure or feeding dolphins, which is what Fisheries does) or that don't have the powers of arrest, have NO BUSINESS bringing a weapon to bear on civilians. Period. Mailmen deal with more obnoxious folks and face far more danger by going into bad neighborhoods than any fisheries agent has ever faced in the 30+ year history of their existence. You want your mailman enforcing postal codes with a gun?

Nope. But neither should I be denying him the right to self-defense when he's on the job simply because he might use the weapon in the abuse of his authority. Would you like to have the government deny you your 2a right just because you might commit a crime in the future?

I'll agree with you just as soon as we have 50 state constitutional carry 

I had an odd thought just now regarding the Full Faith and Credit clause. What if certain freedom loving states began refusing to honor the issued documents from other states, say California drivers license, until that state reciprocates by honoring their CCW permits? How many out-of-state drivers being cited for driving without an operators permit would it take to pressure their state legislature to cave?

[dm1333]

You guys are mistaking what NOAA OLE officers are doing.  They aren't walking around in the woods like a state Fish and Game Officer.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/investigations.html

(maybe Coast Guard, if you consider that a civilian agency)

You could, but it would be wrong.  The Coast Guard is defined as a branch of the military and has its' law enforcement missions assigned by US Code.

You're not going to fight brown bears or pirates with 357 SIG

Well....... you could!  

[SADShooter]

I had an odd thought just now regarding the Full Faith and Credit clause. What if certain freedom loving states began refusing to honor the issued documents from other states, say California drivers license, until that state reciprocates by honoring their CCW permits? How many out-of-state drivers being cited for driving without an operators permit would it take to pressure their state legislature to cave?

Fedgov would kill that with the typical threat of withholding highway dollars.

[Ben]

You guys are mistaking what NOAA OLE officers are doing.  They aren't walking around in the woods like a state Fish and Game Officer.

State F&G are actually also cross-deputized to do a lot of Federal fisheries enforcement, especially in CA and FL, and USCG patrols will often have both OLE and state F&G on the boarding crews, who among other things are boarding the floating meth labs that are popping up more and more in the commercial fishing fleets.

[Jamisjockey]

Fedgov would kill that with the typical threat of withholding highway dollars.

This. It's how the states were bullied into changing drinking age and BAC.

[Jamisjockey]

You guys are mistaking what NOAA OLE officers are doing.  They aren't walking around in the woods like a state Fish and Game Officer.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/investigations.html

You could, but it would be wrong.  The Coast Guard is defined as a branch of the military and has its' law enforcement missions assigned by US Code.


Well....... you could!   

Oh I know damn well what those guys are doing.....enforcing mis-managed federal fisheries policies on recreational fishermen.

[dm1333]

enforcing mis-managed federal fisheries policies on recreational fishermen.

Did you get ticketed lately???

[Jamisjockey]

Did you get ticketed lately???

Nyet.  Released some huge endangered red snapper on my last trip into federal waters.  They're so big they are eating 14" live baits.

[MrsSmith]

Sweet jumping Jesus on a pogostick, yes it is, which is why it's wrong.

Why yes, it is wrong. But it still isn't justification for everyone in the employment of Uncle Sam to be carrying a firearm in the course of their duties to uphold misdemeanor offenses or to DETERMINE that a crime has been committed which requires lethal force. Do you really want some kid who took a six month class in biology to tell you that you can't hunt redfish until June then put a bullet in your head? Seriously? I can't even begin to fathom how you can see this as acceptable.

[zxcvbob]

The Civil War of 2016

...will start in Arizona.  Feds will try to interfere with a border sheriff over some illegal immigration enforcement matter and the governor will say "Challenge Accepted".  The federal police agencies will converge in AZ and be met  by the state police. (really puts the National Guard in a tough spot)  And it will spiral out of control from there.

Arizona will get blamed for it, but they're probably OK with that.  What the feds don't realize is AZ has sympathizers all over the country and can project force to DC even w/o using the National Guard.

[kgbsquirrel]

Why yes, it is wrong. But it still isn't justification for everyone in the employment of Uncle Sam to be carrying a firearm in the course of their duties to uphold misdemeanor offenses or to DETERMINE that a crime has been committed which requires lethal force. Do you really want some kid who took a six month class in biology to tell you that you can't hunt redfish until June then put a bullet in your head? Seriously? I can't even begin to fathom how you can see this as acceptable.

But it still isn't justification for everyone in the employment of Uncle Sam who is a citizen of the United States to be carrying a firearm in the course of their duties daily lives to uphold misdemeanor offenses or to DETERMINE that a crime has been committed which requires lethal force. Do you really want some kid who took a six month class in biology a three day concealed carry course to tell you that you can't hunt redfish until June can't take his parking spot then put a bullet in your head? Seriously?

I can't even begin to fathom how you can see this as acceptable. - Are you truly unable to discern the difference between a government employee who carries a weapon to enforce his will on you versus the government employee who carries a weapon simply to protect themselves, same as any citizen would? I played around with your post a bit to (hopefully) show how specious and nigh hypocritical your argument is. Either you are a U.S. citizen with all the rights of citizenship, or you are not. As wrong as it is to deny rights to private citizens, so too is it to deny them to the public servants of those private citizens who are also themselves citizens. Just because Fishery Officer Joe carries a pistol does not mean it is for the sole purpose of enforcing his fishery authoritay, just as the reason you, MrsSmith, may carry a pistol is not for the sole purpose of murdering everyone who annoys you. This is very close to the anti-gunner's argument of blame the instrument, rather than the person. Only one of those things is capable of premeditative motive and intent, and here's a hint: It isn't the inanimate object.

[longeyes]

Who thinks it will take until 2016?

[SADShooter]

Who thinks it will take until 2016?

I do. Barring an immediate catastrophic catalyst, inertia will require a little more time before we see the level of societal breakdown under discussion here.

[RoadKingLarry]

Who thinks it will take until 2016?

I can see a few "spats" involving federal LE happening, justified or otherwise, but anything that does happen will be characterized by the press as right wing extremists run amok, TEA party terrorists, and such. Of course it would be ample justification for additional restrictions on liberty in the name of public safety.

[longeyes]

I do. Barring an immediate catastrophic catalyst, inertia will require a little more time before we see the level of societal breakdown under discussion here.

Glad to see there are people more optimistic than I am.

I believe you will change your mind come November 7, whoever wins.  Who believes that either America is any longer governable in a strict sense?  It will soon be obvious that our nation's problems are not problems that can be solved at this juncture by traditional political means.  The Republicans live in a political world; the Left never has.  They know they are in a war, fueled by ideas and made material by force of arms.

[Blakenzy]

Remember just do not talk too much about it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/249545/former-marine-arrested-by-fbi-for-threatening-facebook-posts

I couldn't find out what EXACTLY he was charged with.

ETA: Video footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-57PzLmHp8

[SADShooter]

I'm not optimistic. We both see the same outcome. We differ only in that I believe the match has a few more seconds of burn time.

[slingshot]

If "the civil war of 2016" begins to fall into place, you can bet that you will be loosing civil liberties.  That's reality and you have to be prepared for this eventuality.

Yes, the press will paint the participants as anarchists, terrorists, Tea Party members, and the far Right fringe as usual.

[Triphammer]

I can't even begin to fathom how you can see this as acceptable. - Are you truly unable to discern the difference between a government employee who carries a weapon to enforce his will on you versus the government employee who carries a weapon simply to protect themselves, same as any citizen would?

 I don't believe the issue is a GOV employee carrying for self protection. If that's the case, let the individual purchase out of pocket. Same as I have to . Department issue condones use to enforce rules. Private purchase puts them on the same footing as I.