https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
-hh
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
-hhWhat is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
-hhWhat is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
-hh
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
-hhWhat is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
"Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS agents fired their guns
accidentally more times than they did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property damage or personal injury."
Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
-hhWhat is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:You’re the OP who posted the link.
"Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS agents fired their gunsYeah, so?
accidentally more times than they did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property damage or personal injury."
Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you claiming that
it isn’t at all reasonable?
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of M1911A3 bolt action rifles left over from WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
-hh
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
"Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS agents fired their guns
accidentally more times than they did intentionally. Some of the misfires
caused property damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than intentional???? Message to the
mentally retarded: it means they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you claiming that
it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of [correction: M1903A3] bolt action
rifles left over from WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
Silence from Tommy.You’re the OP who posted the link.
"Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS agents fired their guns
accidentally more times than they did intentionally. Some of the misfires
caused property damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than intentional???? Message to theNo, it does not mean that Tommy.
mentally retarded: it means they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army historically has more accidental deaths
than combat deaths, including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there have been criminal tax evaders such as John Dillinger who
outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco Compound had .50 Caliber
guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of [correction: M1903A3] bolt action
rifles left over from WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED" them, but why are you not applying
that argument equally to the US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've already obsoleted its replacement,
and its replacement's replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14 --> M16 --> M4).
The answer is that it isn't actually wasteful once you understand the regulatory environment.
-hh
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
Silence from Tommy.You’re the OP who posted the link.
"Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS agents fired their guns
accidentally more times than they did intentionally. Some of the misfires
caused property damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than intentional???? Message to theNo, it does not mean that Tommy.
mentally retarded: it means they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army historically has more accidental deaths
than combat deaths, including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you claiming that
it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone] who
outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco Compound had .50 Caliber
guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of [correction: M1903A3] bolt action
rifles left over from WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED" them, but why are you not applying
that argument equally to the US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've already obsoleted its replacement,
and its replacement's replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14 --> M16 --> M4).
The answer is that it isn't actually wasteful once you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms.
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
And insofar as the provocative headline, the article states that it is only "a few".
Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition..." really isn't all that
much for a Fed agency, particularly when most of those are probably sidearms for
their criminal agents. Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the packout for
9mm is roughly a half million per pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read the article".
It was explained in the article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
Silence from Tommy.You’re the OP who posted the link.
"Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS agents fired their guns
accidentally more times than they did intentionally. Some of the misfires
caused property damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than intentional???? Message to theNo, it does not mean that Tommy.
mentally retarded: it means they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army historically has more accidental deaths
than combat deaths, including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you claiming that
it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it makes sense to retain
whatever they've had on their books even if it isn't being actively used."
Because historically, there have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone] who
outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco Compound had .50 Caliber
guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of [correction: M1903A3] bolt action
rifles left over from WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED" them, but why are you not applying
that argument equally to the US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've already obsoleted its replacement,
and its replacement's replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14 --> M16 --> M4).
The answer is that it isn't actually wasteful once you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms.Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you read your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running during prohibition, drug smuggling
today, and even terrorist operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of those with
only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of automatic weapons that were being
used to accompany smuggled drugs got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150.
This glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany the shipment, and then
after the drugs were sold, the guns were sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was
an unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the next drug shipment) and
recover some of the expenses; this 'churn' was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4,
TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you readSilence from Tommy.
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how
painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their
books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of
ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed
agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the
packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per
pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial*
truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying
"I didn't read the article". It was explained in the
article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS
agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they
did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property
damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means
they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths,
including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you
claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even
if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there
have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone]
who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco
Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF
who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from
WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED"
them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the
US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've
already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14
M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wastefulonce you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an
audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms.
your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running
during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of
those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of
automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs
got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This
glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany
the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were
sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an
unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the
next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn'
was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during
enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposal
(who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
On 2022-08-09 12:29, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4,
TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
the article".
Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you readSilence from Tommy.
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how
painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their
books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of
ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed
agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the
packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per
pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial*
truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying
"I didn't read the article". It was explained in the
article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS
agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they
did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property
damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means
they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths,
including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you
claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even
if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there
have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone]
who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco
Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF
who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from
WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED"
them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the
US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've
already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14
M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wastefulonce you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an
audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms.
your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running
during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of
those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of
automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs
got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This
glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany
the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were
sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an
unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the
next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn'
was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposalDo your own research, Sunshine.
(who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your claims, right?
:-)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:09:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 12:29, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4,
TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
the article".
Do your own research, Sunshine.Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you readSilence from Tommy.
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how
painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their
books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of
ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed
agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the
packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per
pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial*
truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying
"I didn't read the article". It was explained in the
article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS
agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they
did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property
damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means
they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths,
including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you
claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even
if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there
have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone]
who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco
Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF
who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from
WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED"
them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the
US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've
already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14
M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wastefulonce you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an
audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms.
your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running
during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of
those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of
automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs
got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This
glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany
the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were
sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an
unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the
next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn'
was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during
enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposal
(who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your claims, right?
:-)
Rules for Thee but not for Me, right?
On 2022-08-09 14:49, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:09:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 12:29, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4,
TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
the article".
Do your own research, Sunshine.Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you readSilence from Tommy.
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how
painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their >>>>>>>>>>>> books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of >>>>>>>>>>>> ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed >>>>>>>>>>>> agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the
packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per
pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial*
truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER???
How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying
"I didn't read the article". It was explained in the
article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS
agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they >>>>>>>>> did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property
damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means
they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths,
including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you
claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even
if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there
have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone]
who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco
Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF
who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from
WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED"
them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the >>>>>> US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've >>>>>> already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14
M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wastefulonce you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an
audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms.
your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running
during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of
those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of
automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs
got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This >>>> glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany
the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were
sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an
unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the
next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn'
was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during
enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposal
(who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your claims, right?
:-)
Rules for Thee but not for Me, right?That would be the problem you have, yes.
But HH didn't actually make any claims about when or where the IRS used machine guns, Sunshine.
That's your strawman.
Most metropolitan police forces in the United States have machine guns too.
How often do they get used?
:-)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:19:51 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 14:49, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:09:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 12:29, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read >> the article".
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4,
TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
Do your own research, Sunshine.Silence from Tommy.How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying >>>>>>>>>> "I didn't read the article". It was explained in the
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how >>>>>>>>>>>> painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it >>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their >>>>>>>>>>>> books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of >>>>>>>>>>>> ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed >>>>>>>>>>>> agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the >>>>>>>>>>>> packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per
pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial*
truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER??? >>>>>>>>>>
article, Tommy.
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS >>>>>>>>> agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they >>>>>>>>> did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property >>>>>>>>> damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means
they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths,
including sometimes while during an active shooting war.
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you >>>>>>>> claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it
makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even >>>>>> if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there >>>>>> have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone] >>>>>> who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco >>>>>> Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF >>>>>> who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from
WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED"
them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the >>>>>> US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles?
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've >>>>>> already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14
M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wasteful >>>>>> once you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an
audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms. >>>> Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you read >>>> your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running >>>> during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of
those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of
automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs >>>> got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This >>>> glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany >>>> the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were
sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an
unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the
next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn' >>>> was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during
enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposal >>> (who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your claims, right? >>
:-)
Rules for Thee but not for Me, right?That would be the problem you have, yes.
But HH didn't actually make any claims about when or where the IRS used machine guns, Sunshine.
That's your strawman.
Most metropolitan police forces in the United States have machine guns too.
How often do they get used?
:-)Bottom line is you libtards CAN'T JUSTIFY why the IRS needs machine guns.
You can't even come up with ONE CASE where weapons, even side arms, were necessary. Sounds like they just wanted toys to play with.
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:38:49 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:19:51 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 14:49, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:09:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 12:29, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read >> the article".
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, >>>>>>>>>>>> TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
Do your own research, Sunshine.Silence from Tommy.How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying >>>>>>>>>> "I didn't read the article". It was explained in the >>>>>>>>>> article, Tommy.
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how >>>>>>>>>>>> painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it >>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their >>>>>>>>>>>> books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of >>>>>>>>>>>> ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed >>>>>>>>>>>> agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the >>>>>>>>>>>> packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per
pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial*
truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER??? >>>>>>>>>>
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS >>>>>>>>> agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they >>>>>>>>> did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property >>>>>>>>> damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means >>>>>>> they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths, >>>>>> including sometimes while during an active shooting war. >>>>>>>>> Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you >>>>>>>> claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it >>>>>> makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even >>>>>> if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there >>>>>> have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone] >>>>>> who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco >>>>>> Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF >>>>>> who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from >>>>>>>> WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED"
them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the >>>>>> US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles? >>>>>>
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've >>>>>> already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14 >>>>>> --> M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wasteful >>>>>> once you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an >>>>> audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms. >>>> Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you read >>>> your own cited article?
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running >>>> during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of
those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of >>>> automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs >>>> got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This >>>> glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany >>>> the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were >>>> sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an
unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the >>>> next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn' >>>> was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during
enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposal >>> (who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your claims, right? >>
:-)
Rules for Thee but not for Me, right?That would be the problem you have, yes.
But HH didn't actually make any claims about when or where the IRS used machine guns, Sunshine.
That's your strawman.
Most metropolitan police forces in the United States have machine guns too.
How often do they get used?
Repeating your lie doesn’t make it true.:-)Bottom line is you libtards CAN'T JUSTIFY why the IRS needs machine guns.
You can't even come up with ONE CASE where weapons, even side arms, were necessary. Sounds like they just wanted toys to play with.Don’t need to, because they are chartered to have a criminal enforcement group.
Same kind of statement can be made of the US military: they have weapons that
they’ve never used in training or combat, yet if I were to suggest that they
therefore should get rid of them, you’d scream in protest.
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:38:49 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:19:51 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 14:49, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:09:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 12:29, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:13:37 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying "I didn't read
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 10:58:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 4:01:40 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:52:05 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:18:15 PM UTC-7, -hh
wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:37:05 PM UTC-4, TomS >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 4:50:14 AM UTC-7, -hh >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:55:19 PM UTC-4, >>>>>>>>>>>> TomS wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/01/14/irs-has-4500-guns-5-million-rounds-ammunition-paying-taxes/?sh=373546941f9e
the article".
Do your own research, Sunshine.your own cited article?Silence from Tommy.How to say: "I didn't read the article" without saying >>>>>>>>>> "I didn't read the article". It was explained in the >>>>>>>>>> article, Tommy.
And insofar as the provocative headline, the
article states that it is only "a few". Given how >>>>>>>>>>>> painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it >>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their >>>>>>>>>>>> books even if it isn't being actively used.
FWIW, having "...4,487 guns and 5,062,006 rounds of >>>>>>>>>>>> ammunition..." really isn't all that much for a Fed >>>>>>>>>>>> agency, particularly when most of those are
probably sidearms for their criminal agents.
Likewise, even 5M rounds isn't all that much: the >>>>>>>>>>>> packout for 9mm is roughly a half million per >>>>>>>>>>>> pallet, so its just 10 pallets = one *partial* >>>>>>>>>>>> truck delivery.
What is the IRS doing with ANY WEAPONS WHATSOEVER??? >>>>>>>>>>
You should READ your own article:
You’re the OP who posted the link.
No, it does not mean that Tommy."Interestingly, the old TIGTA report also says that IRS >>>>>>>>> agents fired their guns accidentally more times than they >>>>>>>>> did intentionally. Some of the misfires caused property >>>>>>>>> damage or personal injury."
Yeah, so?
SO??? A group that has MORE accidental fires than
intentional???? Message to the mentally retarded: it means >>>>>>> they SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED FIREARMS!!!!!!
And it is also not particularly unique: the US Army
historically has more accidental deaths than combat deaths, >>>>>> including sometimes while during an active shooting war. >>>>>>>>> Now, WHY does the IRS need MACHINE GUNS??????
Yes, I did, which is still quoted above. I said:
I’ve already provided one likely justification; are you >>>>>>>> claiming that it isn’t at all reasonable?
No, you didn't.
"Given how painful the paperwork is to acquire a new one, it >>>>>> makes sense to retain whatever they've had on their books even >>>>>> if it isn't being actively used." Because historically, there >>>>>> have been criminal tax evaders such as [correction: Al Capone] >>>>>> who outgunned the Govt agents. In more modern times, the Waco >>>>>> Compound had .50 Caliber guns, which vastly outgunned the BATF >>>>>> who only had 9mm.
FYI, the US Army still has hundreds of thousands of
[correction: M1903A3] bolt action rifles left over from >>>>>>>> WW-I in their inventory … and you have no clue why.
SO WHAT?! The IRS doesn't have them.
Your argument is that the Agency supposedly doesn't "NEED" >>>>>> them, but why are you not applying that argument equally to the >>>>>> US Army for them holding onto tons of 100+ year old rifles? >>>>>>
Particularly considering that as a "needed" combat arm, they've >>>>>> already obsoleted its replacement, and its replacement's
replacement, and so on ... four times ( M1903 --> M1 --> M14 >>>>>> --> M16 --> M4). The answer is that it isn't actually wasteful >>>>>> once you understand the regulatory environment.
LOL! When has the IRS EVER needed a MACHINE GUN to conduct an >>>>> audit or any other official action? Same question for side arms. >>>> Because hey have a criminal enforcement division...didn't you read
Illegal source financial crimes include things like booze running >>>> during prohibition, drug smuggling today, and even terrorist
operations ... would you really want to go on a bust of any of >>>> those with only a pad & paper for your ballistic protection?
FWIW, during one point in the early 1980s, the proliferation of >>>> automatic weapons that were being used to accompany smuggled drugs
got to be so bad that their street price dropped to just $150. This
glut was caused by the guns being purchased offshore to accompany >>>> the shipment, and then after the drugs were sold, the guns were >>>> sold on the Black Market to get rid of them (because it was an >>>> unnecessary risk to smuggle them back out of the country for the >>>> next drug shipment) and recover some of the expenses; this 'churn'
was considered merely a cost of doing (illegal) business.
-hh
Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine guns during >>> enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals at their disposal
(who are far better trained and equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your claims, right?
:-)
Rules for Thee but not for Me, right?That would be the problem you have, yes.
But HH didn't actually make any claims about when or where the IRS used
machine guns, Sunshine.
That's your strawman.
Most metropolitan police forces in the United States have machine guns too.
How often do they get used?
:-)Bottom line is you libtards CAN'T JUSTIFY why the IRS needs machine guns.
Repeating your lie doesn’t make it true.
You can't even come up with ONE CASE where weapons, even side arms, were necessary. Sounds like they just wanted toys to play with.
Don’t need to, because they are chartered to have a criminal enforcement group.
Same kind of statement can be made of the US military: they have weapons that
they’ve never used in training or combat, yet if I were to suggest that they
therefore should get rid of them, you’d scream in protest.
LOL! Translation: you CAN'T find a single case!!
Well, per this notice by the IRS they are taking ordinary accountants and turning
them into special ARMED AGENTS! What could possibly go wrong??? https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/job-descriptions/irs-criminal-investigation-special-agent
And following the raid on Mar-A-Lago we know all to well that Lyin' Biden is more
than willing to intimidate ordinary citizens with inappropriate storm trooper tactics.
Repeating your lie doesn’t make it true.Bottom line is you libtards CAN'T JUSTIFY why the IRS needsThat would be the problem you have, yes.Cite a recent example of where the IRS used machine gunsDo your own research, Sunshine.
during enforcement. Remember, they have federal marshals
at their disposal (who are far better trained and
equipped) for such events.
It's what you tell anyone who asks you to back up your
claims, right?
:-)
Rules for Thee but not for Me, right?
But HH didn't actually make any claims about when or where the
IRS used machine guns, Sunshine.
That's your strawman.
Most metropolitan police forces in the United States have
machine guns too.
How often do they get used?
:-)
machine guns.
You can't even come up with ONE CASE where weapons, even sideDon’t need to, because they are chartered to have a criminal
arms, were necessary. Sounds like they just wanted toys to play
with.
enforcement group. Same kind of statement can be made of the US
military: they have weapons that they’ve never used in training or
combat, yet if I were to suggest that they therefore should get rid
of them, you’d scream in protest.
LOL! Translation: you CAN'T find a single case!! Well, per this
notice by the IRS they are taking ordinary accountants and turning
them into special ARMED AGENTS! What could possibly go wrong??? And
following the raid on Mar-A-Lago we know all to well that Lyin' Biden
is more than willing to intimidate ordinary citizens with
inappropriate storm trooper tactics. https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/job-descriptions/irs-criminal-investigation-special-agent
You can't even come up with ONE CASE where weapons, even sideDon’t need to, because they are chartered to have a criminal
arms, were necessary. Sounds like they just wanted toys to play
with.
enforcement group. Same kind of statement can be made of the US
military: they have weapons that they’ve never used in training or
combat, yet if I were to suggest that they therefore should get rid
of them, you’d scream in protest.
LOL! Translation: you CAN'T find a single case!! Well, per this
notice by the IRS they are taking ordinary accountants and turning
them into special ARMED AGENTS! What could possibly go wrong??? And
following the raid on Mar-A-Lago we know all to well that Lyin' Biden
is more than willing to intimidate ordinary citizens with
inappropriate storm trooper tactics. https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/job-descriptions/irs-criminal-investigation-special-agent
...
Doesn't every person who becomes an armed agent start off without training?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:24:21 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,622 |