JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/thisll-teach-em.html (19 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1268267874-832  hubert at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:38:06 +0000


There's a cure for disgruntled.


jsid-1268268564-461  Borepatch at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:49:25 +0000

I think that they're being sent to Berkeley ...

jsid-1268268801-469  Britt at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:53:25 +0000

I can only assume that the shotguns are going to security guards who protect DeptEd buildings. Why armed private security is not acceptable for guarding a pack of mangy bureaucrats is left unsaid.

jsid-1268367066-177  Tam at Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:11:13 +0000 in reply to jsid-1268268801-469

The Department of Education, like all fed.gov agencies that pour the slop in the trough, has a branch that handles investigations of fraud and whatnot. This department serves warrants and conducts searches and whatnot in corruption cases involving federal funds. Like all feds, they are prepared to come loaded for bear when they serve a warrant.

Now, all matters of whether there should even be a Dept.Of.Ed. aside (and you know my thinking on that,) conducting fraud investigations is a legitimate function of the department as currently constituted.

What I want to know is why does every federal fiefdom need its own private enforcement arm for warrant service when we already have a perfectly good Marshal's Service and plenty of local and state LE agencies. Let the agencies conduct their investigations, and when the time comes to serve warrants, saddle up some locals to do the heavy lifting.

jsid-1268269480-464  Xenocles at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:04:45 +0000

They only need 27?

jsid-1268274934-948  Mastiff at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:35:35 +0000

Hey, at least they have good taste in shotguns...

jsid-1268275128-196  DJ at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:38:48 +0000

You might find this interesting, too:


The money quote:

"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."

Sound familiar?

This needs further investigating to separate fact from rumor.

Nope. Me tired tonight.

jsid-1268279832-325  Jim at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:57:29 +0000

Now finally, Marxy can come out of the closet, and confess that really, he's been a secret (govt. D.O.E. approved) gun nut, all along?

Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

jsid-1268282507-210  deadcenter at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:41:48 +0000

maybe their going after those bad teachers the NY Teachers Union won't allow to be fired...

jsid-1268289003-247  Guest (anonymous) at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:30:03 +0000

I'm pretty sure that there are no Fed depts unarmed now. Hmm, do they know something we don't?

jsid-1268308346-390  Argentium G. Tiger at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:52:26 +0000

Track it back through instapundit to fbo.gov (FedBizOpps).  Scroll down, and see how they're being delivered via Gary Pawlak, Special Agent... in Chicago, IL.

Guess the baseball bats and brass knuckles weren't working well enough.

jsid-1268316868-131  Stuart_the_Viking at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:14:29 +0000

So, it basicly says that a 14" barrel shotgun is absolutely required by the Department of Education to do whatever the hell the Department of Education needs a gun for.  Apparently, a civilian legal 18" barrel shotgun won't do, it HAS to be a 14".  Didn't the Heller decision say the reason that handguns were specifically protected is because they were the most common, accepted, and effective expression of the right to arms?  If a 14" barrel is so much better than an 18" barrel that the Department of Education would need it, wouldn't the same logic apply? 

Personally, I would love to see the barrel and overall length requrements of rifles and shotguns go away.  Not because I would like to own a short barreled rifle or shotgun (I have no wish for either), but because I believe that those restrictions are not resonable.  Today, I could go out and buy a S&W .460 handgun with an 8" barrel and have the power of a rifle that I could conseal under a jacket.  The idea for the length requirements for rifles was that a shorter rifle would be dangerous because a person could conceal it under a jacket or coat.  That logic no longer applys (and was stupid to begin with) becuase now I can have the power of a rifle in handgun form.  I don't NEED a short barreled rifle, but a right isn't about what I need, it is about not restricting something unless there is a compelling government need to do so.  I don't thing there is.


jsid-1268321034-160  GrumpyOldFart at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:23:54 +0000

Exactly. It is not the citizen's job to justify to the government why he/she should be allowed to do anything. It is the government's job to justify to the citizen why he/she should be prohibited from it.

jsid-1268323515-746  CAshane at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:05:15 +0000


I have concerns that these reduce recoil and adjustable stocks will enable the DOE to use the shotguns to "fire from the hip" and in effect create a "bullethose"...

"When government employees can possess items that are illegal to the citizenry, we have tyranny."  (paraphrased from Dave Champions radio show)

jsid-1268324300-387  Pat at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:18:20 +0000

Isn't that typical that the feds demand a gun in a configuration the peasants are not allowed to own? Randy Weaver once told me that when he was escorted from the jail to the courthouse for his trial on charges of altering a shotgun, the marshall beside him was carrying a riot gun with a barrel below the civilian legal limit. I'm sure that was a calculated move on the fed's part.

jsid-1268327038-453  GrumpyOldFart at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:04:11 +0000

Things must get really rough at recess, huh? =-O

jsid-1268327855-177  DJ at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:17:35 +0000

I did a bit of investigating this morning.

First, I went to the IRS web site:


On that page, I found its site map:


On that page, I found, in the "Contracting Opportunities" section, a link to a page titled "Procurement":


On that page, I found this:

"Procurement Business Opportunities - The Procurement Office acquires the products and services required to support the IRS mission. We advertise commercial opportunities on Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site."

Note the keyword in the last sentence: "FedBizOpps".  This is the purported web site of the item I cited here last night. So, I went to that web site:


On that page, I found a long list of links in a column labeled "Opportunity", each having a "Posted On" date.  The "Posted Date" of the site I showed is "February 2, 2010". So, I paged forward through the list and did NOT find the item in the list. I then copied its "Keyword / Solicitation #" in to the search box so labeled on the FedBizOpps.gov site and the search came up "No items found".

I then used the advanced search page of that site to search, selecting the following:

- Posted Date: Last 90 Days
- Documents to Search: Both
- Opportunity/Procurement Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- Agency/OfficeLocation(s): All Agency/Office/Locations (default)
- Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action: [ignore] (default)
- Classification Code: 10 -- Weapons

This brought up a long list.  I advanced to page 3 and found the item that I cited yesterday.

Now, look at page one of the search results.  The first item in the list is


which is the page cited by Kevin via Instapundit.

Thus, this IRS and Department of Education solicitations for weapons appear to be genuine.

This puts to rest the notion that the IRS does not enforce its collection of taxes at the point of a gun, doesn't it?

jsid-1268336463-481  Phelps at Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:41:03 +0000

It's a typo.  They are for the Department of REeducation.

jsid-1268352627-628  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:10:27 +0000

There's a difference?

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>