The first legislative act by Alaska's new senator, Dan Sullivan, is a bill that would prohibit agents of the EPA from carrying guns.  That's MY kind of gun control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/dan-sullivan-epa-guns_n_6565284.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/dan-sullivan-epa-guns_n_6565284.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592)

 
Nobody wants to get shot for pissing in the bushes on a hiking trip.
 
 

A "man for the peons" sounds more like a typical right-wingnut liar to me.


"FAIRBANKS — While U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan wants to prohibit law enforcement agents of the Environmental Protection Agency from carrying guns — an idea triggered by what he describes as a reckless armed raid on miners in Chicken — an independent $50,000 state investigation commissioned by former Gov. Sean Parnell concluded that the agents were not reckless and did not act inappropriately.
"

http://www.adn.com/article/20150124/sen-sullivan-wants-epa-agents-go-unarmed

Wingnut Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican who ousted Democratic Sen. Mark Begich last fall, "is hoping to get a vote this week on an amendment to the Keystone XL pipeline bill (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SullivanAmdt.pdf) that would ban police officers who work for the Environmental Protection Agency from carrying firearms."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/dan-sullivan-epa-guns_n_6565284.html

EPA special agents are specially trained law enforcement officers who work for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), helping to enforce federal environmental laws. They work in the Criminal Investigations Division and help protect land, water, and air resources. They are authorized to carry firearms, to serve warrants, and to place known environmental violators and fugitives under arrest.

http://www.vault.com/industries-professions/professions/e/epa-special-agents-(criminal-investigation-division).aspx (http://www.vault.com/industries-professions/professions/e/epa-special-agents-(criminal-investigation-division).aspx)

A few years back, U.S. EPA enforcement agents tracked a Utah environmental fugitive to a trailer parked at a marina in the Florida Keys.

Larkin Baggett, one of EPA's "most wanted" criminals at the time, appeared in the trailer doorway sweeping an assault rifle toward the approaching EPA agents and local cops, saying things like, "I won't go," according to court documents. The officers opened fire, wounding Baggett and taking him into custody.

Cases such as the 2009 Baggett skirmish demonstrate why it's important for EPA agents to be armed, argue supporters of the agency's criminal program. They can face off against armed criminals, people using dangerous chemicals and fugitives anxious to avoid jail time.

But a freshman senator wants to take their guns away -- an effort that has EPA employees and law enforcement officials up in arms.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) is pushing a measure that would strip EPA's special agents of their ability to carry firearms. His effort stems from a 2013 incident near Chicken, Alaska, when miners complained that they'd been intimidated with weapons and body armor by enforcement officials from EPA and other agencies who were investigating potential violations of clean water laws (E&ENews PM (http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/stories/1059986795/), Sept. 5, 2013).

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060012542 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060012542)

One peon's hero is another statist's nemesis.

why a nemesis?  other than protecting your air and water from pollution what has the epa done to make anyone consider them a nemesis?

I guess if you were a person intent on destroying the environment you could consider them your nemesis though.

The last thing we need is another bloated government bureaucracy running around with guns in their hands.

so they haven't really done anything to make you consider them your nemesis, it's just that you don't like the idea of them being able to enforce the laws of our country.

Cases such as the 2009 Baggett skirmish demonstrate why it's important for EPA agents to be armed, argue supporters of the agency's criminal program. They can face off against armed criminals, people using dangerous chemicals and fugitives anxious to avoid jail time.

If they involve local cops in their arrest why do they need to be armed?

so you're all for sending sworn officers into dangerous situations without them being able to protect themselves?

so you're all for sending sworn officers into dangerous situations without them being able to protect themselves?

If they stand back and let the police do their job why do they need guns?

The creation of an armed "police force" within various federal departments is a complete waste of taxpayer money. There is no reason local police/sheriff departments can't do the dangerous work for them.

 
chuck,

Statism is the
concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
.

Explain how one is a "statist" by pointing out the lie that is the basis of wingnut Sullivan's absurd demand to disarm Environmental Protection Agency agents in Alaska.

most EPA agents don't carry guns, only a very few of them are sworn officers with the power to arrest.  and when they have a situation where they believe there will be an arrest they do include local law enforcement.

Explain how one is a "statist" by pointing out the lie that is the basis of wingnut Sullivan's absurd demand to disarm Environmental Protection Agency agents in Alaska.

What lie is that, hawks?  And if you're not a statist, then welcome to my world!  The term doesn't apply to you.  He's a hero for working to disarm statists.

chuck_curtis: "The last thing we need is another bloated government bureaucracy running around with guns in their hands."

Local5th: "If they involve local cops in their arrest why do they need to be armed?"

The last thing we need is unarmed and outnumbered  federal agents trying to enforce federal regulations in the Alaskan wilderness. And, of course, your arguments conveniently ignore Alaska's ubiquitous gun violence, especially against law enforcement officers.

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AlaskaGunViolence1.pdf

And, of course, your arguments conveniently ignore Alaska's ubiquitous gun violence, especially against law enforcement officers.

True, but I'm not concerned over that minor issue.

 
So you're admitting you didn't read the article I posted. Huh, chuck? You're trying to refute evidence without actually reading it. Isn't that right, chuck?

http://www.adn.com/article/20150124/sen-sullivan-wants-epa-agents-go-unarmed

And you still haven't explained how pointing out the false premiss of Sullivan's argument to disarm EPA agents in Alaska makes a person a "statist. "

I don't characterize his statement as a lie.  He considered the EPA actions as thuggish and out of line.  I agree with that opinion.  The EPA should be abolished in my opinion, much more than simply disarmed.

why would you want the agency that protects our air and water abolished?  don't you remember the run a way pollution of the 70's that triggered the enactment of the RCRA, SuperFund, and SARA laws?

A federal agency is not necessary to protect my land, air, and water.   If anyone ruins my land, air, and water I take them to court for property and health damages, in a heartbeat.  Fundamental laws protect me against such damage.

 
Law enforcement officers in Alaska were feloniously killed by guns at a higher rate than all but two other states between 2002 and 2011. But only an ignoramus ass clown like you would consider that fact a minor issue. Right, chuck?

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AlaskaGunViolence1.pdf

What you really need to do now is take a seat and shut the fuck up.

But only an ignoramus ass clown like you would consider that fact a minor issue. Right, chuck?

In your opinion, I suppose that's right.  If they don't want to get shot, they should leave us peons alone.

 
Shut the fuck up, Chuckles The Ass Clown. If you agree with wingnut Dan Sullivan's opinion that the EPA's actions at Chicken were thuggish and out of line, then you agree with his lie. But, your argument conveniently ignores the fact that Dipshit Dan's bogus claim was thoroughly debunked--by the miners at chicken, no less!


"FAIRBANKS — While U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan wants to prohibit law enforcement agents of the Environmental Protection Agency from carrying guns — an idea triggered by what he describes as a reckless armed raid on miners in Chicken — an independent $50,000 state investigation commissioned by former Gov. Sean Parnell concluded that the agents were not reckless and did not act inappropriately.
We found no evidence that federal or state employees broke any laws during the criminal compliance investigation,” Anchorage attorney Brent Cole said in a March 2014 report, which Parnell had called for after the governor had blasted the federal mine inspections as unwarranted intimidation.
Cole said the task force members from the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management who inspected mines near Chicken in August 2013 were not confrontational, a conclusion based on documents, statements from more than 50 witnesses and recordings of conversations between the officers and miners."
I'm providing facts; you're talking out your ass. Shut the fuck up, you pathetic, anti-government teapublicanut.

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AlaskaGunViolence1.pdf

The statists commissions conclude one thing, the peons conclude another thing.  It's just a matter of who's conclusion you want to believe.

 
Yeah. Right, chuckles. Not surprisingly, you're parroting typical teapublican, anti-goverment extremist bullcrap, nothing more than the usual Aesops Retreat, right-wingnut,  tommy rot.

Your opinion is acknowledged, hawks.   Godspeed to the Senator for standing up for us anti-government, teabagging peons (or whatever you want to call us).  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

I just call you idiots.

 
And the fact that your fallacious argument remains refuted is duly noted, chuckles. In, addition to that, What makes the rigmarole you posted above particularly hilarious is your continued attempt to apply your erroneous meaning of statism to your absurd claim.And, speaking of absurd claims, where did you get the adsurd notion that right-wingnut, Dipshit Dan Sullivan's absurd idea of disarming EPA agents in Alaska  is somehow "standing up for the people of Alaska?"

Oh, and by the way, don't respond like you have so far with flawed reasoning, unsound logic, and empty rhetoric. If that's what you're thinking of doing, then don't bother replying. I won't waste my time responding to anymore smoke blown from your ass.

 
I call him Chuckles, the Right-Wingnut Ass Clown.

HAHA

 

And, of course, your arguments conveniently ignore Alaska's ubiquitous gun violence, especially against law enforcement officers.

And you conveniently ignore the fact has Alaska has a police force that is used to handling the problems you speak of too.

One thing she can't ignore is that her statists pals have have some competition in Washington, and that's what I'm here to point out.  It's no surprise she doesn't like him, or agree with him.

 
Yes. It has a police force that Alaskans apparently like to shoot dead. Remember, LIAR5th?

You saying Alaska has more officers killed than any other state? Or are you talking out your ass again Hawk?

"Law enforcement officers in Alaska were feloniously killed by guns at a higher rate than all but two other states between 2002 and 2011."

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AlaskaGunViolence1.pdf (http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AlaskaGunViolence1.pdf)

LIAR5th,

Why don't you admit your dumbass can't read?

Why don't you realise that critical readers will notice immediately your disingenuous penchant for changing the facts to suit your argument?

Why don't you stop pretending you're intelligent? The only person you're fooling is yourself; what you're doing, in actuality, is reminding us of your incredible ignorance and stupidity.

Why don't you take a seat and shut the fuck up, you loud-mouthed, know-nothing, windbag?

LOL

"Law enforcement officers in Alaska were feloniously killed by guns at a higher rate than all but two other states between 2002 and 2011."

I think you are full of shit Hawk.

Show me the numbers, by year and by state, from a reliable source Hawk.

P(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIeUbZyqf6cM857K0CdonOBOJi41R1uZVwuIjdbsi4msh-jVWq) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamstime.com%2Froyalty-free-stock-photo-circus-clown-image1577725&ei=bB_RVI7jH4yWgwSJm4SYAQ&bvm=bv.85076809,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNFmQ0WziWu5sUFm1Q10_polRKKGKQ&ust=1423077575219155)

Chuckles The Right-Wingnut ass Clown wrote, "One thing she can't ignore is that her statists pals have have (sic) some competition in Washington, and that's what I'm here to point out.  It's no surprise she doesn't like him, or agree with him."

Chuckles,

The only thing you pointed out is that you're a right-wingnut ass clown, something you've already pointed out numerous times before. And, by the way, have you forgotten? A  statist is an advocate of statism and statism (also called stateism) is concentration of al economic controls and plannings in the hands in the hands of a highly centralized government. Why do you keep babbling about "statists?" Why haven't you done as I asked and explained what statism has to do with armed EPA agents in Alaska?

LIAR5th,

Explain why you believe attacking the arguer (ad hominem fallacy) refutes the arguer's argument. And instead of special pleading (moving the goal post after your claim was shown to be false), why don't you provide year-by-year and state-by-state-evidence that refutes the evidence I provided. And, finally, provide evidence to support your allegation that the evidence I provided didn't come from a reliable source, you lying piece of shit.
 

Law enforcement being killed by guns does not mean epa need to be armed nor does it mean epa are likely to be shot. They are admin and inspectors, not cops.

And law enforcement in this country is out of control, too heavily armed, trained to be too aggressive, and too often murdering and terrorizing innocents. That is the result of decades of militarizing them and asking "what's best for the police" rather than "what's best for society." No knock is a perfect example of that.

why don't you provide year-by-year and state-by-state-evidence that refutes the evidence I provided.

Here you go hawk. Year by year and state by state evidence that refutes your evidence.

[SIZE=3;]Alaska[/SIZE]
Avg. Annual Death Rate: 5.0 per 50,000 officers
5-Year Total Deaths: 2

Annual Rates
2012 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2011 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2010 Deaths: 2 (25.1 per 50,000 officers)
2009 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2008 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
Figures include both law enforcement and corrections officers.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/law-enforcement-fatality-rates-by-state.html

LIAR5th,

The evidence I provided says that "Law enforcement officers in Alaska were feloniously killed by guns at a higher rate than all but two other states between 2002 and 2011."












 There's absolutely NOTHING in the crap you posted below that refutes that claim. Is it, shithead?

Avg. Annual Death Rate: 5.0 per 50,000 officers
5-Year Total Deaths: 2

Annual Rates
2012 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2011 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2010 Deaths: 2 (25.1 per 50,000 officers)
2009 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2008 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
Figures include both law enforcement and corrections officers.



















 

LIAR5th,

The evidence I provided says that "Law enforcement officers in Alaska were feloniously killed by guns at a higher rate than all but two other states between 2002 and 2011."












 There's absolutely NOTHING in the crap you posted below that refutes that claim. Is it, shithead?

Avg. Annual Death Rate: 5.0 per 50,000 officers
5-Year Total Deaths: 2

Annual Rates
2012 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2011 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2010 Deaths: 2 (25.1 per 50,000 officers)
2009 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
2008 Deaths: 0 (0.0 per 50,000 officers)
Figures include both law enforcement and corrections officers.



















 

LIAR5th,

The evidence I provided says that "Law enforcement officers in Alaska were feloniously killed by guns at a higher rate than all but two other states between 2002 and 2011."


True. And my numbers show that between 2008 and 2011 Alaska only had 2 cop killings, both in the same year..

To be correct, using your numbers for 2008 -2011, there would of had to be zero to negative cop killing in other states for Alaska to have more cops killed at a higher rate than all but 2 states.

Explain that.

Statism is not limited to collective economic policy and control.  Statism broadly includes collective social policy and control, in addition.   

Really? What definition are you citing, Chuckles? Truth be told, that sounds like something you just pulled out of your ass. And I suspect that's exactly what it is. Isn't that right, Chuckles the Ass Clown?

HAHAHA

You're opinions are always entertaining, hawks.  But, that's all that they are.