They Killed 'Giggles' and Raided Chicken. What's NEXT?

NOTE: The following is OPINION. It is the Point of View of the author, and he alone takes full responsibility for the content therein

Monday’s senseless shooting rampage in DC by a paranoiac Navy veteran has brought up many new questions regarding how government agencies, and their civilian contractors, go about checking backgrounds.

It’s also bringing up the issue of ‘Gun Control’ once more.

(Of course it is!)

The Washington Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis, had a history of violent behavior, and yet still managed to have a security clearance for both access to a highly-secure government installation and access to sensitive information renewed this past July. Renewed by the authority of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

As disturbing as this incident is, one that clearly demonstrates a blatant flaw in the ‘System,’ an even more disconcerting fact is that several government agencies, agencies that one does not normally associate with law enforcement or armed response, are arming their officials, with only cursory background checks, simply because they are government agencies.

That’s right, folks. As government is trying, once more, to take away our Right to keep and bear arms, they are placing them into the hands of government agents that may not be qualified to carry them.

Though most Americans know agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board employing armed officers might come as a bit of a shock.

And the abuses by some of these armed agents are starting to turn up.

After all, “They killed Giggles!”

Back in July, heavily-armed agents of Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources, in full military-style assault gear, staged a raid of an animal shelter and killed a small fawn named Giggles.

The DNR had been conducting aerial and ground surveillance, using UAVs (Drones) in advance of the raid searching for an “illegally-held live captive Whitetail deer.”

(Our tax dollars at work?)

A staff member took photographs of the raid and of the agents killing Giggles, but a deputy sheriff confiscated his cell phone and deleted the pictures.

This little animal posed no threat whatsoever to anyone. Its only crime was that it could not be rehabilitated, according to Wisconsin law. Rather than trying to find suitable accommodations for the animal, maybe in a neighboring state’s zoo, the agents killed it, without remorse.

Abuse of power? Read on.

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies, including nearly a dozen typically not associated in any way, shape, or form with law enforcement, have armed divisions. And background checks for these individuals to carry arms are cursory at best. Certainly not what the government is proposing for the average citizen.

The incident that sparked the renewed interest and concern occurred in late August when a team of armed federal officials descended on the tiny Alaska gold mining town of Chicken, Alaska.

The Environmental Protection Agency, whose armed agents in full body armor participated, admitted taking part in the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force investigation, which it said was conducted to look for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.

However, EPA officials denied the operation was a ‘raid’ and didn't address speculation about whether it was connected to possible human and drug trafficking, or simply the agency “flexing its muscles.”

Okay, so a violation of the Clean Water Act demands a heavily-armed military-style response?

Seriously?

Just imagine what the response would have been if there had been ‘unauthorized burning.’ Perhaps they would have shown up with a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

The other federal agencies participating in the ‘not raid’ were the FBI, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and the Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Park Service.

Kinda seems like overreaction and overkill to me, but hey, those polluters are hardened criminals. No wonder the government had to release several thousand illegal aliens with multiple criminal backgrounds. I mean, they have to incarcerate those leaf-burners and sewage dumpers somewhere, right?

(Expletive Deleted!)

The FBI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service are among 24 federal agencies employing more than 250 full-time armed officers with arrest authority, according the federal report, which is based on the 2008 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

The other 16 agencies have less than 250 officers and include NOAA as well as the Library of Congress, the Federal Reserve Board and the National Institutes of Health.

Yup. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has armed many of their officials. I guess that ‘Climate Change’ poses a much more serious threat than we believed. Get out the Glock and fire off a few at that twister when it shows up. That’ll teach Nature to mess with us.

And I suppose if you have a case of the flu, and get too close to population, agents of the National Institute of Health are authorized to shoot you, lest you become a ‘Public threat’?

And let’s not forget the Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, and the Government Printing Office. Yes, they are also armed.

(Anyone remember the origin of the phrase ‘Going Postal’?)

Small wonder the 'System' is flawed.

More and more, government agencies are being armed, while the present administration seeks to enact legislation to disarm the law-abiding citizens of this nation, who have a Right to arm themselves.

But, back to Alaska for a moment. It turns out that the EPA not only has powers of arrest, but can do so without Probable Cause, can conduct searches and seizures without warrants, may detain suspects for an indefinite period, and is authorized to use Deadly Force.

It turns out that the EPA has powers second only to FEMA.

(And you don't even wanna know what they can do)

The EPA defended its use of armed officers, after the Alaska incident.

"Environmental law enforcement, like other forms of law enforcement, always involves the potential for physical, even armed, confrontation," the agency said.

But Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell has already ordered an investigation, saying "This level of intrusion and intimidation of Alaskans is absolutely unacceptable."

Other state officials said that the purported concerns about rampant drug and human trafficking in the area sounded “wholly concocted,” and it was their belief that the EPA was “demonstrating its power for the purpose of intimidation only.”

The Federal government is blocking further investigation into the EPA’s actions by Gov. Parnell.

It wouldn’t be so much of a concern if this had been a single, isolated incident. But this is not the first time armed EPA guards have been accused of intimidating behavior.

In May 2012, North Carolina resident Larry Keller was visited by armed EPA agents after sending an email to the EPA’s regional administrator who was video-taped saying his enforcement strategy was to "crucify" executives from big oil and gas companies.

"The charter of the EPA is to protect the environment and public, not to act as a quasi-federal police department," Keller said after the brief but tense exchange with agents about whether the memo to the official might seem suspicious.

The EPA official in question resigned not long afterward.

There has been a great deal of consternation as of late over the ‘Militarization’ of Police departments in smaller cities and communities, and whether certain members of those police departments are psychologically-qualified to use military-style equipment and weaponry. Now, as we learn more about the lackadaisical attitude regarding background checks for government employees and civilian contractors, that concern is growing among many.

One has to wonder, with the arming of so many government officials, the use of military-style tactics, and reports of ‘strong-arm’ abuses, if the common citizen (that's you and me) has a valid concern that we are seeing the implementation of a ‘Police State.’

If this is so, then the renewed push for ‘Gun Control’ is understandable.

After all, if you saw heavily-armed individuals surrounding your home and property, what would your response be?

Paranoia? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum