IRS Job Listing: Special Agents Must ‘Carry a Firearm and Be Willing to Use Deadly Force’

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...st-carry-firearm-be-willing-use-deadly-force/

Yep, Biden’s IRS wants to murder U.S Citizens . . . Let’s go Brandon!

 

All law abiding US citizens are entitled to carry firearms and use deadly force in the appropriate circumstances 'Bob'. So using your logic all US citizens who do so want to murder other US citizens?

 

So all law-abiding citizens have must carry a weapon and be willing to use deadly force in their job description?

 

In the context of everything else that was written, the guns are because they plan to hunt down us citizens. Nice try though.

 

If your job is to follow illegal money trails, being comfortable with the possibility of the need to use deadly force to defend oneself seems necessary

 

So which is most appropriate when finding someone is evading taxes?

A. Freeze their bank accounts.
B. Garnish their wages.
C. Place liens on property.
D. Raid their house in the middle of the night fully armed and ready to use deadly force.

 

It depends on what sort of country you want this to be.

 

Doesn't change anything Bob. The IRS officer is paid to carry as part of his job description (and be willing, if necessary to use deadly force.) Citizens still have exactly the same options, they just don't get paid for doing it. But then the IRS agent isn't being paid expressly to carry a gun either. He or she are being paid to perform their duties as an IRS officer, which makes the firearm is a tool like anything else they might need for their job like a laptop or mobile phone.

Show me where it says applicants are expected to form 'kill teams' and start hunting down taxpayers for fun or profit.

 

That’s why some here are choosing “D” I guess.

The IRS can “mess” you up 40 ways to Sunday without coming within a thousand miles of you. Since Oklahoma, they work in some of the most guarded and safe premises on the planet.

 

Show where the word 'hunt' is used. Are LEOs of all types paid to 'hunt down' citizens, military personnel? park rangers? Your paranoia is showing.

 

Please explain how a firearm is needed to garnish wages.

 

So, when you work on the fourth floor of a heavily guarded Federal building, you feel that at any moment, you may need to draw a firearm to kill someone.

Your paranoia is showing.

 

A firearm may be needed if your investigating large scale criminal tax evasion or asset rich organized crime groups, if your seizing assets or otherwise confronting people who have are involved with prostrated disputes with the IRS or otherwise hold grudges against the agency or government officials in general.

In other words there may be a need to carry firearms in particular circumstances.

 

Ever tried garnishing a cartel members 'wages' Bob? You think people put the words 'Drug Dealer' under Profession on their tax returns? Perhaps you think they declare the cash earned from shifting that 20 kilos of coke they had?

 

Where in the add did it say 'carry at all times' even cops don't do that. Hmmm lets see... you work for the IRS, do you:

A) tool up when you go to take a piss or grab from the staff lunch room. OR
B) tool up when your leaving the office and going to execute a potentially dangerous search warrant.

Which one is it Bob? Take a wild guess.

 

No, it's not. If you really think so, explain why it is.

There is no reason for an IRS agent to leave their office to seize assets.

This is truly a bad example. You may not realize this but we have something called the DEA. They can and do seize any property of suspected drug dealers unless your last name is Biden. So, if an IRS agent suspects a drug dealer, they need to contact the DEA and not go in guns blazing.

You've given no reason for the IRS to ever need to do B.

 

Clearly, leftists believe that the U.S. government needs only the most flimsy excuse to use deadly force.

What leftists want:

https://time.com/5115201/waco-siege-standoff-fbi-david-koresh/

over the collection of a small tax.

What people who aren't bloodthirsty want:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...ongest-standoff-u-s-history-article-1.2490012

No one died.

There are smarter more intelligent ways to handle tax collection than with a gun - especially with all the other tools the IRS has at its disposal.

 

My career was with law enforcement Bob. I know that agencies like the FBI, DEA and IRS etc work closely together on occasions (for example when extensive money laundering or tax evasion is suspected). And they have no choice because each agency has access to information and resources that the other doesn't. I also know that at times it's a requirement of your job that you leave the office to attend locations where court orders are being executed, if only because you happen to be the current subject matter expert or case officer for your agency and are required on scene to provide advice as to what should not be seized or frozen etc. I also know that you have to be there to speak to lawyers and accountants representing the other parties or event the suspects & their employees because that's part of your job.

And once again you seem to be arguing that ALL IRS officers are expected to carry forearms at ALL times. This is not the case. The requirement to carry a firearm is situational. When they carry will be dictated by circumstances and agency policy. In the case of the IRS it will not be when they are conducting minor/routine audits of Joe Citizen in the office and that person has gone has gone through security screening on the way in. Its the IRS not the NYPD.

So sorry - you are just WRONG.

 

The fact that you have to make this personal shows that you've completely lost the argument. If you had valid evidence and good logical reasoning, you wouldn't have to resort to making this personal.

You may know that the world is flat. The world is still round whether you like it or not. You have yet to give a single valid example.

The IRS does not need court orders to seize anything and considering IRS agents take their children along, your "gotta be armed" schtick is silly.

https://freemanlaw.com/irs-seizures-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

So, you obviously don't know enough to know that the IRS does not need "court orders". And no, not all subject matter experts involved in the case have to be present during the execution of a court order. Yet, with all your "law enforcement" experience, you have failed to provide a single valid example. But you don't have to just provide one example, you need to provide 70,000 examples. That's how many new armed, ready to use deadly force law enforcement officers the IRS wants to hire. So, if they are lazy and only do one per year, that's 70,000 armed and possibly deadly tax assessments per year.

No, they don't and you have given no evidence otherwise.

I have never said nor implied this. Now you're trying to use straw man to win an argument.

Thank you for pointing out the IRS does not need firearms and definitely not 70,000 firearms.

And your final point is a circular one. You say you're right because you're right. That's nice. A circular argument proves nothing and demonstrates an inability to articulate a solid argument.

Making it personal, providing no evidence, straw man, and using circular logic wil only convince leftists that you're right.

 

It's called professional experience Bob. It's not 'personal' at all. I know what I know from doing it. Do you work and the IRS or in any kind of law enforcement role?

For the rest you are obviously as clueless about how debates are supposed to work as you are about the topic in question. YOU presented a job advertisement stating as one of it's conditions that IRS officers can be required to carry firearms and (potentially) use lethal force. The go on to make this claim

'Yep, Biden’s IRS wants to murder U.S Citizens.'

Your words Bob. Not mine. OK then Einstein show what part of the add supports this claim. Prove it ! Where in the add is there any statement that supports your claims/inferences? Where does it even state that firearms must be worn at all times? Produce your evidence that the IRS want's to murder people or stop complaining when someone calls you on BS statements about topics on which you are patently clueless.

Wrong (again) Bob. Firstly I referenced situations where the IRS would potentially be working with other agencies that do actually require warrants etc/ Beyond that however in the case of criminal investigations the IRS most assuredly does obtain search warrants. (Wouldn't want them breaching the Constitution would you?) But to help you learn something I took 5 seconds out of my busy schedule to get this link to the IRS website for you.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part38/irm_38-001-001#idm140321826054192

This sets out the circumstances and protocols for obtaining search warrants as an IRS employee. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them to take it down because, after all according you the IRS doesn't execute search warrants does it?

Oh and while children might get taken along on routine audit trips Bob I can assure you they don't get ride along on criminal investigations.

As for "you obviously don't know enough to know that the IRS does not need "court orders". And no, not all subject matter 'experts involved in the case have to be present during the execution of a court order. Yet, with all your "law enforcement" experience, you have failed to provide a single valid example. But you don't have to just provide one example, you need to provide 70,000 examples. That's how many new armed, ready to use deadly force law enforcement officers the IRS wants to hire. So, if they are lazy and only do one per year, that's 70,000 armed and possibly deadly tax assessments per year."

Once again Bob, your the one making the claim so stop mouthing off and PROVE the IRS wants ALL of its officers to be armed at ALL times. And I remind you that the advertisement in question simply stated was that carrying a firearm/being prepared to use lethal force was a requirement of the job spec. It said nothing about how often or under what circumstances firearms may need to be carried. All of which means you have to start digging and prove your assertions about 70 thousand IRS agents being armed at all times not to mention your claim that they want to murder US citizens. (I won't hold my breath waiting.)

So in the end your just wrong Bob. And my political leanings (left right or center) don't change that. In fact my political leanings are completely irrelevant because being wrong about important facts means your wrong regardless of the political beliefs of all concerned.

One last point though, arbitrarily labeling someone a 'leftist' simply because they disagree with you or point out errors in your reasoning doesn't mean by default that yes that person really is a leftist. It just means your own personal political beliefs are so skewed to the right of the political spectrum that most people will end up on your 'left'.

 

Still making it personal.

No, the job clearly states that they ‘Carry a Firearm and Be Willing to Use Deadly Force’. It's in the title in case you missed it. You can also reference the job listing yourself if you want.

https://www.jobs.irs.gov/resources/job-descriptions/irs-criminal-investigation-special-agent

It's listed under major duties. There are 70,000 open positions. Since it is listed under major duties, it is required - not 'can be required'.

For the next part you just devolve into insults. I'll wait for you to regain your composure.

You gave no specific examples. You simply insisted that everyone had to trust you and your experience.

This refers to criminal investigations only. The IRS may conduct civil seizure of property at the same time they conduct a criminal investigation. Civil asset forfeiture does not require the approval of any court.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-010-003#idm139904171753152

If you spent more than 5 seconds, you might have read far enough to know that the Criminal Tax Attorney does not have to attend the service of the warrant.

Straw man.

Straw man

It's listed under major duties. The bold and underlined in your quote is straw man.

70,000 number originally came from this article -
https://thepostmillennial.com/biden...ill-be-armed-to-target-middle-class-americans

When asked why IRS agents need to be armed, Greene said "There is a blurring of the IRS that that has sort of a law enforcement angle, which we do need that. But we don't need 70,000 new armed IRS agents. This is terrifying."

More strawman. I never discussed you political leanings.

BTW, there's no such thing as the right - only the left.

 

I'm not going to go through every puerile point you raise just because you don't want to be proved wrong. That said:

1) Being 'willing to use lethal force' is not the same as 'wanting to murder US citizens' i.e. your original claim. Which you still haven't recanted or proven.

2) You specifically stated, and I quote: 'The IRS does not need court orders to seize anything'. They patently do. Again you have neither recanted or proven your claim. So in this case you can't prove your claim because the IRS obvious does need and does use court orders (warrants). And at no point did you ever previously restrict your claims about IRS power to civil matters. Your only doing so now because you got caught out. But the problem? The IRS doesn't just deal with civil matters it also deals with criminal investigations. That is a matter of fact Bob, and even you can't deny it. All of which means there will be occasions during criminal investigations (not civil) where firearms may be required.

3) Your post 19. (ME): And once again you make a sweeping claim (The IRS wants to murder US citizens) then refuse to address them when called on it. You deny saying something then say it again and seem to be arguing that ALL IRS officers are expected to carry forearms at ALL times.
(YOU) 'I have never said nor implied this. Now you're trying to use straw man to win an argument.'

Your post: 21 (YOU) It's listed under major duties. The bold and underlined in your quote is straw man.
70,000 number originally came from this article - https://thepostmillennial.com/biden...ill-be-armed-to-target-middle-class-americans
When asked why IRS agents need to be armed, Greene said "There is a blurring of the IRS that that has sort of a law enforcement angle, which we do need that. But we don't need 70,000 new armed IRS agents. This is terrifying."

The article you quoted makes it quite clear - 70,000 armed IRS officers. So which is it Bob? Are you implying all IRS officers will be armed all of the time or not? Because so far you've flip flopped depending on whats convenient.

4) Your post 21 (again - YOU) If you spent more than 5 seconds, you might have read far enough to know that the Criminal Tax Attorney does not have to attend the service of the warrant.

There's a term in the first paragraph of the link I found you Bob. Criminal Investigation personnel i.e. the IRS personnel responsible for conducting criminal investigations. They're the people this entire section is written for Bob. Which you'd know if you bothered to read it. It details the role of the IRS Attorney's in supporting criminal investigations, nowhere does it imply they're responsible for attending warrants - that's the investigators job. Straw man you saying?

I think that's enough for now.

 

Strawman - never made the claim. Can't recant something I didn't say.

Allow me to help you with the American.

You seem to think that "Biden's IRS" refers to each and every individual in the IRS. If I wanted to say that, I would say IRS agents not Biden's IRS. Next you need to notice that I said Biden's IRS not the IRS. This clearly implies that policies Biden wants to enact will needlessly cause the death of others. This is obviously hyperbolic just like when someone says Trump tried to assassinate Mike Pence or murdered everyone with Covid. And to re-emphasize who I believe was at fault, I said Let's Go Brandon!

Now, you have insisted that this must mean that I was referring to each individual IRS agent. But with actual reading, I clearly do not say that nor did I intend that.

I don't intend to keep on trying to have a civil discussion with someone who refuses to read what I write.

They don't. It's called civil asset forfeiture. I even gave you the IRS regs but you obviously decided to stop reading anything I wrote and just make stuff up.

They still don't need firearms in criminal cases and carrying them just increases the chance for a death to occur. At the moment, there are only about 4,000 firearms the IRS uses. A writ of entry from a court is only needed to enter private residences in civil matters and only if the owner objects. Even so, the writ of entry is only needed to enter the property while the confiscation of property does not need a warrant. Property such as cars can be confiscated outside. Property liens do not need a warrant. Nor do wage garnishments or many other things.

I can't think of a single time the IRS needed to use firearms to collect taxes and you still haven't given a single example where a firearm was needed.

The IRS at the moment rarely deals with taxes criminally and regularly deals with matter civilly. They may do both at the same time in the same case.

When 87,000 more IRS agents are hired, will 70,000 include all IRS agents?

Do I need to help you with the math?

The Criminal Tax Lawyer is the subject matter expert in in Criminal Tax Law.

I'm glad you corrected your previous statement.

 

JFC, all federal agents carry weapons it’s part of the job. Postal agents, IRS, all sworn Leo’s carry. This is nothing new.

 

You MUST pay for the Inflation Reduction Act!!!!