The Militarization of the US Goes Beyond Police Departments: Report

by TeleSurTV

Nonmilitary federal agencies have spent almost US$1.5 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.
A new report by a taxpayer watchdog group reveals that the growing militarization in the United States goes beyond police departments by showing how nonmilitary federal agencies are arming themselves like military units.
The report “The Militarization of America” examines government expenditures by 67 federal agencies between 2006 and 2014 and found that they spent US$1.48 billion stockpiling guns, ammunition and other military-style equipment.
“The recent growth of the federal arsenal begs the questions: Just who are the feds planning to battle?” American Tranparency’s Adam Andrzejewski, the author of the report, recently wrote in Forbes.
The report states that “administrative agencies including the Food and Drug Administration, Small Business Administration, Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Mint, Department of Education, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and many other agencies purchased guns, ammo, and military-style equipment.”
For example, the Internal Revenue Service spent nearly US$11 million arming itself, while the Environmental Protection Agency spent US$3.1 million.
The report also states: “The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent US$4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote controlled helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes, and more.”
“As the Obama administration and its allies are pushing hard for an assault weapons ban on private citizens, taxpayers are asking why IRS agents need AR-15s,” wrote report author Andrzejewski. “After grabbing legal power, federal bureaucrats are amassing firepower. It’s time to scale back the federal arsenal.”


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: democracy, latest
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jul 2, 2016 12:30 AM

In a nation in which just about anyone can buy an assault rifle and large quantities of ammunition is it not inevitable that Government agencies will also end up heavily armed? To maintain control the State and its agencies need to be at least as well armed (preferably better armed) than your opponents. This is yet another consequence of the lunacy that is the American attitude towards the owning and carrying of firearms. Tell people they have a “right” to lethal weapons and it’s very difficult to take that away from them. Imagine turning up on someone’s property as a Government agent to check on wildlife protection breaches for example and being met with unfriendly residents who are heavily armed with high powered weapons. Wouldn’t you want your agents to be able to protect themselves if you were working within such a “non military” Government agency? The solution to the… Read more »

Jul 2, 2016 12:47 AM

It is actually the other way round: The Second Amendment provides for a ‘well regulated militia’ instead of a standing army. It is the standing army, and police forces and dozens of other federal agencies, armed to the teeth, which are anomalous. The Militias, part slave patrols, part counter insurgency units driving the indigenous people off their hereditary lands, were theoretically intended to preserve (settler) liberties against a state with a standing army.
The violence in the USA is one of the country’s essential characteristics, as any Iraqi, Vietnamese or just about anyone else would tell us. All the ‘gun ownership’ laws in the world won’t change that.

Jul 12, 2016 10:24 PM

Where in the Constitution does it state the Federal Government is supposed to keep control of the States?
While looking for that passage, see if you can find authorization for the over 1400 Federal Agencies and departments which now exist.
Finally, why should a Federal Agaent be on private property? Other than to collect taxes, what is the point of calling it private property if you do not have final say over what happens on that property?

Jul 12, 2016 10:58 PM
Reply to  Robin

@ Robin Tou said “what is the point of calling it private property if you do not have final say over what happens on that property?” The fact that a person owns a property does not give them the right to break the laws of the land on that property. You appear to be confusing notions of private property ownership with notions of the Rule of Law. Like it or not the United States is a Federal system and both State and Federal agents do have powers to enforce the laws – even on “private” property. For example let’s say someone is mistreating animals on their property. Animal welfare officials are empowered by the State to investigate such offences and provided they obtain a Warrant are lawfully entitled to enter upon the “private” property specified in the warrant to investigate. Since you Americans love your high powered assault rifles so… Read more »

Jul 13, 2016 1:05 AM
Reply to  Robin

There are excellent reasons why the owner of a piece of private property may not and does not have the final say on what can legitimately take place there. In other words, the rule of law trumps private ownership, and very legitimately so. Offhand, I can think of several things that the state has every right to prohibit, no matter where they ma take place: activities such as the receiving and storage of stolen goods, the forcible confinement and keeping of kidnapped individuals, drug and gun trafficking, physical assault and abuse of other members of the household, white slavery, child abuse, murder.

question everything
question everything
Jul 1, 2016 11:39 PM

Even scarier than I dreamed…..
The old Chinese curse definitely applies to the world now:
‘May you live in interesting times’.
This just made it look too bloody interesting for anyone on the planet who values their well-being and safety.

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Jul 1, 2016 10:52 PM

The National Institute of Standards and Technology arming themselves to the teeth? They must know that almost no one in the World believes their cover up of ‘who did 9/11’.
The Military Industrial Complex must be getting a little nervous that ‘the people’ smell a very large stinking rat in their presence.
How will they insure that the weapons stock pile won’t be used against THEM?