Fox News:

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 with law enforcement — have armed divisions.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

[ … ]

The 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.

The number of federal department with armed personnel climbs to 73 when adding in the 33 offices of inspector general, the government watchdogs for agencies as large as the Postal Service to the Government Printing Office, whose IG has only five full-time officers.

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.

It wouldn’t be a problem if the EPA didn’t exist, and most of these federal agencies lack justification for their existence.  Many of them are simply jobs programs for incompetent and inept stooges who cannot find gainful employment any other way.

So do you want to know where this comes from and who started it all, this idea of federal agents being armed?

The assertion of federal power over guns and crime fit perfectly with Franklin D. Rossevelt’s philosophy of using the government to protect ordinary American’s from the hazards of modern society. . . the New Deal was nothing less than a radical retructuring of American government . . . Roosevelt portrayed gun control and crime fighting as simply one more element of the Neweal — indeed, of the new America. . . “As a component part of that larger objective we include our constant struggle against the attacks of the lawless and criminal elements of our own populations.” Because crime drained the economy, federal crime control, we argued, was essential for national recovery.

Roosevelt understood that, like many of his other New Deal reforms, a federal push in the field of guns and crime would face opposition from traditionalists committed to states’ rights. . . The situation required a “New Deal for Crime.” Just as Rossevelt sought to expand the power and reach of the federal government over the economy, he determined to expand its power and reach over criminals and their weapons. The man Roosevelt tapped to to lead the push was his attorney general, Homer Cummings. A bald man with a round face and piercing blue eyes, Cummings was a close confidant of the president. He wasn’t the first person you’d expect to lead a revolution. One of Roosevelt’s speechwriters called Cummings “the least dramatic man in the whole world.” A a three-time former mayor and former chair of the Democratic National Committee, however, Cummings was well versed in politics, and Roosevelt knew he wouldn’t back down in the face of public or political opposition. . .

Cummings realized that he needed troops to wage war — in this case, a truly effective federal police force. The Justice Department aqlready had what passed for law enforcement agents in the Bureau of Prohibition and the Bureau of Investigation. Yet the former was being disbanded in the wake of the legalization of liquor and the latter was an underfunded agency devoted mainly to information gathering. The agencies were also hamstrung by the states’ rights tradition. Because policing was a state function, federal agents didn’t have the power to arrest people and weren’t allowed to carry guns. Soldiers in a war on crime couldn’t be effective armed with only notepads. . . Cummings lobbied for a significant reorganization of the Bureau of Investigation . . . Two years later, Cummings had the agency itself renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to emphasize the new role of the federal government in fighting crime . . .

Thanks to Mike Vanderboegh for the education on Roosevelt.  A progressive isn’t just a statist and totalitarian concerning your money.  He wants you guns too.  And as for starting all of this, Roosevelt was one in a long line of wicked rulers.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

There is nothing new under the sun, and totalitarianism is always wicked at all times in history, regardless of the particular administration or form of it, and in spite of the claims to good will by the rulers.