Homeland Security: Buying 7,000 assault weapons

[Will E Worm]

If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?


The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.

Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good “personal defense” for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become “assault weapons.”

That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.

But what about Americans who want to keep themselves and their families safe from threats? Is a semi-automatic rifle unacceptable for a civilian’s “personal defense” in his or her home? According to some Democratic lawmakers, like Sen. Feinstein, it appears the answer is yes.

Just last week two students in Rochester, N.Y. scared off a pair of home intruders by simply brandishing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. One of the students said he believes the weapon saved their lives.

Article


These can be fully automatic and they want magazines that hold 30 rounds. Hypocrites.

 

[Sam Fisher]

What's good for them, isn't good for us. How fucked up is that?

 

[Johan]

They are pros, they are trained to use this kinds of weapons.

 

[lurkingdirk]

So, people tasked with enforcing the law should have exactly the same rules as the general population? That seems completely idiotic.

 

[vodkazvictim]

So, people tasked with enforcing the law should have exactly the same rules as the general population? That seems completely idiotic.

Should the police then be allowed to mug people? Who guards the guards themselves?

 

[lurkingdirk]

Should the police then be allowed to mug people? Who guards the guards themselves?

Not what I'm saying. Of course they need to be held to the law, but military and police should have different weapon rules, in my opinion.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

To bad the companies are so greedy...I would love to see every single one of them, deny sales to the U.S. Government. It'll never happen though.

 

[Johan]

I love to see people complain about companies greed an voting for politicians who encourage greed...

 

[Will E Worm]

Should the police then be allowed to mug people? Who guards the guards themselves?

You tell him!

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I love to see people complain about companies greed an voting for politicians who encourage greed...

You have no idea about how I vote...other then the obvious avoidance of socialist, gun grabbing fucktards.

As far as "trained pros", don't make me fucking laugh, half those cocksuckers don't even know which end is the dangerous one. I'll put my safety knowledge/record, and shooting skill up against ANY fucking one of them, with the exception of a sniper. Which I would like to point out, is not an unattainable skill, but THEY have MY tax dollars to fund their practice time/ammo, and I don't have a blank check.

So maybe you should just go back to trying to figure out how to drop your gun, and put your hands in the air faster, like a good frenchman.

 

[Kingfisher]

What's good for them, isn't good for us. How fucked up is that?

Well when you think about it, someone with enough legal clout (cough NRA cough) could go before the Supreme Court and have the designation reclassified as a PDW, therefore skating around any AWB. Because they're no longer "Assault Weapons", even homeland suck-rity doesn't call them that, so neither should I. It's my Personal Defense Weapon...

 

[vodkazvictim]

Not what I'm saying. Of course they need to be held to the law, but military and police should have different weapon rules, in my opinion.

I was exaggerating and being a douche.
Look surprised.

 

[lurkingdirk]

I was exaggerating and being a douche.
Look surprised.

No, you were being a fucktard jackass.

However, amazingly, you made a good point. Of course law enforcement is held to the same laws. But are Officers and Service People limited to the same standards as private citizens in so far as what firearms they may carry while on duty? Ridiculous.

 

[Mayhem]

No, you were being a fucktard jackass.

However, amazingly, you made a good point. Of course law enforcement is held to the same laws. But are Officers and Service People limited to the same standards as private citizens in so far as what firearms they may carry while on duty? Ridiculous.

I hadn't thought about it from this angle before.....so let's take a walk over to Mr. Wizards Laboratory"

Revlovers - Both (Private Citizens and Law Enforcement) can have.
Semi-Auto Pistols - Both
Shotguns of any and all gauges and configurations - Both
Semi-Auto Rifles - Both
High Capacity Magazines - Both
Scoped "Sniper" Rifles - Both
Full Automatic Firearms (Rifles and Submachine guns) - Both (conditionally)
Grenade Launchers - Neither, except as a means to deploy tear gas or flares
Rocket Propelled Grenades - Neither
Armored Vehicles - Both, but in the civilians case it would probably have to be home made


I don't feel like I am missing anything here, but I might be. So no, keeping Law Enforcement to the same standards of weaponry really isn't as outlandish as it may seem.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

Why do they need 6,998 more assault weapons than me?

 

[lurkingdirk]

I hadn't thought about it from this angle before.....so let's take a walk over to Mr. Wizards Laboratory"

Revlovers - Both (Private Citizens and Law Enforcement) can have.
Semi-Auto Pistols - Both
Shotguns of any and all gauges and configurations - Both
Semi-Auto Rifles - Both
High Capacity Magazines - Both
Scoped "Sniper" Rifles - Both
Full Automatic Firearms (Rifles and Submachine guns) - Both (conditionally)
Grenade Launchers - Neither, except as a means to deploy tear gas or flares
Rocket Propelled Grenades - Neither
Armored Vehicles - Both, but in the civilians case it would probably have to be home made


I don't feel like I am missing anything here, but I might be. So no, keeping Law Enforcement to the same standards of weaponry really isn't as outlandish as it may seem.

I appreciate this post. But I'm not entirely comfortable with it. I have a hard time refuting what you say, and yet I have to admit that I'm far more comfortable with the riot cops having access to a lot of those things than I am with private citizens having access. Fully automatic, and scoped sniper rifles, for example. What Citizen needs access to that? However, I can see Riot cops needing those. I maintain that the general public and the military need have different rules for what is legal.

One hunts. One keeps the peace. The same weapons don't apply.

I know there are those who would say that what I say is incorrect. There are those who fully believed that armed citizens are the only thing between an armed American public and a dictatorship. However, those people are genuinely stupid.

 

[BCT]

Why do you think they need all those weapon? To kill people duh.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Why do they need 6,998 more assault weapons than me?

To enforce the law?

 

[BCT]

To enforce the law?

Yeah, Martial Law.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Yeah, Martial Law.

You believe that those enforcing the law should have exactly the same weapons restrictions as the general population?