DHS orders 7000 Assault Rifles - Page 2

DHS orders 7000 Assault Rifles

This is a discussion on DHS orders 7000 Assault Rifles within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; ...directly related to firearms...and keeping ours... Originally Posted by Smitty901 I will pass on this one let someone else get a demerit point ....

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 86
Like Tree124Likes

Thread: DHS orders 7000 Assault Rifles

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...directly related to firearms...and keeping ours...
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    I will pass on this one let someone else get a demerit point .


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,767

    Re: DHS orders 7000 Assault Rifles

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Nope, no paranoia, no hypocrisy,

    but anyone want to deny
    them these items?
    No one wants to deny them. The hypocrisy lies where they state how these types of rifles are well suited for personal defense for them, but not for us.



    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Gun Bunny likes this.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  3. #18
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,763
    They just want to be able to get some for themselves before they put all of the black rifle makers out of business.
    BugDude, DMan, airslot and 6 others like this.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Nope, no paranoia, no hypocrisy.

    Here's their organizational chart: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-orgchart.pdf

    Note that within DHS you have (just to name a few)

    1) US Secret Service --- anyone think they don't need these type of weapons?
    2) Customs and Border Patrol-- anyone want to deny these to Border Patrol Officers-- I thought half the folks who post here were
    for just shooting anyone who tries to cross illegally :-
    3) US Coast Guard--- anyone seriously want to deny them these weapons when they interdict a "submarine" full of cocaine?
    4) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--- I have no idea if they teach weapons and tactics there, but anyone want to deny
    them these items?
    Right! Because none of these agencies had any of these type weapons in the armory already. I really felt sorry for all those poor Coasties and BP agents that had been using sling shots these past 50 years!
    J.Thompson, Bark'n, OD* and 6 others like this.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array boricua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,873
    So, that's where all the 5.56 ammo is. No wonder we can't find any for our personal defense.
    Duty, Honor, Country...MEDIC!!!
    ¡Cuánto duele crecer, cuan hondo es el dolor de alzarse en puntillas y observar con temblores de angustia, esa cosa tremenda, que es la vida del hombre! - René Marqués

  6. #21
    Member Array BeefyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    166
    So if I get on government assistance, can I opt for a ObamAR instead of an Obamaphone?

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,914
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Right! Because none of these agencies had any of these type weapons in the armory already. I really felt sorry for all those poor Coasties and BP agents that had been using sling shots these past 50 years!
    So exactly what are you objecting to? That they have these types of weapons or that they bought 7K new ones?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Under a Volkswagen somewhere in Florida
    Posts
    9,440
    If you can't see the hypocrisy for yourself, no amount of pointing it out is going to do any good. You either see it as hypocritical or you don't. I personally see it, and wonder how anyone couldn't...but that's how perspective goes.
    oneshot, Crowbait, OD* and 5 others like this.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
    If you can't see the hypocrisy for yourself, no amount of pointing it out is going to do any good. You either see it as hypocritical or you don't. I personally see it, and wonder how anyone couldn't...but that's how perspective goes.
    Well, to be fair, there are already tons of things the government has and is allowed to do that normal civilians can't have and can't do (that was a strange sentence but I'm going with it). It's the old argument of where does the second amendment end. Crew served weapons, explosives, tanks, predator drones?

    I understand that the DHS stating an assault weapon is a good defensive weapon and purchasing a lot of them while the VP is telling citizens a shotgun is better is hypocrisy.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by OhioCatter View Post
    I think someone wants to make sure his personal army has what they need to keep others in check.
    I knew someone say it .
    I am guessing they will not be allowed to have them in New york

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...no paranoia...just the facts...and BIGTIME hypocrisy...the gooberment tells We the People we don't need AR rifles and Hi-cap mags, they aren't good for self-defense...etc, etc...then orders them and says they're for "self-defence"...anytime a government wants to take legal weapons away from citizens, then arm themselves with the same...we have cause for concern...now, if they'd ordered 7000 double-barrelled 12 gauges...it'd be a different story...and different reception...( guess the British spelling of "defence" was just a Freudian slip...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Nope, no paranoia, no hypocrisy.

    Here's their organizational chart: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-orgchart.pdf

    Note that within DHS you have (just to name a few)

    1) US Secret Service --- anyone think they don't need these type of weapons?
    2) Customs and Border Patrol-- anyone want to deny these to Border Patrol Officers-- I thought half the folks who post here were
    for just shooting anyone who tries to cross illegally :-
    3) US Coast Guard--- anyone seriously want to deny them these weapons when they interdict a "submarine" full of cocaine?
    4) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--- I have no idea if they teach weapons and tactics there, but anyone want to deny
    them these items?

  12. #27
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588

    DHS buys 7000 Assault Rifles, Millions or rounds of Ammo ..... Hmmmmm

    Government
    If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?
    Jan. 26, 2013 2:30pm Jason Howerton

    Source: If ?Assault Weapons? Are Bad?Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ?Personal Defense?? | TheBlaze.com

    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.

    Get all the details on the bill, including a list of firearms that would be banned, here.
    DHS Asks for 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapons Also Known as Assault Weapons

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, to introduce legislation on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Congressional Democrats are reintroducing legislation to ban assault weapons but the measure faces long odds even after last month’s mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn. The measure being unveiled Thursday is authored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who wrote the original assault weapons ban. That law expired in 2004 when Congress refused to renew it under pressure from the National Rifle Association. Credit: AP

    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.

    Is there a pattern here? Just askin.
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gastonville
    Posts
    6,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So exactly what are you objecting to? That they have these types of weapons or that they bought 7K new ones?
    I have made no objections to this point.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Under a Volkswagen somewhere in Florida
    Posts
    9,440
    I don't object to them having them, just them telling me I shouldn't.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.

  15. #30
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Nope, no paranoia, no hypocrisy.

    Here's their organizational chart: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-orgchart.pdf

    Note that within DHS you have (just to name a few)

    1) US Secret Service --- anyone think they don't need these type of weapons?
    2) Customs and Border Patrol-- anyone want to deny these to Border Patrol Officers-- I thought half the folks who post here were
    for just shooting anyone who tries to cross illegally :-
    3) US Coast Guard--- anyone seriously want to deny them these weapons when they interdict a "submarine" full of cocaine?
    4) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--- I have no idea if they teach weapons and tactics there, but anyone want to deny
    them these items?
    First line on FLETC's "about" page: "The FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for 91 Federal agencies." They are the go-to agency to train other agencies.

    I have no problem whatsoever with these weapons being purchased for the DHS. In fact, I'm grateful that they were purchased for "personal defense". It makes a very powerful argument against the proposed federal legislation.
    Snub44 likes this.
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

7000 rifles ordered
,
dhs order 7000 machine guns & coffins
,
dhs order 7000 rifles
,
dhs orders 7,000 assault rifles
,

dhs orders 7000

,

dhs orders 7000 assault rifles

,

dhs orders 7000 rifles

,
dhs orders boxcars
,
dhs orders guns
,

dhs orders rifles

,
fema assault rifles
,
government orders 7000 guns
Click on a term to search for related topics.