Skip to comments.IF 'ASSAULT WEAPONS' ARE BAD...WHY DOES DHS WANT TO BUY 7,000 OF THEM FOR 'PERSONAL DEFENSE'?
Posted on 01/27/2013 6:57:16 PM PST by forty_years
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.
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.
When guns are outlawed, only the outlaw government will have guns.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
When guns are outlawed, only the outlaw government will have guns.
Which is why our FOUNDING FATHERS PASSED THE SECOND AMENDMENT. They foresaw the Obama-like tyrant over 200 year ago. They fought off King George.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Are these full-size or short-barreled? I would think that a sub-11” barrel and a 30 round mag would be great for personal defense.
11.5” is minimum. Below that, a lot of the power just gets turned into ear-splitting noise (on top of the fact that a normal-length AR15 is already very loud). Slap a suppressor on a sub-11” barrel and the back pressure becomes destructive; many top suppressor manufacturers will not warranty their cans on such short ARs.
That said, I do think an 11.5” barrel and a 30 round mag of 5.56 is ideal for home defense (to wit room-to-room CQB). Maximum penetration and stopping power balanced with good maneuverability, capacity and mitigated over-penetration.
Can you BELIEVE that the liberals are SO blind that they turn to the right, and say, “NO ONE needs an assault weapon for personal defense....”....
And they turn to the left, and say, “Homeland Defense needs assault weapons FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE because they are the best weapons for close-in situations”!!!!!!
The hypocrisy of the Marxists becomes more blatant every day.....
“A personal defense weapon (PDW) is a compact semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm similar in most respects to a submachine gun, but firing a (often proprietary) rifle round, giving a PDW better range, accuracy and armor-penetrating capability than submachine guns, which fire pistol-caliber cartridges. The class of weapon as it exists today evolved as a hybrid between a submachine gun and a carbine, retaining the compact size and ammunition capacity of the former while adding the ammunition power, accuracy and penetration of the latter.”
Silly rabbits—mere citizens can’t be trusted with such nifty weapons: PDW’s!
Only hired hands of government alphabet-soup agencies that sound like something Orwell would dream up, if he reported to Heinrich Himmler circa 1940, are qualified to handle them.
(Naming contest, 2nd Place: Department of Fatherland Schutzstaffel)
Not to quibble over language, but liberals in Congress have won and we’ve lost the battle of language to the idiots creating their own vocabulary to enhance their personal power. (See “doublespeak” as in Orwell’s 1984).
“also known as assault weapons when owned by civilians. (snip) 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.”
“Assault Weapon” is a legal term created by congress that has no relationship to an assault RIFLE which is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle. Military weapons are NOT the same as the US legal term assault weapons.
So we have a federal law enforcement agency, operating domestically, who will have weapons that its citizenry has been prohibited from owning and is in the process of disarming the closest, semi-automatic weapons that can be used against a tyrannical government.
Sounds like a case being made for the 2nd amendment.
The president is building an army that will not be restrained by the Posse Comitatus act.
Why? So they’ll have them and you won’t...
Let’s see if anyone goes Ronnie Barrett on them...
WHY DOES DHS WANT TO BUY 7,000 OF THEM FOR ‘PERSONAL DEFENSE’?
Thats easy.. to use to intimidate a public that only has pistols.. or nothing..
Could be a good time for a black market in guns and ammo to organize..
As a civilian you cannot purchase an “assault” weapon. Get it right America.
companies producing these weapons should not sell to any agencies promoting the infringement of the 2nd amendment. customers of these companies should also encourage these companies to avoid selling to any govt agency, or security agencies providing services to such agencies.
if they want a gun free America... then let them have one
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy .... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
You are not asking the right question, which is, WHO within DHS is going to get these weapons? Secretaries, drivers, intelligence analysts, etc?
Which DHS agents are authorized to carry weapons? Just generic titles, such as Field Agents, Building Security, Protective personnel (i.e. armed escorts), etc.
Does the DHS have personnel who need weapons for protection in their work? Yes or no. If yes, who (by title)? It’s that simple.
Surprisingly, some people who are field agents for, say, Dept. of Agriculture, Interior, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, IRS, etc. do carry sidearms for protection from wild animals, drug farmers/traffickers, etc.
That is a legitimate reason to arm them.
The last thing I want is for Janet Napolitano to carry a weapon. Let her bodyguards (poor job description if I say so myself) carry them.
If there is a legitimate need for DHS personnel to carry firearms, just state it clearly. No one would object. However, if it is to create a new type of armed DHS presence, then we should know about it now.
[In the alternative, why can’t plain civilians also have a need to legally carry a weapon without being branded nuts and mass murderers in waiting? Walking some of the streets of our Democratic controlled cities is more dangerous than being a cop].
Trust me on this. I know what I’m asking about.
Time to reverse the 1968 Gun Control Act. Let the People have some of those Personal Defense Weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.