Skip to comments.
Why does the Department of Agriculture need submachine guns?
American Thinker ^
| 05/15/2014
| Thomas Lifson
Posted on 05/15/2014 7:28:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Those federal bureaucrats who can’t be fired want to be able to defend themselves from angry taxpayers. Or something. AWR Hawkins reports for Breitbart:
A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks "the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W."
According to the solicitation, the Dept. of Agriculture wants the guns to have an "ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding," and a "30 rd. capacity" magazine.
They also want the submachine guns to have a "sling," be "lightweight," and have an "oversized trigger guard for gloved operation."
But of course those feds have our best interests at heart, so there's nothing to worry about. And those efforts to disarm us are for our own benefit.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agdept; agriculture; federalagencies; guns; poliestate; submachinegun; weaponized
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
To: SeekAndFind
Plans are in the making?.
61
posted on
05/15/2014 8:46:21 AM PDT
by
Vaduz
To: SeekAndFind
Hi there! Hank Kimball here. I may seem like a mild-mannered county extension agent, but
but I've got a `hankerin' to wear your guts for suspenders!
62
posted on
05/15/2014 8:47:22 AM PDT
by
tumblindice
(America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
To: DoodleDawg
My guess would be Forest Service, which is part of USDA and which has a law enforcement component. The Forest Service manages some very large and remote areas in which the local non-federal constabulary may be nowhere to be found, the nearest Dunkin Donut being 120 miles away. Some remote areas are frequented by two legged wildlife considerably more dangerous than bears. Meth labs, smugglers (human and drugs), assorted others hiding out, etc.
63
posted on
05/15/2014 8:48:02 AM PDT
by
sphinx
To: SeekAndFind
good thing the .gov buys the same caliber I use . .
F U .gov
64
posted on
05/15/2014 8:52:40 AM PDT
by
ßuddaßudd
(>> F U B O << "What the hell kind of country is this if I can only hate a man if he's white?")
To: SeekAndFind
Same reason the fish, tree, paper passer, and cow cops need theirs.....
65
posted on
05/15/2014 8:52:59 AM PDT
by
S.O.S121.500
(Had ENOUGH Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights ......... It's the LAW !!!)
To: SeekAndFind
NO NO NO NO NO!!!
Get the damn things in 9mm, leave my .40 alone!
To: SeekAndFind
4GW
It's All Fun And Games Until Then, Gear Queers.
To: SeekAndFind
68
posted on
05/15/2014 9:02:33 AM PDT
by
Sergio
(An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
To: FreeAtlanta
Actually, one of you code warriors simply needs to write a program that does that automatically. We simply enter the website addy in a large list of “good” sites, and the bot auto-selects ads to up the click-through and dwell, then drops out and moves to the next site on the list.
69
posted on
05/15/2014 9:16:05 AM PDT
by
SgtHooper
(This is my tag!)
To: sphinx
Yes, the Forest Service has a whole law enforcement division.
To: DCBryan1
“Again, why do they need SMGs?”
You obviously never encountered any posts displaying my contempt for SWAT teams, or armed federal agencies. Any federal agent needing firepower should be required to go through local sheriffs or police to get it.
But, since you asked again, I would suspect the Department of Agriculture might use hostile growers of illegal crops as an excuse for “SMGs.” Why does the Post Office need SMGs.
Every federal agency seems to have an excuse for needing arms, and they buy excessive ammunition to support their arsenals, driving up the price of ammunition, and limiting civilian access to it. Need has nothing to do with it.
They like their SWAT teams.
71
posted on
05/15/2014 9:36:31 AM PDT
by
pallis
To: SeekAndFind
I suppose pot growing farm will come under their juristiction like any other crop. Where there’s drugs there’s violence. That might be their justification.
72
posted on
05/15/2014 10:00:28 AM PDT
by
CrazyIvan
(I lost my phased plasma rifle in a tragic hovercrat accident.)
To: CrazyIvan
RE; I suppose pot growing farm will come under their juristiction like any other crop. Where theres drugs theres violence. That might be their justification.
I think the previous question asked was GIVEN THIS, why does the Department of Agriculture itself have to be given police powers? Why can’t they work with LOCAL and STATE POLICE?
73
posted on
05/15/2014 10:05:23 AM PDT
by
SeekAndFind
(If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
To: Tijeras_Slim
I think the previous question asked was ... why does the Department of Agriculture itself have to be given police powers? Why cant they work with LOCAL and STATE POLICE?
74
posted on
05/15/2014 10:06:30 AM PDT
by
SeekAndFind
(If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
To: SeekAndFind
I wasn’t saying that I thought that they needed them, just that they would use this for an excuse.
75
posted on
05/15/2014 10:26:20 AM PDT
by
CrazyIvan
(I lost my phased plasma rifle in a tragic hovercrat accident.)
To: SgtHooper
That isn't a good thing. The advertisers are paying to try to get real hits. Advertising helps to keep the internet flowing (at least it pays for good, fresh content and development). It is very capitalistic. 😊 When people spam ad clicks or over abuse the format in other ways, it diminishes the process and hurts the long term model. I believe in supporting sites that I like by visiting their sponsors when I have time. Sometimes I find things I really like. I also respect the sponsors by not clicking on ads that I really am not interested in. Just my 2 cents
76
posted on
05/15/2014 10:30:07 AM PDT
by
FreeAtlanta
(Liberty or Big Government - you can't have both.)
To: txrefugee
What is Congress doing to protect us? Giving them the money to buy the guns.
77
posted on
05/15/2014 10:58:25 AM PDT
by
itsahoot
(Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
To: DoodleDawg
its understandable that they might want to be able to outgun Protect the drug dealers.
78
posted on
05/15/2014 11:09:55 AM PDT
by
itsahoot
(Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
To: Iron Munro
***That could never happen here in the Land Of The Free.***
"We are more civilized than that!"
79
posted on
05/15/2014 2:39:46 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
To: SeekAndFind
80
posted on
05/15/2014 2:49:03 PM PDT
by
Fledermaus
(Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson