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

Aug 20, 2009
12,824
7,899
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
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

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.
 

pong12211

Bronze Member
Jan 5, 2013
2,487
947
North central Pa.
Detector(s) used
Garrett at pro/Garrett pro pointer
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Why do we need them when we have the government to keep us safe LOL... Example, Mr. intruder please wait there just a few minutes i'm going to call the DHS and alert them i'm in trouble so they can come to my rescue.. What you won't wait.. Oh well that's a problem...
 

0121stockpicker

Silver Member
Aug 3, 2012
3,351
685
MA
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
Red James cash said:
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

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.

Should citizens be allowed to have any weapon being used by the police, FBI, dhs, army, navy, Air Force - you get the picture. Seems like a strange argument. Or do you believe if the assault weapons ban is put back in place them the military should also forfeit its similar weapons.
 

OP
OP
Red James Cash
Aug 20, 2009
12,824
7,899
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
DHS is far from being military.How many socalled terrorists have DHS captured?
 

tlowery04

Sr. Member
Apr 29, 2011
413
117
Cashion Oklahoma
Detector(s) used
White Eagle II, Minelab ETrac
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
lol every time i hear dhs i think Department of Health and Safety.

I would say that number one, as a gov of for and by the people there are people within its body who, like us, would rather get them now, and find a reason to get them, before the ban. It may make it easier also for a few of them to go missing some day if the guy who ordered them intends to quit.

should assault weapons be banned, then only criminals will have assault weapons. If only criminals have assault weapons, then you need to both match par and step up, ordering full auto weapons for a well armed police state... err... law enforcement agency, only makes sense. They obviously will have to train their employees to spray and pray instead of taking a single well aimed shot.
 

dimedigger

Full Member
Jan 25, 2013
155
27
waccamaw
Detector(s) used
BH pioneer ex
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
because they want to sell them to mexican drug lords
 

OP
OP
Red James Cash
Aug 20, 2009
12,824
7,899
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
because they want to sell them to mexican drug lords

I think the ATF was in charge of that,then the ATF could turn around and blame it on the gunshops close to the mexican border:laughing9:
 

jerseyben

Gold Member
Nov 18, 2010
5,165
2,176
NJ Pine Barrens
Detector(s) used
T2 SE
Primary Interest:
Other
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

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.

snopes.com: Social Security administration Ammunition Purchase

I'm surprised your post didn't say something like: "If you like Obama so much, why don't you just marry him". :laughing7:
 

worldtalker

Gold Member
May 11, 2011
21,042
29,091
Western Mass.
Detector(s) used
XP Deus
Primary Interest:
Other
So many BITTER people. RJC,glad to see you made the 'list',oh ya,what about all the 9mm hollow points purchased that left the PD's short? Something stinks,and is starting to smell real BAD!!
 

onfire

Silver Member
Nov 30, 2004
2,677
1,336
Wisconsin
Detector(s) used
250 2500
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Did all those do gooders who dumped there investments (School pension funds) in gun manufacturers jump the gun? Just another smart move.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top