T Nation

Hypocrisy: Homeland Security Buys Assault Weapons

Department of Homeland Security to Purchase 7,000 “Assault Weapons”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/28/2013 21:54 -0500

Obama Administration

Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds. I have said repeatedly, and continue to say, that I am against all gun control at the moment because our government is extremely violent and not only do I not expect it to protect the American people in general, I believe it is far more concerned with protecting the status quo from the people. It has become crystal clear that the political and financial oligarchs are quite intentionally attempting to disarm the populace while arming themselves to the teeth in anticipation of some horrible economic event they know is inevitable. From the Blaze:

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO â??personal defense weaponsâ?? (PDW) â?? also known as â??assault weaponsâ?? 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 â??select-fireâ?? firearms because they are â??suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.â?? The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of 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.
See the meme being pushed here? These guys want the entire population completely domesticated. They want us to depend on the government for food. For healthcare. For self-defense. Two sets of laws. One for the â??rulersâ?? and one for the â??ruled.â?? This is the opposite of how things function in a free society.

I am sorry, but unless you think the DHS is preparing for an invasion by Al Qaeda, it is quite clear these weapons are being bought for future use against the citizenry of the United States. The writing on the wall couldnâ??t be clearer.

Without wanting to launch into the larger gun control debate, which has been done to death here–I keep seeing these stories about Homeland buying “assault weapons” and President Obama’s use of armed guards for security. The charge is invariably hypocrisy.

I consider this a very weak argument. There is nothing new about the government permitting itself to own and do things which its citizens are not permitted to own and do. When the federal government bans MPADS from public distribution and use, it is not expected–indeed it would be heavily criticized if it tried–to force the US military to surrender theirs. Likewise, nobody expects an “assault weapons” ban to disarm Homeland or the Marines. Pretending otherwise is just so much wheel-spinning.

There are good arguments against further gun control, in other words, but this isn’t one of them.

Other than buying guns that are probably not worth what they are paying I wonder what they hope to accomplish

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Without wanting to launch into the larger gun control debate, which has been done to death here–I keep seeing these stories about Homeland buying “assault weapons” and President Obama’s use of armed guards for security. The charge is invariably hypocrisy.

I consider this a very weak argument. There is nothing new about the government permitting itself to own and do things which its citizens are not permitted to own and do. When the federal government bans MPADS from public distribution and use, it is not expected–indeed it would be heavily criticized if it tried–to force the US military to surrender theirs. Likewise, nobody expects an “assault weapons” ban to disarm Homeland or the Marines. Pretending otherwise is just so much wheel-spinning.

There are good arguments against further gun control, in other words, but this isn’t one of them.[/quote]

Not sure you read the post. I doubt that it would matter if your did.

You seem determined to assume the role of useful idiot whenever the role and power of the federal government is called into question.

As the article states, these AR15 based weapons are very effective for personal defense. This holds true whether they are held in the hands of a government employ or a private citizen. Yet the President and many Democrats are hell bent on removing them from the hands of citizens, all the while increasing their use in government. If you do not see irony and hypocrisy in this, along with the long term threat to individual liberty, you are beyond reach.

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Without wanting to launch into the larger gun control debate, which has been done to death here–I keep seeing these stories about Homeland buying “assault weapons” and President Obama’s use of armed guards for security. The charge is invariably hypocrisy.

I consider this a very weak argument. There is nothing new about the government permitting itself to own and do things which its citizens are not permitted to own and do. When the federal government bans MPADS from public distribution and use, it is not expected–indeed it would be heavily criticized if it tried–to force the US military to surrender theirs. Likewise, nobody expects an “assault weapons” ban to disarm Homeland or the Marines. Pretending otherwise is just so much wheel-spinning.

There are good arguments against further gun control, in other words, but this isn’t one of them.[/quote]

Not sure you read the post. I doubt that it would matter if your did.

You seem determined to assume the role of useful idiot whenever the role and power of the federal government is called into question.

As the article states, these AR15 based weapons are very effective for personal defense. This holds true whether they are held in the hands of a government employ or a private citizen. Yet the President and many Democrats are hell bent on removing them from the hands of citizens, all the while increasing their use in government. If you do not see irony and hypocrisy in this, along with the long term threat to individual liberty, you are beyond reach. [/quote]

It is a useful weapon for self-defense. That’s a point.

What’s not really a point is, “they are such hypocrites.” For the reasons I explained–namely, that such is the case with a hundred million other items. Such is the case with government. This is the system you live in and it will not change.

Again, while I don’t disagree that they are almost always hypocrites, “I can’t believe that the government is banning us from having these weapons while keeping them for themselves” is simply a weak argument.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Without wanting to launch into the larger gun control debate, which has been done to death here–I keep seeing these stories about Homeland buying “assault weapons” and President Obama’s use of armed guards for security. The charge is invariably hypocrisy.

I consider this a very weak argument. There is nothing new about the government permitting itself to own and do things which its citizens are not permitted to own and do. When the federal government bans MPADS from public distribution and use, it is not expected–indeed it would be heavily criticized if it tried–to force the US military to surrender theirs. Likewise, nobody expects an “assault weapons” ban to disarm Homeland or the Marines. Pretending otherwise is just so much wheel-spinning.

There are good arguments against further gun control, in other words, but this isn’t one of them.[/quote]

Not sure you read the post. I doubt that it would matter if your did.

You seem determined to assume the role of useful idiot whenever the role and power of the federal government is called into question.

As the article states, these AR15 based weapons are very effective for personal defense. This holds true whether they are held in the hands of a government employ or a private citizen. Yet the President and many Democrats are hell bent on removing them from the hands of citizens, all the while increasing their use in government. If you do not see irony and hypocrisy in this, along with the long term threat to individual liberty, you are beyond reach. [/quote]

It is a useful weapon for self-defense. That’s a point.

What’s not really a point is, “they are such hypocrites.” For the reasons I explained–namely, that such is the case with a hundred million other items. Such is the case with government. This is the system you live in and it will not change.

Again, while I don’t disagree that they are almost always hypocrites, “I can’t believe that the government is banning us from having these weapons while keeping them for themselves” is simply a weak argument.[/quote]