If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’ 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. If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’? | TheBlaze.com PDW is a short barreled full auto weapon. Usually PDWs are chambered in SMG calibers, but these are 5.56x45. Excluding what Ms Incompetano's thugs already have just what the heck does DHS need 7000 of these for?
Just another stockpilling of weapons for when the move to clamp down on the American people's rights and declare marshall law. Uncle Joe would just think it was a great idea!!
Y'all really like getting my blood pressure up and getting me on a rant don't ya! I read about this last week. It's all BS politics and about control. Politicians, various 3 letter agencys people active and retired, police active and retired, would be allowed possession of these weapons for self defense and personal protection. Why not retired Military
crap hit post before I meant to. . As to retired Military, I for one (I am sure there are many others), passed an in depth background investigation, held a top secret security clearance, was trained and held a mos for a nuclear delivery system, and was cleared to man that system and push the fire button if it came to that. Why the hell should I be denied ownership of any lesser weapon? Can one third of those clowns in the upper and lower houses of congress pass similiar background checks? . The reason that Retired Military was not included in the permission to own such weapons as discussed above is we are too conservative, and in the eyes and minds of Demoncrats, we are a threat to them.
Vets don't want "assault weapons", they want defense weapons equal to those held by the potential enemies at the gate. At least that's how I classify what's in the cabinet.
For the same reason the police "need" beltfed .50bmg machine guns mounted on Bearcat armored cars. All the better to opress the "subjects". Every day I pray there are enough "citizens" who will resist.
As was mentioned in other comments, they need them because some of us won't get in the boxcars willingly.
More for the ones they have to dig out, my friend. As it handles faster than the AK in close quarters, the Uzi was instrumental in dislodging the Syrians from the bunkers on the Golan Heights.
EASY, SO EASY to answer. IF they purchase 7000 or 70,000, then that is just another way to keep the supply from the american people and use the purchase power to influnce the Politicians in those areas of production.
