DHS: “We can buy assault weapons to protect ourselves; you can’t. Hah-hah!”

Posted by: Phineas on January 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Since the Newtown school massacre, there have been renewed calls for bans on so-called “assault rifles.” There was a march in D.C. this last weekend, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Nannystate) introduced legislation to ban all sorts of weapons, mostly based on cosmetic factors that scare lefties, but make no difference in the weapon’s lethality. One of the most common arguments made is that you “just don’t need” such a weapon to defend yourself. (1)

But those are the rules for peasants such you and me. If you work for the Department of Homeland Security, well, that’s different:

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.

Let’s keep this straight, shall we? When you want an AR-15 for home defense, you’re a dangerous, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Bible and Constitution (and wife) beating radical who finds his manhood enhanced by getting your hands on an “assault weapon.” And should you want a magazine that holds ten or more rounds… You’re just fantasizing about shooting up a mall, aren’t you?

But, when the DHS wants its agents to have similar weapons… Those aren’t “assault weapons,” silly! Those are for “personal defense!” And, unlike you, they really do need high-capacity magazines! Ten rounds? Bah! Let’s go for 30! And the option for full auto-fire!

Why? Well… because, it’s not the same thing, you bitter-clinger!

In all seriousness, I have no problem with DHS buying weapons for its agents’ personal defense; they do dangerous work in the service of the nation. But shouldn’t ordinary, law-abiding Americans have the right to make the same choices for themselves and their families?

Scratch that. It’s not “have the right,” which implies a debatable question or request. No, Americans have that right as an inalienable natural right that preexists government, and the Second Amendment is a recognition of that right, not a grant.

So, if the managers of DHS can decide that they and their people need these weapons for their personal defense, shouldn’t the government acknowledge that individuals have that same right?

via John Kass

Footnote:
(1) With the usually unspoken corollary: “And you don’t get to make that choice for yourself, either.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

5 Responses to “DHS: “We can buy assault weapons to protect ourselves; you can’t. Hah-hah!””

Comments

  1. Libertarian Advocate says:

    Phineas:

    Point of order. The firearms DHS seeks to purchase are “Select Fire” meaning that they by definition can be fired in either fully automatic mode or “3 shot burst fire” or plain vanilla semi-automatic mode. The vast majority of civilian “black rifle” owners in this country own and shoot semi-automatic capable rifles only. The only similarities between those civilian rifles and military class “select-Fire” weapons are purely cosmetic features – principally pistol grips and collapsible stocks – that have no bearing whatsoever on the operation of the rifles themselves and CANNOT (not-withstanding Diane Feinstein’s bold faced lies to the contrary) be easily converted to fully automatic function.

    That our legislators have adopted the menacing “Assault Weapon” moniker for our hobbled civilian class rifles while our executive branch agencies define fully automatic capable military grade rifles as “personal defensive weapons” is a truly perverse irony.

  2. Phineas says:

    The firearms DHS seeks to purchase are “Select Fire” meaning that they by definition can be fired in either fully automatic mode or “3 shot burst fire” or plain vanilla semi-automatic mode. The vast majority of “black rifle” owners in this country own and shoot semi-automatic capable rifles only.

    Right. Which is why I wrote “similar weapons,” not “same weapons.”

    That our legislators have adopted the menacing “Assault Weapon” moniker for our hobbled civilian class rifles while our executive branch agencies define fully automatic capable military grade rifles as “personal defensive weapons” is a truly perverse irony.

    I think of it as either ignorance or dishonesty, depending on the government droid in question. :)

  3. Libertarian Advocate says:

    I think of it as either ignorance or dishonesty, depending on the government droid in question

    I suggest this third alternative: At this point they ALL delight in rubbing our noses in their fetid corruption and abuses of power.

  4. Drew the Infidel says:

    When it comes to my personal protection, I’ll be the judge of what fits my circumstances and methodology, not some bureaucrat with his round a*s stuck in a square office somewhere who does not know me (or my situation) from Adam’s dog. With a weapon, we are citizens; without them we are subjects.

    Historical footnote: During WWII the Japanese high command entertained the notion of an amphibious assault on the West Coast. Admirial Yamamoto warned, “There will be a gun behind every blade of grass.” They opted for Pearl Harbor instead, after which he warned, “I fear we wake a sleeping giant.” They should have listened to him twice, not once.