DHS places and order for 7k select-fire rifles for personal defense

[pr_capone]

On 7 June 2012, the Department of Homeland security drew up a proposal to purchase 7k select-fire rifles in a 5.56x45mm caliber. In that proposal, the rifles are described as follows:

"DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required." (Section C(PDW)ver 7.pdf - available in the below link)

Suitable for personal defense in close quarters or maximum concealment, eh? Sounds like a kind of situation one might encounter in their own home and faced with an intruder.

It seems as if in the eyes of the government these are select-fire personal defense tools in the hands of one of their agents. In the hands of a good law abiding citizens they are semi-automatic assault rifle mass killing machines.

Link:

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0

[Direckshun]

Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

Well it sure as **** wasn't for hunting as your bitch boys in the WH want to keep implying

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

Text of the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

so if the militia isn't made up of private citizens then who???

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

mi·li·tia

/məˈliSHə/





Noun




1.A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2.A military force that engages in rebel activities.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

so if the militia isn't made up of private citizens then who???

A police force and a military force.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

A police force and a military force.

No dumbass, that would the military or police. My God man, you don't even know WTF a Miliita is!

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This is a good post.

I advocate lots of different measures of gun control -- many of which were instituted by the President. My personal preferences against semiautos would be to reduce mass shootings.

As for your question... I would say that if we are going to permit semiautos at all (which, of course, we are), then home defense is obviously a defensible type of use for them.

I'm glad you saw it that way.

I am in complete and total agreement that there needs to be stricter gun control. In looking through the list when it first came out... I would like clarification on a few points but overall I have no problems with the 23 edicts.

I strongly believe that there is one point that needs to be addressed and that is education. When the 2nd was penned, fathers would teach their kids about gun safety and marksmanship. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Now... anyone regardless of their level of knowledge can pick up a gun and ammo without knowing the first thing about it's safe use and storage. This is a far more dangerous situation for everyone than a trained and responsible individual keeping a semi auto rifle.

Where I draw the line of what is acceptable (to me) in terms of gun control:

* forcing me to register individual weapons with the authorities (there is no need for them to have an elaborate database detailing what type/caliber guns they have)
* limiting magazine capacity (I believe you and I will heavily disagree here)
* banning semi-auto rifles/handguns
* confiscation of said guns (ala Sen. Feinstein's interview about Mr. and Mrs. America turning in their guns)

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oh man, let's not get into what we think the 2nd amendment actually prescribes as written in the Constitution.

I don't think it's for private citizens to band together into a militia to supplement the state's law enforcement.

Actually... that is exactly what it means.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Where I draw the line of what is acceptable (to me) in terms of gun control:

* forcing me to register individual weapons with the authorities (there is no need for them to have an elaborate database detailing what type/caliber guns they have)
* limiting magazine capacity (I believe you and I will heavily disagree here)
* banning semi-auto rifles/handguns
* confiscation of said guns (ala Sen. Feinstein's interview about Mr. and Mrs. America turning in their guns)

Sign me up on your team!

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Actually... that is exactly what it means.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Dude, he doesn't even know what a Militia is...how do you expect him to comprehend this?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I'm glad you saw it that way.

I am in complete and total agreement that there needs to be stricter gun control. In looking through the list when it first came out... I would like clarification on a few points but overall I have no problems with the 23 edicts.

I strongly believe that there is one point that needs to be addressed and that is education. When the 2nd was penned, fathers would teach their kids about gun safety and marksmanship. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Now... anyone regardless of their level of knowledge can pick up a gun and ammo without knowing the first thing about it's safe use and storage. This is a far more dangerous situation for everyone than a trained and responsible individual keeping a semi auto rifle.

Where I draw the line of what is acceptable (to me) in terms of gun control:

* forcing me to register individual weapons with the authorities (there is no need for them to have an elaborate database detailing what type/caliber guns they have)
* limiting magazine capacity (I believe you and I will heavily disagree here)
* banning semi-auto rifles/handguns
* confiscation of said guns (ala Sen. Feinstein's interview about Mr. and Mrs. America turning in their guns)

Let's get to that list really quick, or at least the first item on it (we can save ourselves a debate over magazine size as I've already had it a few times, nobody is suggesting the semi-auto ban I'd prefer, and nobody is proposing a buyback).

A database on guns would actually point us to the small percentage of gun retailers that are derelict/negligent/criminal in their responsibility to sell guns to responsible citizens.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

so if the militia isn't made up of private citizens then who???

Notice the words "well regulated".

Also the framers gave the President and Congress ultimate authority over the militia.

The framers in Philadelphia gave Congress and the president shared responsibility for the ultimate control of the militia. They also gave state governments important responsibilities and powers in organizing and training militias, while at the same time taking ultimate authority from the states.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power to "declare War," "to raise and support Armies,"to "maintain a Navy," to make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." Furthermore, Article I declares that the states may not "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace." Article II makes the president of the United States the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" and "of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." These provisions also contain two important limitations. Congress can only appropriate money for the military for two years,and the states retain the power to appoint all militia officers and to train the militia, provided this training complies with "the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Taken together, these provisions contemplated two levels of military protection for the new nation: (1) a national army created and governed solely by Congress and ultimately under the authority of the president in his capacity as commander in chief, and (2) a system of state militias, essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to "federalization" at the command of the president. Part of that regulation included the idea that the national government had the power and the obligation to provide arms for the local militias. As Rufus King explained at the Convention, "arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury." Thus, the defense of the United States would rely on both the state militias and the standing army.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Notice the words "well regulated".

Also the framers gave the President and Congress ultimate authority over the militia.

I don't know what that has to do with any point I made about the 2nd not being about hunting or personal self-defense?

[scott free]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't see any conceivable difference between a semiauto and a grenade launcher in this scenario. Please delineate the material difference as to make my comparison obsolete.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I don't know what that has to do with any point I made about the 2nd not being about hunting or personal self-defense?

edit: nevermind