Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

Question

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

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 “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. 

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 “rulers” and one for the “ruled.”  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 couldn’t be clearer.

vangion · Accepted Answer

S, you are wrong

Assault rifles were never banned under Reagan. In fact they were easily obtainable and fairly affordable.

In 1984 an M16 cost about $1200 and a Sten was $350.
The defacto ban, by banning new importation and manufacture, came under Clinton


And to the guy that keeps posting telling us to stop asking stupid questions and write our congressmen

***** Please, who do you think is responsible for approving these gun acquisitions by the alphabets
acquisitions The time of pleading with our masters for some crumbs of human dignity is quickly passing , if not already in the rearview. The time for taking the third box to the rooftops is qucikly approaching and questions like these alert the complacent

who WAS #1? · Answer

I am no fan of Big Government but let's be real and run the #s: 7,000 means 140 per State.  
Who knows how old the existing inventory is.  The things do wear out you know.
And since it is DHS buying them, they go to National Guard, Coast Guard, FBI, local police depts &etc.  140 per State doesn't seem too scary.

As for disarming the public: that is not going to happen because We The People will not allow it.

? · Answer

I know that you should never answer a question with a question but this is the best thing I can come up with.  Do you need a spare tire in your car?  The answer is no, unless you need one.  I'm not a "prepper" or a conspiracy theorist and I don't live in fear.  The truth is, no one knows what tomorrow will bring.  Do I need an "assault rifle" at this particular moment?  No.  Might I need one tomorrow?  I have no idea but if I do, I'll have a few...  And then who will considered the nut?

? · Answer

They don't. Even under Reagan, assault rifles were banned. It is very hard for civilians to acquire military grade weapons. However, military-style aka semi-automatic weaponry, such as the AR-15, is still legal for the common citizen. Semi-automatic weapons are much more ideal for self-defense and/or hunting purposes. No one needs an automatic killing machine, but no one should be deprived of their own safety.

And to anyone who says a simple hand-gun will suffice or even a 2-shot shotgun, they've obviously had a very sheltered life. Many crimes happen with groups of criminals. I was robbed by 6 men who broke down the door to my apartment and binded me with the plastic packaging string. It was not fun waiting for hours wondering if anyone knew what kind of a situation I was in. Thank goodness I was still alive and they just took all my stuff. Because stuff is just stuff, but I am thankful that I and no one else was truly hurt.

dca2003311@yahoo.com · Answer

* No Guns = No Life, No Liberty or Freedom in America.*... " Anyone who wants Life, Liberty and Freedom must have a Gun to Defend it, Protect it, Achieve it, Preserve it, or Restore it."..." Only a Criminal, Tyrant, or a Tyrannical Federal, State, County, or Local Government fears and is afraid of the Armed American Citizenry."..." Guns are what Life, Freedom and Liberty are derived from and held onto with; not the Ballot Box."...The Strength of the U. S. Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each Citizen to Defend it...* Only if every single Citizen feels it Duty bound to do his share in the Defense are our Constitutional Rights secure.*...

Desert Rogue · Answer

Time to stop asking stupid questions about about a gun ban and start working to make it NOT happen by writing letters and making some calls to your hired help in washington.
Join NAGR, GOA, or NRA or all three if you can

Bailey · Answer

Im Guessing For Protection .. our World o.O

SpartanCanuck · Answer

>> See the meme being pushed here?

I see the one you're pushing, yes, and the irony is delicious.  False dichotomy. Nonsequiter. Slippery slope fallacy. All emotionally charged and such. You're attempting to control others through fear.

What was that about hypocrisy knowing no bounds?

Edit: Personally, I suspect that US Federal government agencies might've had rather more than 7,000 select-fire rifles to begin with, and that maybe, just maybe, an increase of well under 1% might not be worth soiling one's diapers over.

? · Answer

Plinking, hunting, home defense, competitions, and they make a great Investment!

? · Answer

Rights are not justified by needs

Trending News

Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

12 Answers