Dept of agriculture orders submachine guns with 30 round magazines

page: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
The patriot act is responsible for government departments arming there own police and swat forces. So you can thank GWB for this situation and you can blame Obama and congress for the continuing programs. Seems the government is preparing for war, who do you think the war will be against?


Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Blame Bush eh ?

The 'Patriot Act' was written before ole GW ever got in to office.

Then I suggest looking up CLintons omnibus counter 'terrorism' act in the 90s.

Then go back even further to Carters FISA act of the 70's.



Months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of “terrorism” that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detention of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review.* The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode “constitutional and statutory due process protections” and would “authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and assocLinkiations.”


www.washingtonsblog.com...



The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks


en.wikipedia.org...

Back to the topic.




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

H R 3162 (patriot act) Introduced by Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on Oct 23, 2001.

Passed the House on Oct 24, 2001
Republican 211 yes 3 no
Democrat 145 yes 62 no

Passed the Senate Oct 25, 2001
98 yes 1 no

Signed by GWB on Oct 26, 2001

This law is why the governmental departments have there own police forces, unless you can prove otherwise!
edit on 15-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright Ive seen those soyabeans man!




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear)


Night sights and flashlight attachments.

Very specific requirement if you ask me.

A reasonable set up for shooting vermin at night.

But of course, being as this is ATS, we have to assume the very worst..



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk

Night sights and flashlight attachments.

Very specific requirement if you ask me.

A reasonable set up for shooting vermin at night.

But of course, being as this is ATS, we have to assume the very worst..


The fact that it has tritium night sights and a flashlight attachment doesn't lead me in that direction. Those are common features of defensive handguns.

Its a burst-fire capable submachine gun with a 30 round magazine hanging out the bottom chambered for a short range pistol cartridge. That's a miserable choice for pest control. It seems rather clear to me that this is for traditional law-enforcement purposes by the USDA. Nothing more, nothing less and I don't have any major issue with it.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Is there any federal agency you don't figure needs it's own special weapons assault teams?

I think that's the problem many of us see here. It's not the fact USDA doesn't deal with laws and people don't break them from time to time. It's how many different and stand alone heavily armed units of law enforcement do we want to have?

Police state starts taking on entirely new meanings for truth by sheer economy of scale after a certain point. Behavior doesn't even need to enter into it for the truth of the issue, IMO.

The asses conducting sting operations and armed raids for raw milk don't need automatic weapons to add to their terror potential, IMO. They do fine without the extra hardware. The folks locally who were among the first national examples of raw milk peddlers being brought down by the mighty Feds would agree, I have no doubt.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Don't get me wrong, I think its a valid concern and there's a fine line there somewhere. But on the surface of it, I don't blame USDA investigators for wanting to have more than just a handgun if they think they're walking into a particularly dangerous situation. One thing that might change my mind would be the number they're buying, which is something I haven't seen yet and might be the point where they cross that fine line I mentioned above.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
1. Varmit control - how about 22 plinker?
2. No need - There is no need for all of these agencies to be armed as they are. They were no for decades and now, suddenly, they need it? If there is a land issue, use the BLM or ICE or DHS or list goes on and on..
3. Too keep out of private hands - This is another one I kick around. If you keep something out of the hands of those you want to control, you can.
4. Stockpiles - Yes, but if they are doing that, even for other agencies, there is a reason and it is not the protection of the citizens of the US
5. Government back slapping - Giving a contract to someone is different than spending all of this money, gov't money, on something not needed...

Wake up...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: AlphaHawk

Night sights and flashlight attachments.

Very specific requirement if you ask me.

A reasonable set up for shooting vermin at night.

But of course, being as this is ATS, we have to assume the very worst..


The fact that it has tritium night sights and a flashlight attachment doesn't lead me in that direction. Those are common features of defensive handguns.

Its a burst-fire capable submachine gun with a 30 round magazine hanging out the bottom chambered for a short range pistol cartridge. That's a miserable choice for pest control. It seems rather clear to me that this is for traditional law-enforcement purposes by the USDA. Nothing more, nothing less and I don't have any major issue with it.



It seems like a daily carry upgrade, but it would suck to carry such a beast all the time. It is an interesting setup to say the least. Seems like more a pain than help IMHO.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I definitely wouldn't consider it a daily carry. That *would* be heavy handed, but to have a few of them around that they could take into situations that might be particularly dangerous? Yeah, I tend to lean towards it being reasonable.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

It was discussed elsewhere, but this seems to be a means to arm others, think militant groups outside the US, without the American Public knowing it is funding said groups.


There is no reason for this group, or 80% of the federal agencies to be armed.

Also, the wording of this request is so refined, that the only qualifying firearm that really suits this is the MP5....or maybe the new SIG.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The US Forest Service is under the USDA.

The BLM works hand in hand with the Forest Service.
They both have law enforcement units.
www.thenewamerican.com...
And with the large drug grows on forest service land you have heavy armed drug growers.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Xtrozero

I definitely wouldn't consider it a daily carry. That *would* be heavy handed, but to have a few of them around that they could take into situations that might be particularly dangerous? Yeah, I tend to lean towards it being reasonable.


I guess for me if I needed something bigger than a handgun I'm going shotgun or M4 level. This is not that much over a good handgun.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I am in favor of the right to bear arms. (Knowing that up front is best)

While many folks disagree with me on that stance, I also realize that some things relating to that can be overkill. Why does Joe Bag O' Donuts need an assault rifle with 30 round magazines? No clue, but that's not my issue. My issues is with the US government who wants to dictate what Joe can own while in the same breath owning and stockpiling the same, if not more?

Why dies the Dept of Ag need it? Are we really having a plants vs US threat? While I realize the arm of the Dept of Ag extends beyond Agriculture, I find the mere fact they ask us, as citizens, to refrain from purchasing high capacity magazines and then buying them for themselves. It is one of those things on life that deserve asking questions on.

Do they get kickbacks from gun and gun accessory manufacturers?

Do they think by buying all of them, Joe B cannot?

Do they own stock in said companies?

Is there something we should know about?

The list can go on.

I thank the OP for bringing this to the attention of all of us, but since we, as ATSers, should be focusing our energies on questioning our government because they, the government, do not seem to have any respect for us to tell us the truth.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I guess for me if I needed something bigger than a handgun I'm going shotgun or M4 level. This is not that much over a good handgun.


As would I. Its basically a glorified pistol caliber carbine. That said, I'm guessing that much of what's driving this particular choice is a desire to have ammunition commonality with their handguns.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Why did they order them? Bloody gophers are starting to get on their nerves.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

More likely because the US Forestry Service falls under the US Department of Agriculture. In recent years, there's been a big spike in criminal activity occurring in our national forests, so I can't really blame them for wanting the option of more than a handgun for dealing with those situations.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I love how people see the scariest possibilities, as the most
impossible.

Can someone of power be arming every government dept. and agency,
because they know americans aren't going to give up their weapons easily?

By arming all these different agencies, do the odds of forcefully disarming
americans become better?

After americans were disarmed in such away, from there would it not be
easy to disarm those agencies once again?

Just looking at the possibilities with clearity.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join