DHS wants 7,000 AR-15s

Originally posted by Dekard1138

I ran into an old friend a few weeks back....he ran into a national gaurd unit in the south. talking to one of them..he was told that the military is prepping for another war and that you should start gathering supplies now!

With all the millitary activity the US "defence" force is involved in, how could anyone tell the difference? Is it because they are stockpiling in the US? If that is the case then it is probably because they want to use in in the US.

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by Dekard1138
US military can not be used on US soil against citizens....unless of civil war.

Lincoln suspended posse comitatus, and Clinton tried during his administration to be blocked by Senator Bob Barr of Georgia and an avalanche of informed citizens alerting Congress to Clinton's attempt by EO to suspend posse comitatus.

However, your scenario is a plausible one.

edit on 27-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)

The NDAA effectively declares martial law in the U.S. by declaring that America is a battlefield in the war on terror.

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 NDAA PDF
www.lawfareblog.com...

Moved to conspiracy theory huh? This is conspiracy fact! Just like the 1.4 billion rounds of ammo they have contracted for.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC

The NDAA effectively declares martial law in the U.S. by declaring that America is a battlefield in the war on terror.

Exactly!

Some people fail to realize the significance of NDAA and the many power grabs we've seen. It will come back to bite us all in the arse soon enough. If this most recent procurement isn't a red flag I'm not sure what would be.

This is called a double-standard. What is happening, in my opinion, is the government is trying to enforce a national moral code that is unstable when applied but they hold as an ideal. Since it is unstable, it will result in a lot of people who end up frustrated, and the government will need to be able to out-gun them in order to prove to themselves that they are, in fact, superior in mindset.

Originally posted by darkbake
This is called a double-standard. What is happening, in my opinion, is the government is trying to enforce a national moral code that is unstable when applied but they hold as an ideal. Since it is unstable, it will result in a lot of people who end up frustrated, and the government will need to be able to out-gun them in order to prove to themselves that they are, in fact, superior in mindset.

edit on 27-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

You may be right.
Let's hope it doesn't get too bloody

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Half full type of guy............Hey?

Well, yeah! Ya gotta be optimistic about something, and that's what I decided I was going to be optimistic about! I mean, if "assault weapons" are to be outlawed, and they're going to take Roger's away, who's going to take theirs?

That would be folks like us...

Outlawed is outlawed, and fair is fair. If they think folks ought to give them up, then they should start first, and set an example. If they think they can just come take them, well, that's starting first and setting an example too, right?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by bjax9er

i guess select fire (full auto) is good for DHSs' personal defense, but semi-auto is just way to much for we the peoples' personal defense.

theblaze.co m

Breaking news...US Military requests Nuclear Weapons!!! Damn...I guess it's OK for them but not for us!

There is a legitimate argument to be made by gun-rights advocates, but the premise that civilians should be privy to any and all arms that our police and army has is a logical non-starter. It makes no sense.

Can you expand upon your thoughts for why you believe someone else should be better armed than you, and able to be your Lord and Master by virtue of their greater armament?

In all honesty, though, a mere 7,000 rifles and a few million bullets don't worry me all that much. On their second day out, after folks get over the shock of their first day out, they'd get spanked hard and have their toys taken away and put in more capable hands.

The Dept. of HomeLand Insecurity's 7,000 AR-15's will be useless if China attacks.

President Obama sold China our LRAD military sound weapon technology. China can use that and put everyone in a building out of commission long before they are in range of the pesky little .223 bullet those rifles shoot.

Those Rifles will be useless to DHS. China's probably cranking out LRAD copy's in high numbers and they'll be able to push through America at break-neck speeds.

The AR-15 is an under powered piece of crap that poops where it eats. It's poor design will plug itself up quick in a civilians hands that doesn't know the rifle poops where it eats and needs special cleaning tactics as well NOT to use heavy lubricants that will collect all the carbon from it pooping where it eats.

Did I mention the AR-15 is a piece of crap that poops where it eats? The US Army never wanted that design...America got stuck with it because of 1 US Air Force General....and we've been stuck with that poor design ever since.

well, might as well get me an m-1 garrand. 30 .06, semi automatic, eight round bandoleers, bayonet capeable, you can pour sand in the action, put a bandoleer in, and it won't skip a beat.

reply to post by bjax9er

they need the ARs for personal defense against criminals, or so they say..

Yeah, and everyone knows that armed criminals only ever attack DHS people, and not anyone else.

(sarcasm)

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by bjax9er

 

I listened to Diane Feinstein this morning and she was calling for Russia and China to join forces against the war on terror aka the gun ban in America, scary stuff. This abolishes the 4th.

She also talked about the Grandfather clause for some home weapons used for hunting, home protection and sport, but that as these weapons are handed down to future generations those individuals would have to be OKed by the Gov. before taking possession...

edit on 27-1-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)

I wouldn't worry about what that corrupt old witch says.

She's been caught dealing under the table to give her husbands firm government contracts.

She's not going to cause any more trouble.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by solomons path

 

I don't see how people can't see that they are "gearing up" for something? Or that this latest attempt to strip our freedoms isn't related to everything else going on. As if Sandy Hook existed in vacuum. They get to upgrade to full auto SBR's and we get downgraded to bolt-action long rifles . . . quaint.

Some people are fine with the government and the police being in the 21st century while we are regulated to the 18th century.

Finally!!!...This has been my biggest issue with everyone saying "civilians" don't need "assault weapons". This HAS and IS the governments goal in gun control. Whats next? Are we going to be restricted to black powder muskets next?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Can you expand upon your thoughts for why you believe someone else should be better armed than you, and able to be your Lord and Master by virtue of their greater armament?

How many guns someone owns or the size of thier arsenal does not determine thier status in society. Otherwise...just cuz someone has gun, does not make them a "Lord and Master".

If you would like to live in a Country better suited to that fantasy, move to Somalia.

For well over a century the US Military has had arms technology that grossly exceeeded civilian arms, from fighter jets to nuclear weapons...and yet Tyranny has never taken hold and we remain the greatest democracy on the planet.

Again...there is a strong case to made by gun-rights advocates. A case centered on research, statistics...reality...but the argument that somehow civlians should be privy to all arms that the US gov. owns fails rational thought...and I would add that the "Alex Jones" of the world are doing a dis-service to gun rights advocates, because crazy is easy to dismiss.

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

I don't think citizens with the kind of large scale military weapons is right.

IF they do not assume the role of a domestic police force...if they do, the public have the right to match what may be used against them.

The idea of a well armed citizenry is to police the police, and police the goobermint.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by the4thhorseman

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by solomons path

 

I don't see how people can't see that they are "gearing up" for something? Or that this latest attempt to strip our freedoms isn't related to everything else going on. As if Sandy Hook existed in vacuum. They get to upgrade to full auto SBR's and we get downgraded to bolt-action long rifles . . . quaint.

Some people are fine with the government and the police being in the 21st century while we are regulated to the 18th century.

Finally!!!...This has been my biggest issue with everyone saying "civilians" don't need "assault weapons". This HAS and IS the governments goal in gun control. Whats next? Are we going to be restricted to black powder muskets next?

The goobermint doesn't want the citizens to have muskets either. Totalitarians want a totally disarmed and brainwashed country of blindly obedient slaves to the State.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp


YES! EXACTLY!
I've been trying to get this message out over a number of boards I participate in.

It isn't about "Gun Control". It's about TOTAL CONTROL.

Gun control is just another step toward achieving that end.

TOTAL CONTROL is the end game.

I'd be curious to know how many people who support the right to bear arms unconditionally are also against the right for sovereign nations to arm themselves, such as Iran and North Korea with nukes.

Somehow I think there would be a hypocritical correlation there.

That being said, our 2nd amendment does give us the right to bear arms. I just think there needs to be a bit of common sense with what that implies. You know, kind of like you're not allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by nenothtu

Can you expand upon your thoughts for why you believe someone else should be better armed than you, and able to be your Lord and Master by virtue of their greater armament?

How many guns someone owns or the size of thier arsenal does not determine thier status in society. Otherwise...just cuz someone has gun, does not make them a "Lord and Master".

If you would like to live in a Country better suited to that fantasy, move to Somalia.

For well over a century the US Military has had arms technology that grossly exceeeded civilian arms, from fighter jets to nuclear weapons...and yet Tyranny has never taken hold and we remain the greatest democracy on the planet.

Again...there is a strong case to made by gun-rights advocates. A case centered on research, statistics...reality...but the argument that somehow civlians should be privy to all arms that the US gov. owns fails rational thought...and I would add that the "Alex Jones" of the world are doing a dis-service to gun rights advocates, because crazy is easy to dismiss.

edit on 28-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

You have to be one of the most well grounded posters on this forum.
Whenever I stumble across your posts I always find myself agreeing with you.
Keep it up.

Originally posted by xEphon
I'd be curious to know how many people who support the right to bear arms unconditionally are also against the right for sovereign nations to arm themselves, such as Iran and North Korea with nukes.

Somehow I think there would be a hypocritical correlation there.

That being said, our 2nd amendment does give us the right to bear arms. I just think there needs to be a bit of common sense with what that implies. You know, kind of like you're not allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater.

Anti-gunner's always bring this up . . . or any other right (to choose, etc), when trying to "make a case". You need to seperate yourself and this country's citizens from political rhetoric. Our government is the one who wants to deny other countries the right to defend themselves (Dems too!), not the outcry of our citizens. This has nothing to do with our Constitution or the free people of this country. How is it hypocrisy if our gov wants to disarm the citizens of this country and another country? Seems pretty consistant to me.

For the record, if we are making this a "personal choice" issue and not a legal one backed by intent and precedent . . . I feel it's none of our gov's business how other countries defend themselves. That is the purpose of a standing Army, to defend against these other countries, not to police the world or conquer through neo-imperialism.