So, why is the USDA requesting to buy submachine guns?

posted at 4:01 pm on May 16, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Yep. That’s a thing, according to a report from Breitbart:

A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks “the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W.”

According to the solicitation, the Dept. of Agriculture wants the guns to have an “ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding,” and a “30 rd. capacity” magazine.

They also want the submachine guns to have a “sling,” be “lightweight,” and have an “oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.”

The solicitation is from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General, and another of their solicitations submitted on the same day (May 7th) is looking for the “commerical acquisition of ballist vests, compliant with NIJ 0101.06 for Level IIIA Ballistic Resistance of body armor… Body armor is gender specific, lightweight, trauma plate/pad (hard or soft), concealable carrier, tactical vest, undergarment (white), identification patches, accessories (6 pouches), body armor carry bag, and professional measurements.”

I might mention that I find it rather galling that an administration that would prefer to remove “high-capacity” gun magazines from the reach of the common citizen also sees fit to equip one of its most innocuous of bureaucratic arms with what it also deems “military-style weapons,” not to mention the monetary expense to taxpayers — but this apparently is not a new thing (a bunch of various IG offices employ armed special agents with law enforcement powers), and as Matt Welch at Reason aptly notes:

So how did an internal government watchdog turn into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens? Because of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which amended the IG Act to grant inspectors “full law enforcement authority to carry firearms, make arrests and execute search warrants.” The law was sponsored by then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), passed with a heavily Republican majority (207-10 in favor, versus 88-110 among Democrats), passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (90-9, with no Republicans voting against), and then signed into law by President George W. Bush. The blunt truth is that after 9/11, a vast majority of elected conservatives want to arm the bejeebus out of the feds, with little or no deliberation about long-term consequences.

Here’s the USDA’s justification, via Politico:

USDA responded to POLITICO by explaining that there are more than 100 agents employed by the law enforcement division of the department’s Office of the Inspector General who carry such weapons because they are involved in the investigation of criminal activities, including fraud, theft of government property, bribery, extortion, smuggling and assaults on employees. From fiscal 2012 through March 2014, OIG investigations pertaining to USDA operations have netted more than 2,000 indictments, 1,350 convictions and over $460 million in monetary results, the OIG told POLITICO in a subsequent email.

Machine guns, though? What the heck is that about? I must say, though, that I’m pretty much with Matt Welch on this one — if the GOP is genuinely interested in walking back some of the federal government’s police powers that the party largely granted, it’s time to get to drafting some legislation to reverse the 2002 amendment and presenting their money-saving and state-slimming case. I’d be interested to know how the Obama administration would receive such tidings.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

note the date on this

USDA, FDA, DHS AND FBI JOIN STATES AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO PROTECT NATION’S FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SUPPLY FROM AGROTERRORISM
WASHINGTON, July 26, 2005 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) today announced a new collaboration with states and private industry to protect the nation’s food supply from terrorist threats.

“Ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply is a top priority for President Bush and USDA,” said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. “This partnership demonstrates our commitment as government and the private sector work together to protect our agricultural commodities from terrorism. We look forward to working with our partners.”

The Strategic Partnership Program Agroterrorism (SPPA) Initiative supports President Bush’s requirements directing the government to work closely with states and industry to secure the nation’s food supply. Announced today at the Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council meeting, four pilot visits will be conducted in September and October. The purpose of these visits is to assess and identify vulnerabilities in the agriculture and food sectors.

“As one of the lead federal agencies charged with protecting our nation’s food supply, the FDA fully supports this initiative encouraging a closer working relationship with our partners in federal and state government, as well as the private sector to make the nation’s food even safer,” said FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester Crawford. “This partnership brings together all of the organizations that have the best knowledge and abilities in safeguarding the food we eat starting from the farm all the way to our kitchen tables.”

Not everything that happens is an evil plot hatched by Obeyme and his minions to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!

JannyMae on May 16, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Murphy9, RIA makes a 1911 in .38 super for less than 500 if you look around. Taurus’s almost 1911 is available in .38 super for a about 600 to 650. Philippine or Brazil, they both go bang reliably.

Mini-14 on May 16, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Why does anyone think that the USDA being involved in their own law enforcement activities is okay in any capacity? We should not be empowering the USDAs OIG to have law enforcement capacity much less a military capacity. This should strictly be the realm of federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI only.

paulsur on May 16, 2014 at 10:26 PM

The problem is that would require the people that run these US Government agencies to be responsible, practical, logical, ethical and sane.

Wallythedog on May 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM

I wasn’t saying whether or not they needed them, or if they should have weapons of any type. They probably need them though for raiding raw milk farms and such.

My search query was to see whether or not this was something new, and it reveals that this USDA activity started well before the Obama administration.

But you didn’t address the main question…why does the U.S. Department of Agriculture need sub-machine guns?

Pistols for certain of their agents I can maybe understand, but one would think that if they needed something heavier, they’d get an agency like the FBI, ATF, DHS, or even local LE SWAT to assist them.

And we know that these various departments have indeed been making such purchases of weapons and ammo for many years.

You may be right, but it is very suspicious to some of us.

One possibility is that they’re doing a gun/ammo laundering scheme where this stuff ends up in the hands of certain groups…like Al-Qaeda in Syria for example.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 16, 2014 at 10:30 PM

timinnc on May 16, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Stuart Alexander disagrees:
Thomas Quadpos and Jean Hillery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, and Bill Shaline and Earl Willis from the State of California made up the four-member inspection team.

Stuart Alexander, whoever he is, can bite me. Not to detract from their service, but those guys, God bless them, were,
a) Not Special Agents
b) Not law enforcement officers
c) Not armed
d) Which is why they were “mowed down” and not in a “gunfight,” which generally requires two sides, both with guns.
There are USDA law enforcement people – Forest Service – on the National Law Enforcement Memorial. Another one and his dog just got killed last month. Nobody from FDA or the OIG.
Read more carefully, Stuart.

mongoose on May 17, 2014 at 12:15 AM

You know, I think it would be a lot better for everyone involved if, rather than have the government ‘protecting’ all of us citizens from whatever… We were to protect the government.

Or not.

trigon on May 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM

So how did an internal government watchdog turn into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens? Because of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which amended the IG Act to grant inspectors “full law enforcement authority to carry firearms, make arrests and execute search warrants.”

Another good example of what should be the first question asked (and answered) about any legislation:
If the government is in the hands of the “other side”, what will they do with this power?

To be fair, I’m not sure the Republicans in 2002 would have expected the Democrats in 2009 to be quite so blatantly tyrannical.

AesopFan on May 17, 2014 at 3:06 AM

If you let me, I’ll explain what happened. I was in police work during this time.

1. Why are the feds “arming up” at what seems to be an alarming rate.

The answer goes back to 9/11. It became frighteningly apparent to the government that it could not protect itself from an concentrated attacks at multiple locations. Not enough armed feds. Not enough trained feds. It was so bad that when one of our guys went to the FBI back in the nineties, he found himself being handed the ONLY shotgun they had when the unit he was assigned to had to serve a rare warrant. He asked why the rookie agent was on point and was told by the senior agents “Nobody here knows how to do it!”

So they reacted by passing laws and rules to encourage every element in the government to have an armed force. Good idea/bad idea, that is an argument that we can have. I tend to think arming up people who won’t practice or will overuse the tools in order to justify them is a bad idea. All the USDA armed units will be are walking armories that will have their stuff taken IF something goes bad. Leave the shooting to the shooters.

2. The government is also trying to get police forces to up-armor themselves. I’ve seen the new weapons offered in some cases, and it is military grade stuff. Does a patrolman NEED a tricked out AR with an Aimpoint for his normal duties? No. Until he does.

Sadly, when you give civilian police officers a military weapon they will misuse it more often then not. As a friend told me once, “If you give someone a hammer, everything becomes a nail.” The shooting in Miami is a classic example. There is NO justification for 377 rounds being fired at two unarmed men in a car. None. That is NOT the function of the police. Their duty is to apprehend the suspect and get him into a jail where he can eventually have his day in court. Not shoot him to death and his unarmed, uninvolved passenger. But give enough bullets to anyone amped up and they will pull the trigger- a lot.

Everyone thinks that the up-armor is “They are getting ready to go after my cause” but it really isn’t that simple. No doubt the agencies are worried about something. That something can range from a huge disaster like Katrina or a major earthquake to a grid shutdown over half the US, or civil unrest when the checks quit coming and the EBTs are cut. Eventually, it there will be an event, and this time the government wants enough tools to make sure it can contain it.

We can argue whether or not they should have that power, or the inevitable abuse that comes with it is worth the power, but that is why you are seeing this huge effort to buy arms, bullets and vests.

Big government lives to keep big government alive and the people in it secure. It acts like a beast, with its own self-interest at heart, and it will not succumb easily. It will tax you, regulate you and eventually confront you, thinking it has that right because it is more important than you. History is full of similar examples.

archer52 on May 17, 2014 at 4:48 AM

I’m not sure the Republicans in 2002 would have expected the Democrats in 2009 to be quite so blatantly tyrannical.

AesopFan on May 17, 2014 at 3:06 AM

An obvious lesson: Never legitimize power for one admin you wouldn’t trust another (bad case scenario) admin to have.

petefrt on May 17, 2014 at 6:04 AM

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

That is how you go from simply doing inspections and issuing citations to SMGs. Add in politicians wanting government to do ‘more things’ to ‘help’ people and the result is inevitable.

ajacksonian on May 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM

So how did an internal government watchdog turn into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens?

Why do you ask, comrade?

farsighted on May 17, 2014 at 7:24 AM

The bigger question is why is the GOP assisting them by funding this clearly dangerous game.

No money, not a penny for any agency until the ammo, guns,and oppresive government machinery is reversed.

Force this issue or suffer the fate of those who historically stood by and watched their freedom stolen.

Don L on May 17, 2014 at 8:15 AM

There are still agencies that use submachine guns?

Madcap_Magician on May 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM

It’s probably already been posted, but:

Obama July 2, 2008

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Video of the quote here, if you can stand to listen to him.

justltl on May 17, 2014 at 9:44 AM

BTW, shooting skill has to be practiced in order to be maintained.
Personally, I find that shooting about once a week is required to keep me sharp. I also find that it’s better to shoot less rounds more often than many rounds less often.
Just sayin’.

justltl on May 17, 2014 at 10:06 AM

There is NO justification for 377 rounds being fired at two unarmed men in a car. None.

archer52 on May 17, 2014 at 4:48 AM

To be fair, they didn’t know they were unarmed. As a matter of fact, they had GOOD reason to suspect the driver was armed (since he had shot a police officer earlier).

No doubt the agencies are worried about something. That something can range from a huge disaster like Katrina or a major earthquake to a grid shutdown over half the US, or civil unrest when the checks quit coming and the EBTs are cut. Eventually, it there will be an event, and this time the government wants enough tools to make sure it can contain it.

archer52 on May 17, 2014 at 4:48 AM

And there, as you point out, is what it is all about. The government wants to “handle” whatever comes along. Even when it isn’t within the purview of the government. And, naturally, they want to handle it with force – because that is the primary instrument of government: force. Yep, everything sure looks like a nail…….

GWB on May 17, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Also, the Mozambique drill is good practice for the situation of a body armored, brown shirt wearing goon attempting to stuff you into a boxcar.

justltl on May 17, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Mozambique drill

justltl on May 17, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I didn’t read the whole thread. What is this?

GWB on May 17, 2014 at 10:50 AM

The Mozambique Drill [1] is a close-quarter shooting technique in which the shooter fires twice into the torso of a target (known as a double tap to the center of mass), momentarily assesses the hits, then follows them up with a carefully aimed shot to the head of the target. The third shot should be aimed to destroy the brain or brain stem, killing the target and preventing the target from retaliating.

Murphy9 on May 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Mozambique drill

justltl on May 17, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I didn’t read the whole thread. What is this?

I didn’t read it all either, but they may be referring to a close quarters armed combat technique comprised of firing two shots to center mass (chest) and one to the head. It’s also called a triple-tap.

The idea is that if you are going to shoot an attacker you want to ensure the attacker does not recover even enough to kill you and yours. Many militants (esp. in Africa apparently) go to battle pumped up on drugs that make them hyper-aggressive and very, very difficult to bring down quickly.

I may be wrong, but I think the term came from a mercenary fighting some war/battle in Mozambique describing his technique for dealing with these sorts of opponents in close quarters armed combat.

DrDeano on May 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Murphy9 on May 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM

DrDeano on May 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Thank you. I thought it might be something like that, but wasn’t sure if it wasn’t something referenced up-thread.

GWB on May 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I might mention that I find it rather galling that an administration that would prefer to remove “high-capacity” gun magazines from the reach of the common citizen also sees fit to equip one of its most innocuous of bureaucratic arms with what it also deems “military-style weapons,” not to mention the monetary expense to taxpayers — but this apparently is not a new thing (a bunch of various IG offices employ armed special agents with law enforcement powers), and as Matt Welch at Reason aptly notes:

85 words – and no period!

Akzed on May 17, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Other heretofore innocuous agencies like NOAA and Social Security have combined to purchase or order a billion rounds lately, mostly hollow point .40, and .308.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We gotta have a civilian national security force, that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.” -0b00ba

And the people rejoiced.

So the mission isn’t to shoot bootleg potato farmers. I can’t see the national security angle there. He is obviously pursuing the fulfillment of his agenda stated above, so national security (as he envisions it) is the goal.

Akzed on May 17, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I think it is a strategy to militarize the federal government, by slowly arming each agency

It would be too obvious to put all the arms into a federal police warehouse.

And each agency has a limited number of men to carry the arms

If one agency takes up arms against citizens unjustly, and does badly in the conflict, each agency will have arms and men to draw upon as backups.

Eventually, as with the Obamacare strategy, someone will do an analysis which will conclude it is not cost effective to have multiple armed units, and it will be proposed to have a single federal army to maintain public order, that obviously will take orders from Homeland Security

The militarization actually started under Clinton, who signed law at the start of his first term that federalized many crimes, for instance to kill a US chicken inspector became a federal crime

They were already worried about the hicks getting uppity

entagor on May 17, 2014 at 12:41 PM

My search query was to see whether or not this was something new, and it reveals that this USDA activity started well before the Obama administration.

timinnc on May 16, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Oh, no doubt that they’ve been doing this before The One. But has there been an escalation of arms buying by these agencies since the arrival of His Holiness out of the Land of the Chicagoites…or does it just seem that way?

At any rate, it does seem like a heck of a lot of arms and ammunition that cannot be rationally justified…at least by us here and elsewhere on other blogs.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Federal Government End Run around the Posse Comitatus Act. Who needs the Military to perform domestic law enforcement when every punk bureaucratic agency has their own machine gun toting jack booted thug brigade to help control the civilian population? Same goes with the militarization of the local constabulary. Its all about control.

glcinpdx on May 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM

A couple of you commented the GWB admin had to be worried about giving so much power to a future admin. You are exactly on point. There was a huge discussion within the administration about the danger of some future admin abusing it, whether it be this one or the next. That is why they argued for a sunset requirement.

As far as the police killing suspects because they shot one I cannot agree with it. Where is the line then? Can they beat one in return for one officer getting beaten? It isn’t our job. It cannot be. When is it okay that we can be judge jury and executioner? What if we are wrong?

The social contract between us and the citizens is we are given power over them only if we do not abuse it. We command you submit to an arrest because we BELIEVE you committed a crime. Your part is you submit peacefully. In return we guarantee to keep you safe when processing you and you are offered bond. You then get your day in court to argue your case.

Nowhere in that agreement is 377 rounds fired into a car. They may have thought the suspects were armed, but the police have to be sure. It is what you should demand from us.

archer52 on May 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM

KALE!!! Everybody hates kale.

WryTrvllr on May 17, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Or, maybe, the correct answer is……DAMN, doesn’t EVERYBODY want one??!!

WryTrvllr on May 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM

The USDA OIG has been armed long before the Homeland Security Act. It needs guns because many of the people it arrests are gangbangers, illegal aliens, and Muslims involved in food stamp fraud, a major source of loss to the government and a choice crime by criminal gangs and Muslim terrorist supporters.

federale86 on May 17, 2014 at 2:59 PM

And people wonder why I don’t vote; i.e., I turn in a blank ballot – there is absolutely no point, IMO.

www

wwwild on May 17, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Another good example of what should be the first question asked (and answered) about any legislation:
If the government is in the hands of the “other side”, what will they do with this power?

To be fair, I’m not sure the Republicans in 2002 would have expected the Democrats in 2009 to be quite so blatantly tyrannical.

AesopFan on May 17, 2014 at 3:06 AM

I questioned the 2009 but they did sneak in under the bright light of a campaign that was hallmarked by reverberations of the voice of the almighty himself thanks to hollywood. Those that didn’t vote McCain as too lite didn’t help, those that were the middle independents were swayed by old man vs. glib young and the democratic base was out in force. Tyrants are made of this combination.

athenadelphi on May 17, 2014 at 3:56 PM

NSA either put them on to a threatening email from Abe Froman,the Sausage King of Chicago, or they’re worried about this:

http://bloody-disgusting.com/photosizer/upload/Attack%20Of%20The%20Killer%20Tomatoes-032511.jpg

NoPain on May 17, 2014 at 6:15 PM

The AGG dpt having machineguns, is why I have guns.

TX-96 on May 17, 2014 at 11:44 PM

They must be protecting us from Cows with Guns.

NbyNW on May 18, 2014 at 12:35 AM

OLD: Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.


NEW: Government VS the people, BY the government, and FOR the government.

landlines on May 18, 2014 at 1:06 AM

USDA also runs Food Stamp program. HA readers support Food Stamps by unwillingly paying taxes. When the money starts to run out, the Govt. tries to extract more money or freedoms from the HA readers. HA readers eye’s dart back and forth between the Jackbooted Federal Thug and the gun in the corner, showing a willingness to use it up and down the Fed’s chain of command. Thug backs off, knowing he’ll never have enough men or guns to repel firepower of that magnitude. But the Welfare State still needs to get paid, right? Welfare cases are aware they aren’t bullet proof, either, so they won’t go after HA readers because they’ll shoot them dead and sleep pretty soundly that night. Suit and tie guy at the USDA said the system will never run out of money, and he sure seemed like a soft touch….

hurricane567 on May 18, 2014 at 4:22 AM

Murphy9 on May 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM

DrDeano on May 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Thank you. I thought it might be something like that, but wasn’t sure if it wasn’t something referenced up-thread.

GWB on May 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Correct.
Some call it the “failure to stop drill” (which, for whatever reason, is supposed to be a more politically correct term).
Regardless, the bottom line is:

“Two to the heart and one to the head helps you be sure the bad guy is dead.”

justltl on May 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM

And people wonder why I don’t vote; i.e., I turn in a blank ballot – there is absolutely no point, IMO.

www

wwwild on May 17, 2014 at 3:32 PM

A blank ballot is a waste of time. Blank ballots don’t get counted.

If you regard the major party candidates who actually have any chance to win as wildly unacceptable, and you want to cast a protest vote, vote for a third party candidate you know has no chance of winning. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the candidate (although if you are a libertarian it probably wouldn’t make sense to vote for the socialist candidate, since that would communicate the wrong protest). The point is to show a willingness to vote against the PTB, and to spit in the eyes of the major parties.

A blank ballot is seen as a toothless whine, and nobody cares about defanged whiners.

BTW, this being said, it was a crazy assed stupid thing to fail to vote to defeat Obama on 11/06/2014, and at that point there was only one remaining vote that had any chance of defeating him.

Now socialized medicine, amnesty and all of the rest of Obama’s transformation of America into just another eurosclerotic state (a particularly big and cumbersome and divided one) is a done deal.

fadetogray on May 18, 2014 at 8:44 AM

And people wonder why I don’t vote; i.e., I turn in a blank ballot – there is absolutely no point, IMO.

www

wwwild on May 17, 2014 at 3:32 PM

By submitting a blank ballot you do vote, against the good of the country. Start with local elections, get involved and you will see that votes do have consequences.

namvet6869 on May 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM

OLD: Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.

NEW: Government VS the people, BY the government, and FOR the government.
.
landlines on May 18, 2014 at 1:06 AM

.
I like that … I’m stealing it.

listens2glenn on May 18, 2014 at 1:26 PM

It’s bad enough that that agency is unconstitutional, it having law enforcement power and agents is also unconstitutional. The grant of enforcement power to the Feral Government in the Constitution is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, to wit:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

There is no other grant of power to the Union to enforce its laws except for in the land and naval forces, in DC, and on other land it has purchased from the states for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.

The main reason for this was to keep what has become the Feral Government from having power to enslave us.

Now they want machine guns while anyone of We the People cannot buy a machine gun manufactured after the 1986 FOPA went into effect?

Must be part of Obama’s “civilian” force that will be equal to or more powerful than the military.

Just in case, never surrender any arms. Knowing the past, I’ll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future.

Woody

woodcdi on May 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM

USDA is purchasing them for the VA. A solution to the “veteran waiting problem”. Like a roach motel,veterans check in but they don’t check out. The money saved can be used to set up first aid stations for illegals sneaking into the country and the now second hand machine guns can go to the drug distributors.

MaiDee on May 18, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Why is the Soecial Security Agency buying AMMO?

Why is the bureau of Land Management buying Ammo, have it’s own ‘army’, and have armored vehicles?

Why did Ho,eland security by record setting amouts of ammo, to include Hollow Point bullets, and only stopped when Congress issued a ‘cease and desisit’ order?

Why did Homeland Security hold training that included life-size targets of women and children?

…Anyone remember Obama declaring back in 2007/2008 that he wanted his own personal militia that was as strong as the U.S. military?!

People laughed at that notion because it seemed impossible to grow a militia as powerful as the military. Well, as we have seen, you don’t have as much of a problem doing so when you ‘slash and burn, the military – weakening it – WHILE you begin building up your own militia.

easyt65 on May 19, 2014 at 8:49 AM

So, why is the USDA requesting to buy submachine guns?

For use as a meat tenderizer?

Ward Cleaver on May 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Republicans are responsible for some of the worse features of our overlords government:

EPA
Homeland Security
The Patriot Act

That’s are 3 reasons republicans suck right there..

earlgrey on May 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM

All these ammunition purchases by government agencies sure are making it hard for the rest of us to obtain ammuntion…

Soft gun control, anyone?

RI_Red on May 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Not quite off topic:

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales. Link Here.

What part of “..shall not be infringed.” do they not understand?

Hammie on May 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales. Link Here.

What part of “..shall not be infringed.” do they not understand?

Hammie on May 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Interesting note on that article – the small photo in the middle of the page that shows a guy at a wall display of AK-47s and such – is Dragon Man (aka Mel Bernstein) – Class III dealer, shooting range operator, and man of many other businesses east of Colorado Springs.
Oddly enough, I seriously doubt he has had any trouble getting a good bank to work with him for any of his businesses.

There should be a HA thread on the banking subject…..

dentarthurdent on May 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM

What part of “..shall not be infringed.” do they not understand?

Hammie on May 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM

“..shall not be infringed.”

WryTrvllr on May 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Oh, they understand ‘shall not be infringed.’ They just don’t care. It doesn’t fit into their scheme of things. An armed populace is the biggest threat to the dictatorship they are building, so, whatever they can get away with just brings them closer to their dictatorship and us further from freedom.

Just how far are you willing to let them get? Draw that line and be prepared for when they cross it.

Woody

woodcdi on May 19, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3