Why does the Department of Homeland Defense require 7,000 assault rifles to kill deer?

HK43, Janet Napolitino's personal choice for Bambi slaying

HK43, Janet Napolitino’s personal choice for Bambi slaying

A reader has supplied the link to DHS’s order solicitation for 7,000 selective fire 5.64x45mm rifles which, for politicians’ and media moms’ purposes, means assault rifles.  One example, the civilian version of which is pictured here, is the Heckler & Koch HK33. Read all about it; having done so myself, I want one.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. … 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.

Oh, for personal defense?  And they are entitled to defend themselves with high capacity weapons while we are not? Why?

Why young women want AR-15s” offers an insight into personal self defense that might be useful to the debate (hint: they’re light – under 5 lbs., reasonably accurate, intimidating and carry plenty of bullets to account for misses and multiple bad guys) but really, when the DHS itself admits that there’s nothing better for that purpose than an assault rifle, do we really need further discussion? These guys are experts, remember, on everything!

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

23 responses to “Why does the Department of Homeland Defense require 7,000 assault rifles to kill deer?

  1. LAK

    Guns & Irish…is that all we talk about? LOL

    Where’s my friend Mickster from Cos Cob? LOL

  2. Anon

    Irony: senator Feinstein on TV now with assault weapon ban bill. Someone ought to send her this link. Goes back to the old “what’s good for the goose” theory.

  3. D

    Chris – High capacity is definitely worth mentioning, but also, these are select fire! Probably means full auto, 2 round burst, and semi-auto modes. Hell of lot more effective than any civilian can get!

  4. Anon

    Here from twitter a photo of the guns Feinstein wants to ban.
    “@AlexPappasDC: Snapped this photo of the list of all the firearms Dianne Feinstein wants banned http://t.co/u0r87Qu1”

  5. Fred2

    7000? I guess if you divide it by all the airports and what not, and the number of people in it, it might be sense, but it sure has heck looks like a lot of big guns for an organization which I associate more with officious, barely competent & annoying mall-cop, than “hard core tactical response.”

    I’d like to see the rationale THESE guys need rifles and why now.

    I used to dislike NYC for this, a decent ordinary civilian is made to jump through silly hoops and not allowed to carry concealed, but every pissant government body: the bridge and tunnel authority, the subway guys, the amtrak bulls, the airport cops, NYPD, housing authourity, (I’m sure the NYC dept of Ed has it’s now too), etc.. ad infinitum seemed to have their own armed police and SWAT teams.

    • Mark B.

      And it’s very impressive when the NYPD deploys those weapons –
      An assailant who targeted ONE individual he had a grudge with shoots just him, leaves the scene, is confronted by two of NY’s finest, who proceed to shoot him and something like 9 bystanders. Good going. You’re getting a big promotion out of this…

  6. ML

    Chris, I want to buy one as well. It has to be delivered to a “dealer” or something like that. Where do we find who can accept the delivery?

  7. Libertarian Advocate

    Better yet, essentially the same rifle, manufactured here in Connecticut by PTR Industries in .308/7.62×51 NATO. The PTR-91.

    • Anonymous

      The PTR is a good gun, but it’s the semi-auto clone of the HK G3 which is a very good gun. They are different than the AR-15. gas block piston v. gas impingement. 7.62 x 51 NATO v. 5.56 x 45 NATO …. yada .. yada .. yada….

      While different, both weapons will be excellent for annoying your favorite gun-grabbing delusional progressive. Just the sight of the PTR will be cause for a press conference. Good Luck finding one though.

      Both systems are too expensive for your garden variety 5% causing 75% of the gun violence urban thug.

  8. Artie

    “Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

    Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

    The ban wasn’t all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

    And it says something that half of the nation’s deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner’s rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

    I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

    Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don’t even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

    I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the “mass” out of “mass shooting,” or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.

    To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

    So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.

    I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

    I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left’s feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

    And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there’s a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

    But if we can’t find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

    There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

    It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

    Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

    Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.

    • Artie

      Sorry – only meant to mention one quote from that article by a conservative Republican, gun-owning judge:

      “But if we can’t find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.”

      • So the judge thinks that our 200+ year history in which we overthrew a king, built a country, created wealth for millions of people on a scale never before seen on this earth and provided sanctuary and opportunity to people from all over the world is all to be called a failure if we don’t ban some guns he doesn’t like? The man is an ass.

  9. Col De Beers

    . The 5.65 X45 cartridge is a battle rifle round and is not considered a PDW munition

    DHS is playing politics. Our cops should have the best and thats theHK MP5 or 7 and the FN P90. The PR dept at DHS dosent want em walking around with German engineering hanging around their necks.

  10. Libertarian Advocate

    The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. … 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.

    Obviously, someone at DHS didn’t get Sen. Frankenstein’s memo that these are ASSAULT weapons and emphatically NOT Personal Defense Weapons. The irony being that they are indeed Assault Weapons within the definition of the U.S. Army in is as much as they are” select fire weapons” capable of fully automatic fire that are generally prohibited to the public by the Firearms Act of 1964.

    All of the above is why I dislike liberals. They are nearly all of them pathologically dishonest. Challenge them hard and their response is almost always something along the lines of “What difference does it make…?”

  11. David Smith

    The usual response in Berkeley was: I’m lying in the interests of a higher truth.

  12. MEC

    the reason, of couse is to kill the civilians who have been stockpiling the same for a good many years now. There are certainly no other enemeies, foreign or domestic who need that level of application of fire power.