Reply
Super Contributor
Posts: 7,039
Registered: ‎11-14-2001

So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

interesting. 

The United States Department of Homeland Security has stated a rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO (compatible with .223) with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…”

 

Dillybar 13 july 2008.
"I do not expect you to lift one of your lazy fingers to find the proof that I am right."
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,263
Registered: ‎08-22-2010

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

[ Edited ]

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?

I hope we're not too messianic or a trifle too Satanic.

Fuck art, buy junk.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 7,039
Registered: ‎11-14-2001

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

[ Edited ]

Invisible Hand wrote:

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?


the Section C PDF

 

DHS is making a purchase of "Personal Defense Weapons". Their words not mine. (DHS's) So the context of the quote is, DHS wants personal defense weapons suitable for close quarters and is buying 7k .223's

Dillybar 13 july 2008.
"I do not expect you to lift one of your lazy fingers to find the proof that I am right."
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 12,041
Registered: ‎03-24-2006

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

I don't think there is any question that a AR-type rifle with a large magazine is an excellent defensive (or offensive) tool, otherwise they would not be a stardard for military and police use worldwide.


Modern AR-type guns have many applications.  Hunting, defense, competiiton, etc., regardless of their current unpopularity in some circles.


:idk:

 

.

Stay above this line.



Good Trades with: recovery, sumphead, here2trade, Hodder, JoshuaTSP, justinhedrick, Foorever, xstraightedgesh, bendedavis, hvymtl939, DracoAran, pinto79, itkindaworks, torgeot, Coverdale, guitarded84, schaeffy (x2), King CAD, Dash4814, guitarsignals, Mike Fiasco, divadc, teleman (x2), ecdrevolution, tomh777, bluesthug, fxloop, bluesrock70's, Chevyman95, Suit & Tie Guy, theepicproblem, filster2, rll, aehoff, nbabmf, shooto, Viper Jazz, api4u, FenderP, KingdomGuitar
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Posts: 35,306
Registered: ‎12-06-2005

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

[ Edited ]

NATO is also purchasing additional black helicopters to target gun-owning civilians in Obamao sponsered gun-grabs.

:smileyhappy:

Last edited by Fred Fartboski : Today at...
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,263
Registered: ‎08-22-2010

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?


the Section C PDF

 

DHS is making a purchase of "Personal Defense Weapons". Their words not mine. (DHS's) So the context of the quote is, DHS wants personal defense weapons suitable for close quarters and is buying 7k .223's


Without context that quote is meaningless.  Are they weapons for agents for use while on duty or are they handing them out to children on the playground?  I don't want to read the whole **bleep** thing.  Help me out.  

I hope we're not too messianic or a trifle too Satanic.

Fuck art, buy junk.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 7,039
Registered: ‎11-14-2001

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


Invisible Hand wrote:

gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?


the Section C PDF

 

DHS is making a purchase of "Personal Defense Weapons". Their words not mine. (DHS's) So the context of the quote is, DHS wants personal defense weapons suitable for close quarters and is buying 7k .223's


Without context that quote is meaningless.  Are they weapons for agents for use while on duty or are they handing them out to children on the playground?  I don't want to read the whole **bleep** thing.  Help me out.  


Here is your context,

the government DHS, has determined that the 5.56 is "ideal" for personal defense. I would define personal defense as Defense of oneself.

Dillybar 13 july 2008.
"I do not expect you to lift one of your lazy fingers to find the proof that I am right."
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 7,039
Registered: ‎11-14-2001

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


Fred Fartboski wrote:

NATO is also purchasing additional black helicopters to target gun-owning civilians in Obamao sponsered gun-grabs.

:smileyhappy:


Interesting, do you have a link also?

Dillybar 13 july 2008.
"I do not expect you to lift one of your lazy fingers to find the proof that I am right."
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,263
Registered: ‎08-22-2010

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?


the Section C PDF

 

DHS is making a purchase of "Personal Defense Weapons". Their words not mine. (DHS's) So the context of the quote is, DHS wants personal defense weapons suitable for close quarters and is buying 7k .223's


Without context that quote is meaningless.  Are they weapons for agents for use while on duty or are they handing them out to children on the playground?  I don't want to read the whole **bleep** thing.  Help me out.  


Here is your context,

the government DHS, has determined that the 5.56 is "ideal" for personal defense. I would define personal defense as Defense of oneself.


That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  

I hope we're not too messianic or a trifle too Satanic.

Fuck art, buy junk.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
normh
Posts: 4,839
Registered: ‎04-05-2008

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

[ Edited ]

Invisible Hand wrote:

That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  


You are aware that there are many in the general population that are better trained than "Trained LE agents?"  You know -- ex military.

Here in Utah, one ex Ranger killed one and seriously injured five other police that were attempting to serve a warrant.  The LE were wearing their bullet proof vests.  Funny too, David Mathew Stewart used a 9mm sidearm.  The trained LE were serving a knock and announce warrant for a grow operation of 14 plants and did not knock and announce.

Trained LE is a cop out.

Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,263
Registered: ‎08-22-2010

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


normh wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  


You are aware that there are many in the general population that are better trained than "Trained LE agents?"  You know -- ex military.

Here in Utah, one ex Ranger killed one and seriously injured five other police that were attempting to serve a warrant.  The LE were wearing their bullet proof vests.  Funny too, David Mathew Stewart used a 9mm sidearm.  The trained LE were serving a knock and announce warrant for a grow operation of 14 plants and did not knock and announce.

Trained LE is a cop out.


That's not what I'm debating.  Of course there are highly trained citizens and total doofus LE personnel.  The point the OP is trying to make is that he thinks DHS is saying that an AR in the home would make people safer.  I'm trying to learn what DHS actually said.   He refuses to provide context to the quote despite multiple requests.  Could it be that proper context would render his point invalid?  I guess we'll never know.  

I hope we're not too messianic or a trifle too Satanic.

Fuck art, buy junk.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
normh
Posts: 4,839
Registered: ‎04-05-2008

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


Invisible Hand wrote:

normh wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  


You are aware that there are many in the general population that are better trained than "Trained LE agents?"  You know -- ex military.

Here in Utah, one ex Ranger killed one and seriously injured five other police that were attempting to serve a warrant.  The LE were wearing their bullet proof vests.  Funny too, David Mathew Stewart used a 9mm sidearm.  The trained LE were serving a knock and announce warrant for a grow operation of 14 plants and did not knock and announce.

Trained LE is a cop out.


That's not what I'm debating.  Of course there are highly trained citizens and total doofus LE personnel.  The point the OP is trying to make is that he thinks DHS is saying that an AR in the home would make people safer.  I'm trying to learn what DHS actually said.   He refuses to provide context to the quote despite multiple requests.  Could it be that proper context would render his point invalid?  I guess we'll never know.  


Here, allow me to reprovide the link that the OP provided when requested that you may have over looked; it is a downloadable PDF: LINK.  Judge it as you will.

Now in the case of David Mathews Stewart.  That was a police SWAT drug team and Stewart took half of them out with a 9mm.  That same drug team the year before killed an unarmed man in a no knock warrant.  The cop that died is the one that killed that unarmed person in that previous raid.  If you were to say that the drug SWAT team were twelve doofuses, I would have to agree, but they were highly trained doofuses

Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Davo17
Posts: 26,742
Registered: ‎03-24-2009

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


Invisible Hand wrote:

gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?


the Section C PDF

 

DHS is making a purchase of "Personal Defense Weapons". Their words not mine. (DHS's) So the context of the quote is, DHS wants personal defense weapons suitable for close quarters and is buying 7k .223's


Without context that quote is meaningless.  Are they weapons for agents for use while on duty or are they handing them out to children on the playground?  I don't want to read the whole **bleep** thing.  Help me out.  


Here is your context,

the government DHS, has determined that the 5.56 is "ideal" for personal defense. I would define personal defense as Defense of oneself.


That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  


all the difference in the world?  you are an idiot.  truly. 

DSM-IV 301.95 Progressive Personality Disorder
A. A pervasive pattern of progressive political and inter-personal thought and action, rooted in discredited leftist (neo-Marxist) beliefs, beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following (individual must be at least 18 years of age to qualify for the diagnosis of Progressive Personality Disorder, as many of the criteria are age-appropriate for adolescents). This disorder often coexists with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Utopian thinking, e.g. a delusional belief that there exist simple, linear, side effect-free solutions to all social problems.
Lack of historical knowledge and perspective, and repression of personal memories dissonant with this belief system. e.g., the national mood post 9-11, including that of PPD patients, is suppressed in order to avoid conflict with subsequent reversal of beliefs as the PPD delusions were reinstated - hence the downplaying of terrorism as a threat and the obsessive concern for the "rghts" of temporarily feared and hated terrorists. (Note to clinician: please differentiate between mere historical ignorance, e.g., a doctorate in history from an elite university, vs. neurotic or psychotic delusions necessary to sustain these beliefs. )
Anthroplastic delusion, e.g. The delusion that behavioral conditioning performed by the government or some other collective will cure all behavioral and social problems, rooted in denial of fixed human nature. Implicit in this delusion is the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable and subject to behavioral manipulation leading to perfect control and predictability. Free will, personal conscience, and objective morality are denied, devalued or denigrated.
Anti-theistic rebellion: An emotional antagonism to the Judeo-Christian tradition, rooted in an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion (may also be related to the need to avoid counter-arguments that would question utopian, anthroplastic ideation). This behavior ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of all forms of religion. The rejection of religion leads to a deep longing for a substitute religion, or in extreme cases, a messiah. The more Western a religion is, the more it is despised. Thus, these patients may openly accept more primitive pantheistic, neo-pagan, or animist belief systems, such as Wicca or fraudulent "new age" philosophies, e.g., Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, etc.
Animist delusion: The belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to practical knowledge and experience of nature. Collective self-hatred is a feature in this area, paradoxically existing side by side with egomaniacal omniscience, e.g., ability to accurately predict climate 100 years into the future. Typical thinking includes the self-hating belief that mankind is a cancer on earth and that the planet (subjectively felt as a "feeling being") will "retaliate." The animist delusion includes considerable cognitive dissonance, since the typical Progressive Personality is a believer in natural selection, which has resulted in untold suffering and cruelty, mitigated only by mankind's presence.
a. For example, the belief that an eagle egg or four-toed salamander is entitled to more legal protection than a human baby.
Environmental spasm: Chaotic, unreasonable, or incoherent episodes of manic activity on behalf of the environment or "mother nature." The delusional nature of this activity is evidenced by misanthropic attacks on works of man, and also by a manic focus on visible or totemic biological objects of little rational value. The patient is typically obsessed only with cute or cuddly creatures, often a displacement of the nurturing urge (often unfulfilled due to abortion).
Control obsession: A tendency to strive for excessive control over others through state intrusion. A contemptuous projection of unconscious envy which is subjectively experienced as "compassion." Through the magic of this unconscious mechanism, PPD patients typically want the state to appropriate your wealth while imagining themselves to be generous and "compassionate." Use of state coercion often substitutes for true acts of generosity; a low rate of charitable giving is often present.
Racist/feminist hypocrisy: Passionate advocacy of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, with aggressively proclaimed opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist." Obsessive conformity of thought within a racially diverse population. For example, a PPD patient might favor seating a racist on the Supreme Court, so long as the person is of the "correct" race. Often the cognitive dissonance normally associated with such beliefs is rationalized by the delusion that the "oppressed" cannot themselves be racist.
Overemotional perception: Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual resulting benefits or harm; in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them. Obsession with "fairness" or "social justice" as opposed to what actually works.
Sexual dysfunction: Significant anxiety about sexual matters, manifested as:
a. Obsession with sexual and gender roles.
b. Passionate celebration of nontraditional sex roles and preferences.
c. The compulsion to define individuals by their "sexual preference" and to design social policy as if all individuals share the obsession.
d. An inordinate interest in preserving inappropriate, lewd, perverse, or antisocial forms of sexual expression.
e. Fascination with immature or deviant expressions of sexuality; reduction of human sexuality to animal sexuality.
f. The projected belief that the contradictory beliefs are a result of fear (e.g. "homophobia".
e. Obsession with contraception and abortion ("reproductive freedom").
Replacement of patriotism with matriotism: Unwillingness to defend country when attacked or threatened, allied with inability to name or recognize evil and General devaluation of the masculine virtues.
Cultural and moral relativism: The fervent belief that all cultures are beautiful except one's own, and that it is immoral to judge another's morality unless they are conservative.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
PFB
Posts: 9,417
Registered: ‎04-03-2001

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

[ Edited ]

normh wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  


You are aware that there are many in the general population that are better trained than "Trained LE agents?"  You know -- ex military.

Here in Utah, one ex Ranger killed one and seriously injured five other police that were attempting to serve a warrant.  The LE were wearing their bullet proof vests.  Funny too, David Mathew Stewart used a 9mm sidearm.  The trained LE were serving a knock and announce warrant for a grow operation of 14 plants and did not knock and announce.

Trained LE is a cop out.


 

If the trained LE truly didn't knock and announce, then that is the fault of poor training. There's a large number of LE that are ex-military, as well.

"The jerk store called and they're running out of you"


- George Costanza
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
normh
Posts: 4,839
Registered: ‎04-05-2008

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

[ Edited ]

PFB wrote:

If the trained LE truly didn't knock and announce, then that is the fault of poor training. There's a large number of LE that are ex-military, as well.


Per the neighbors, the police did not knock and announce.

From personal experience when the police knocked, announced and then entered a drug sales house arround the corner: you can certainly hear it, especially when they use a bullhorn in a car.  It woke me out of a deep sleep, and I had to peel myself off the ceiling.  By way of contrast, I did not hear the cops break the windows of that house when they forced entry milliseconds after the announce.

Now Stewart was in Ogden, 40 miles north, and the above incident was SLC.  But, the real kicker is that the Ogden team was one of two drug raid training teams in Utah.  The five shot, and the one dead were the trainers.

Stewart was ex special forces - Airborne Ranger.

Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,263
Registered: ‎08-22-2010

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


Davo17 wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

gspointer wrote:

Invisible Hand wrote:

What is the context of that quote?  Personal defense for whom?


the Section C PDF

 

DHS is making a purchase of "Personal Defense Weapons". Their words not mine. (DHS's) So the context of the quote is, DHS wants personal defense weapons suitable for close quarters and is buying 7k .223's


Without context that quote is meaningless.  Are they weapons for agents for use while on duty or are they handing them out to children on the playground?  I don't want to read the whole **bleep** thing.  Help me out.  


Here is your context,

the government DHS, has determined that the 5.56 is "ideal" for personal defense. I would define personal defense as Defense of oneself.


That isn't context.  When they say "personal" who are they talking about?  Trained LE agents or the general population?  It makes all the difference in the world.  


all the difference in the world?  you are an idiot.  truly. 


Read the following and try to at least comprehend the debate on a rudimentary level if you can summon the mental horsepower to see beyond the end of your pudgy proboscis:

 

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. 

 


They are saying that the NATO PDW is an effective weapon for personal defence of DHS personnel in the execution of their duty.  They are not making a case for this weapon's efficacy as a personal self-defense weapon in general terms (not to say it isn't, but that's not the point).  This is what the OP was insinuating and it is NOT what DHS is saying.  Simple enough for you? 

I hope we're not too messianic or a trifle too Satanic.

Fuck art, buy junk.
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Posts: 27,244
Registered: ‎10-06-2009

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

You could not make this **bleep** on the run.
An eye for an eye will make us all blind - Mohandas Ghandi

Dignity has nothing to do with us - Sid to Diego (Ice Age)

Consider it done - Bubble (Ab Fab)

Oh, they would. Oh you never know how many people like you till you're dead! - Curly (Oklahoma!)
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
realtrance
Posts: 3,145
Registered: ‎02-08-2002

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.

The DHS is the dumping ground where federal bureaucrats who have achieved special levels of incompetence just short of conditions allowing their firing are sent.

So if they are arming themselves, we can expect yet more self-destroying contenders for The Darwin Awards to start showing up regularly in the news.

Guns are nature's way of saying you're a true loser. :smileyvery-happy:
A Gadibus usque ad Auroram
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Posts: 27,244
Registered: ‎10-06-2009

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


realtrance wrote:
The DHS is the dumping ground where federal bureaucrats who have achieved special levels of incompetence just short of conditions allowing their firing are sent.

So if they are arming themselves, we can expect yet more self-destroying contenders for The Darwin Awards to start showing up regularly in the news.

Guns are nature's way of saying you're a true loser. :smileyvery-happy:

Ashcroft.

An eye for an eye will make us all blind - Mohandas Ghandi

Dignity has nothing to do with us - Sid to Diego (Ice Age)

Consider it done - Bubble (Ab Fab)

Oh, they would. Oh you never know how many people like you till you're dead! - Curly (Oklahoma!)
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
PFB
Posts: 9,417
Registered: ‎04-03-2001

Re: So the DHS is buying personal defense weapons.


normh wrote:

PFB wrote:

If the trained LE truly didn't knock and announce, then that is the fault of poor training. There's a large number of LE that are ex-military, as well.


Per the neighbors, the police did not knock and announce.

From personal experience when the police knocked, announced and then entered a drug sales house arround the corner: you can certainly hear it, especially when they use a bullhorn in a car.  It woke me out of a deep sleep, and I had to peel myself off the ceiling.  By way of contrast, I did not hear the cops break the windows of that house when they forced entry milliseconds after the announce.

Now Stewart was in Ogden, 40 miles north, and the above incident was SLC.  But, the real kicker is that the Ogden team was one of two drug raid training teams in Utah.  The five shot, and the one dead were the trainers.

Stewart was ex special forces - Airborne Ranger.


 

 

I wasn't disputing the story. I am saying that LE makes mistakes that are costly. Waco, certainly comes to mind. I am a strong opponent of a lot of undercover work that winds up going wrong, which is usually a case of mistaken identity. If people see a cop in a uniform, most of them will know it is real law enforcement, but if a few guys in street clothes start shouting at you, it's tough to figure out they are real law enforcement.

 

"The jerk store called and they're running out of you"


- George Costanza
Please use plain text.