01-20-2013 05:19 PM
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…”
01-20-2013 05:22 PM - edited 01-20-2013 05:22 PM
What is the context of that quote? Personal defense for whom?
01-20-2013 05:24 PM - edited 01-20-2013 05:25 PM
Invisible Hand wrote:What is the context of that quote? Personal defense for whom?
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
01-20-2013 05:25 PM
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:
.
01-20-2013 05:27 PM - edited 01-20-2013 05:30 PM
NATO is also purchasing additional black helicopters to target gun-owning civilians in Obamao sponsered gun-grabs.
![]()
01-20-2013 05:27 PM
gspointer wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:What is the context of that quote? Personal defense for whom?
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.
01-20-2013 05:31 PM
Invisible Hand wrote:
gspointer wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:What is the context of that quote? Personal defense for whom?
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.
01-20-2013 05:32 PM
Fred Fartboski wrote:NATO is also purchasing additional black helicopters to target gun-owning civilians in Obamao sponsered gun-grabs.
Interesting, do you have a link also?
01-20-2013 05:35 PM
gspointer wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:
gspointer wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:What is the context of that quote? Personal defense for whom?
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.
01-20-2013 05:41 PM - edited 01-20-2013 05:44 PM
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.
01-20-2013 07:40 PM
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.
01-20-2013 08:26 PM
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
01-20-2013 08:33 PM
Invisible Hand wrote:
gspointer wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:
gspointer wrote:
Invisible Hand wrote:What is the context of that quote? Personal defense for whom?
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.
01-20-2013 08:45 PM - edited 01-20-2013 08:47 PM
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.
01-20-2013 09:00 PM - edited 01-20-2013 09:02 PM
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.
01-20-2013 09:10 PM
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?
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?
01-20-2013 09:15 PM
01-20-2013 09:16 PM
01-20-2013 09:18 PM
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.
Ashcroft.
01-20-2013 09:30 PM
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.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC