(NaturalNews) The Obama White House and several members of Congress don't want you to have military look-alike rifles they say are unnecessary for self-defense, but apparently this administration has no problem arming itself with the same weapons...for personal defense
As such, the Department of Homeland Security is looking to buy 7,000
5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) for its personnel - guns that are called "assault weapons" when civilians own them.
Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com
, citing a General Service Administration request for proposal
, reported that DHS is seeking the 7,000 "select-fire" weapons because they are "suitable for personal defense in close quarters."'Personal defense weapons,' not 'assault weapons'Select-fire
is a term that means the rifle can be fired in semi-automatic (one shot at a time) and fully automatic, though the most current 5.56 mm NATO weapon of choice is the Colt M-4 Carbine, which only fires a three-round burst in "automatic" mode. (Civilians are prohibited from obtaining fully-automatic weapons without getting a special permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and paying $200 per weapon
. Even so, some states still do not permit civilians to own fully automatic weapons regardless of whether or not they have a federal permit to do so.)
In addition to soliciting for these "personal defense
weapons," DHS is also seeking 30-round magazines for the weapons (yes, the same magazine capacity that Obama, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of Calif., and other progressive-left politicians want to prevent civilian gun owners from legally possessing).
Feinstein has introduced legislation that would implement a ban of 150 semi-automatic weapons
and limit magazines to 10 rounds.
The hypocrisy of the request was not lost on some lawmakers, including New York state Sen. Greg Ball (R), who issued a press release bringing attention to the DHS request.
"Now the Department of Homeland Security
even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor (Andrew) Cuomo, are suitable for self defense," he said Jan. 24, following the signing of legislation by Cuomo toughing the state's already draconian gun laws.
"On top of that, a recent story reports that two RIT students who were legal gun owners were protected by an AR-15. The story may have had a very tragic ending, had Governor Cuomo's anti-self defense bill been in full effect," Ball - who has sharply criticized his state's new gun control legislation, said.
"If the story is accurate, their legal ownership of this modern sporting rifle evidently saved their lives. While Cuomo says 'it doesn't take 10 bullets to kill a deer', it evidently only took an unloaded AR-15 to protect a household. Luckily these criminals struck before Governor Cuomo's gun grab was fully unleashed," he said.AR-15 to the rescue
In the case of the two RIT students, per ABC
:Christopher Boise heard a noise coming from the basement. As he walked toward the source of that noise, the RIT student noticed two men standing in the downstairs portion of his apartment.
"They were waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs," said Boise.
One of them had a handgun trained on Boise.
Within moments, Boise screamed. His cries were heard by his roommate, Raymond.
"It wasn't like a, 'I stepped by stepped on a piece of glass' kind of scream," Raymond said. "So, I instinctively went to my gun bag."
Raymond owns an AR-15 which is a military style rifle.
Raymond estimated that just five seconds passed until the door started to open. It was one of the intruders.
"By the time I had it out and ready, one of the men came at my door, slowly opened it, saw that there was a barrel on the other side and from there backed out," Raymond said.
The two men fled the apartment.
Our government leaders are well-protected by men and women with guns, and that is perfectly acceptable and understandable. But most of us who live outside the Beltway are not, which makes the effort to strip Americans of their right to provide themselves with the same level of protection worse than hypocritical, it is constitutionally criminal.Sources:http://www.theblaze.comhttp://radioviceonline.comwww.fbo.govhttp://www.13wham.com