the Usda wants the taxpayer to buy them GUNS

that's correct. The US Dept of agriculture, is requesting guns from our government (paid for with our tax money.)


There have been other such federal agencies, that have been supplied with guns and ammo, including, Dhs, Social Security and, others. they were also given stockpiles of hollow tip bullets.

the Usda however, have requested more than just some hand guns. they're asking for semi-automatic 40 cal's, that shoot 2 bullets at once.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/usda-releases-request-for-40-cal-sub-machine-guns/

my concern is why these Domestic agencies need guns to begin with.

I'm also concerned about the Democratic/Liberal disarmament agenda, while, they're quite obviously militarizing every branch of the Federal Government. To me, there is a reason behind this; Every great dictator has known, that it's easier to control an unarmed public...

 

Wasn't this all covered by Meagain some time ago explain the reasons

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7940108&postcount=223

A few quotes:

Quote:
Jonathan L. Lasher, in the SSA’s external-relations department, explained to the Huffington Post that the ammunition is “for the 295 agents” in the outfit’s office of inspector general “who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.” Divide the rounds by the number of agents, and you get about 590 per agent; in a given year, that’s about ten rounds a week. “Most will be expended on the firing range,” Lasher continued.
Quote:
And why does the USDA need 320,000 rounds? Because it runs the Forest Service, which covers “155 national forests” and “20 national grasslands” on a total of “193 million acres of land.” As well as agents in the field, the outfit has a law-enforcement unit based in Washington, D.C., whose responsibility it is to enforce federal laws and regulations. In context, those 320,000 rounds look a lot less threatening: If the U.S. Forest Service were to distribute ammunition at the same rate as the Social Security Administration, they would have enough for just 542 agents — not bad for an organization that covers an area the size of Pakistan (or twice the size of Japan or Germany).
Quote:
Forty-six thousand rounds also sound like a lot for the National Weather Service. (Actually, the ammo was requested by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, which is overseen by the same department.) In reality, it’s not that much. The service has only 63 armed personnel, which brings the purchase out at around 730 rounds per officer. This, suffice it to say, does not present a great threat to the Republic. As the NRA has noted, “more than a few NRA members would use that much ammunition in a weekend shooting class or plinking session.” There are enough risks to the right to bear arms and to American liberty in general, the NRA continued, without “inventing threats.”
Quote:
The FBI and DHS’s apparently vast orders are deceptively presented by the conspiracy theorists. It is true that in 2011, the FBI ordered up to 100 million bullets for its 13,913 special agents (which works out to 7,187 per agent). And, yes, the Department of Homeland Security — a composite department that oversees USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, ICE, the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the National Protection Directorate — placed a request for up to 450 million rounds for its 65,000 armed personnel (which works out to 6,923 per agent).
But in the real world, ammunition is not divided up and handed out on such a basis. What is bought is stockpiled and then allocated on the basis of need. The DHS’s order is expected to last for at least five years, and it was placed up front primarily as a cost-saving measure. Moreover, as the chief of staff to Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R., Georgia) revealed in a press release in May 2012 that was designed to calm the fears of his constituents:

DHS entered into a contract that allows them to purchase up to 450 million rounds of 40 caliber ammunition over the next five years. They cannot exceed 450 million rounds and are not required to purchase 450 million rounds. Basically, they have a tab with a manufacturer to order more rounds as they are needed over the next five years — not a one-time ammunition order.
​

Think of it like “that monthly trip to Sam’s Club or Costco,” he added.
Quote:
And the Department of Education? The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss looked into the question of those shotguns in 2010 and received the following response from the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General:

The Office of Inspector General is the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for the detection of waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs, and operations. As such, OIG operates with full statutory law-enforcement authority, which includes conducting search warrants, making arrests, and carrying firearms. The acquisition of these firearms is necessary to replace older and mechanically malfunctioning firearms, and in compliance with Federal procurement requirements.
​

I didn't look any further.

 

Double barrel?

Seriously though: are they afraid some farmers are going ghetto on their asses?

 

Balbus, any Gun Owner knows, that hollow tip bullets are more expensive than any other kind, and are made to splinter, and break into peices upon impact,inside of the target.

Liberal policies are the precise reason 1 of these very bullets, would be reason enough to put a US citizen in prison for LIFE, for possession in NY State.

So, Meagains Liberal explaination, uses crime as one of their many typical excuses, but fail to realize that armed agents busting into homes, many times at the wrong address, is representative of the exact reasons we must preserve and defend the Constitution, primarily the Second and Fourth amendments. Without this security of Constitutional Human Rights, from the government- the Rule of Law is dead.

True Rule of Law comes from the Consent of the Governed. The reason why the US Government today is such an utter failure, is because they perpetuate their own will, and not that of the people.

and, when I say "people," I don't mean the 51%, or, the government that allegedly "represents" them.

 

Do you have any evidence (not opinion) that backs up your statement that "it's easier to control an unarmed public"? Are revolutions or popular uprisings more likely to occur in countries with a more heavily armed population? It would be an interesting research question.

 

Shhh, that's not what this is about.

 

... either that or the organic for revolution in the laws of nature is just the fuck factor.

 

Don't these knuckleheads realize their arguments for disarming the common folk are growing WEAKER as more federal agencies make all these weapon purchases?!

It just gives the NRA and likeminded people and organizations more verbal cannon fodder against the psychos who disregard and hate the Bill of Rights

 

Actually there is probably no one issue that 51% of the people support which results in a politician being elected, and more likely if there was such an issue it would quickly be made a non-issue by the media and other political activist groups.

 

Apparently asking reasonable questions gets my post voted down.

 

Young Jeezy's code for U.S.D.A.(8732 are the numbers on a phone that spell USDA) which stand for united streets dopeboys of american..

 

25

So give us a detailed explanation of what you would do?

 

And anyway is the story true?


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342161/great-ammunition-myth-charles-c-w-cooke


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

 

He neg repped me. "says a liberal, who would never deny the government use of arms/force, but tries to deny the Right of self defense, to average citizens. The Leftist ideology is a scam."

:mickey:

fueledbycoffee: did you do any research about why it is they are buying this ammo? You really think that if the US govt was going to hold every citizen hostage, you'd hear a peep about it before your door was suddenly broken down?

 

That's impossible, isn't it??

 

Have you?

The only way I'll compromise with the haters of the Bill of Rights is if they wanna disarm the citizens, then they gotta disarm themselves too. That includes disarming the police, and firing every celebrity's and politician's body guards and secret service as well.

 

Yep, and you deserve every bit of it. Hold that.. It's 4 you..

this is a typical Liberals diversion. We all know why they say they're doing it- to stop "dangerous" criminals. Even though it makes virtually no sense, because government is the one that has force and jails.

They don't need guns, trying to catch computer "criminals."

This is what makes me laugh about Liberals; you fight the 2nd amendment tooth-and-nail, but yet, you think it's justified to have a government gang, running around, forcing people to comply at gunpoint

whereas, according to Liberals, this legal criminal gang is the only way to "peace"

Yeah, 'peace' for anyone who has such screwed up morals, that they believe the "majority" is another person, an all-knowing one, with Rights above us mortals.

 

Human organization behaves like human organism. It is to be expected. The idea that you need defenses in a free society is a contradiction in terms that imprisons our reasonable responses.

 

in what way is that? by using the word "like," you're turning your example into a simile. I would argue, that although they may have things in common,
that is merely because it has human characteristics, which, by that logic- it's not a far stretch to say 'corporations are people too.'

to me it's evident, that a system of immorality has created and bred the immorality within our society; and, that immorality is the idea that one groups of individuals, has complete moral control over another, meanwhile, they don't even follow their own laws..

if i understand what you're saying, i agree with you. you wouldn't need defense from government, in a truly free society, because we wouldn't need or want government at all.


The reason why I said "without (our rights)being defended by government, the Rule of Law will collapse," was only to say, that governments cannot run, without the consent of the governed.

On the other hand, I'm all for the abolishment of the State, because to me, it is contradictory to say "I believe in feedom," then, in the same breath, defend a government, which perpetuates the contrast.

 

In the way all organic or psychic systems seek to protect and extend. In a biological sense it is hard to get rid of weeds and in a psychic sense we seek to protect and extend our own world models or our right causes. The ultimate demise of institutional systems is that they are not dynamic enough or within them is no model to accommodate change. The free or unaffiliated human being has the fundamental power to override systems by changing our minds.

This perception distorts reasonable responses as there is no moral compass besides the instinct to protect and extend.

It is not enough for me to not need defenses, I require agility as well. Social administration is required for proprietary record keeping. If you are ready to give up your ideas of property then you can do without government.

Absolutely and even you consent to or contract for government services. So the answer is not to cut off your nose to spite your face. If you are ready to support yourself to the fond rid of government then turn your back on it. If you attack it or resist in any fashion you will lend the full strength of primal protect and extend to the very enemy you would prefer to be without. Every body must eat and eating is getting energy from somewhere.