…with 30 round clips ?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why Does The USDA Need These .40 cal Weapons
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
- Status
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Good question. Couldn't be for the Forest Service because it would be beyond stupid to have those guys running around with sub-machine guns unless we were suddenly sharing a border with Syria.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you say an average citizen has the right to carry the same weapon and clip as described?
Off topic.
I'm thinking they're gearing up to take over some of these state-approved marijuana fields. Just a hunch.
Yes, you are.
What rights does a citizen have to "defend" themselves that a government employee does not have?
Crabtownboy, I'm not biting. Your question is off topic, so please stop.
And your reply is certainly off topic. The question is legitimate, but as so often happens you are afraid to enter a discussion rationally and seriously.
Arming forest rangers has been a very controversial topic in Maine for years, ever since an off-duty and out-of-uniform ranger was asked by a local sheriff's deputy to come along on a domestic violence call. There was gunfire and the ranger was wounded, fortunately minor, at least as bullet wounds go. That this incident had zero relevance to the ranger's job hasn't really mattered in the discussion.
A law allowing the arming actually was passed by the legislature earlier this year, but with a "poison pill" amendment made at the last moment - all funding for training and equipment was stripped away. Thus it was vetoed and the veto upheld. We'll see this again next year, no doubt.
A law allowing the arming actually was passed by the legislature earlier this year, but with a "poison pill" amendment made at the last moment - all funding for training and equipment was stripped away. Thus it was vetoed and the veto upheld. We'll see this again next year, no doubt.
Oh, I'll bite, because this more proof that CTB doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of the Constitution.
The second amendment doesn't apply to government employees using federal taxes to purchase weapons to defend themselves. Further, the purchase of weapons by government employees and agencies should be solely for the purpose of enforcing laws to defend the citizens of the country that those government employees and agencies are charged to protect and serve.
The second amendment is for individuals to protect themselves from the government.
Your question is invalid.
The second amendment doesn't apply to government employees using federal taxes to purchase weapons to defend themselves. Further, the purchase of weapons by government employees and agencies should be solely for the purpose of enforcing laws to defend the citizens of the country that those government employees and agencies are charged to protect and serve.
The second amendment is for individuals to protect themselves from the government.
Your question is invalid.
Original OP was WHY does the government agency NEED these weapons? Not: Is it legal for them to do so?
It was actually two years ago….
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-to-tighten-gun-control-in-two-separate-bills
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-to-tighten-gun-control-in-two-separate-bills
I would imagine there are a number of reasons why they might need these weapons. Do you agree? To list reasons would be purely speculative, but conspiracy folk are going to have a field day.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Why does the USDA need these weapons? They don't.
But they are necessary for the Little Marxist Dictator's plan I become more convinced every day actually does exist: This president will not allow elections in 2016. He intends to seize power.
He needs weapons of this magnitude to enable enforcement of his dictatorship, and he will turn every agency in the federal government into his "brown shirts."
It still seems far fetched, but I'm almost 50/50 this is going to happen.
He sees fit to ignore laws, rewrite laws, impose laws Congress didn't pass.
Why is martial law and a dictatorship any more far fetched than those things seemed five years ago?
But they are necessary for the Little Marxist Dictator's plan I become more convinced every day actually does exist: This president will not allow elections in 2016. He intends to seize power.
He needs weapons of this magnitude to enable enforcement of his dictatorship, and he will turn every agency in the federal government into his "brown shirts."
It still seems far fetched, but I'm almost 50/50 this is going to happen.
He sees fit to ignore laws, rewrite laws, impose laws Congress didn't pass.
Why is martial law and a dictatorship any more far fetched than those things seemed five years ago?
Last edited by a moderator:
And some will write it off as a non issue, and try to deflect.
Anybody remember this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
TNID, I agree that something is very amiss.
Anybody remember this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
TNID, I agree that something is very amiss.
When we have had enough, we will vote decisively, settling it at the polls and not in the streets, even though we have allowed some serious conmen inside the beltway. Our constitution is still very resilient and worth defending. And there are still a lot of minutemen around who will do just that. Some of us are packing 500 Weatherbys with scopes and enough rounds for at least two waves. Reload powder and brass are getting scarce. It ain't over yet.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I agree. I've now been out of the military longer than I was in -- 20 years in, now 23 out -- but I'm not afraid of another fight, and will be happy to join it when it comes -- and I believe it is coming.
Last edited by a moderator:
Since when is the 2nd amendment not part of the constitution?
Your question is invalid.
- Status