Dept of Agriculture Orders Submachine Guns with 30 Round Magazine

Hingefactor

Member
All of the CT websites are lighting up with this story:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...rders-Submachine-Guns-With-30-Round-Magazines

The proposal checks out as being real:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0

So, what's the purpose behind such a specific proposal as this:

"...for the commerical acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burts trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe or folding, magazine - 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation."

It seems kind've suspicious that the posting has some pretty heinous misspellings.

This purchase proposal plays right into the hands of the folks that thinks the government is arming up against the citizens.

Thoughts?
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
A simple search would reveal why the USDA agents may have need of firepower.... But the conspiracy promotion websites are only interested in the bits of information that support their narrative, even if it means not presenting all the pertinent facts.

Link


Link

 
Last edited:

Hingefactor

Member
That sounds completely reasonable to me. Unfortunately, the CTer's are just going to use this to ramp up their anti-government rhetoric, especially those who are Bundy supporters.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
This is a "Sources Sought" notice type. They're not buying them yet. Also, since when to typos signal evil government intentions?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
It doesn't state what quantity they are looking for. That might help give some perspective.

Anyone feel like calling Linda?? :)

Primary Point of Contact.:
Linda F. Josey,
Chief, Procurement Management Branch
linda.josey@oig.usda.gov
Phone: 2027208337
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
That sounds completely reasonable to me. Unfortunately, the CTer's are just going to use this to ramp up their anti-government rhetoric, especially those who are Bundy supporters.

It isn't just the regular conspiracy believers.

Notice the Breitbart link. This noise is being pushed out to the Republican base. I've seen it posted today on a surfing forum, a canoe and kayak forum, and on facebook by people that aren't you're stereotypical hardcore Alex Jones devotes. I'm wondering what is the aim of blowing on the anti-government fire by people that ultimately want to control the government by winning the next election.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
The links don't seem to mention how much firepower they're buying, but I'm betting its on the order of the other agency orders that CT websites have lit up about, and those mostly ranged from thousands to tends of thousands of rounds.

The sort of actions that conspiracy theorists think these purchases are preparing for would require tens of millions of rounds, and I'm being conservative. In a firefight, a lot more ammunition is used for things like suppression and intimidation than actually go into the enemy. In Iraq, the US fired about 250,000 rounds for every kill. Figures I've read for past wars are in similar range or higher (WW2 estimates are just ridiculous, with 47 billion rounds of ammunition being shipped to combat zones just from US manufacturers).

With the sort of weapons that various federal agencies have been buying, their combined forces would have difficulty maintaining martial law on a few rural counties, let alone an entire state or the country itself.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The links don't seem to mention how much firepower they're buying, but I'm betting its on the order of the other agency orders that CT websites have lit up about, and those mostly ranged from thousands to tends of thousands of rounds.

The sort of actions that conspiracy theorists think these purchases are preparing for would require tens of millions of rounds, and I'm being conservative. In a firefight, a lot more ammunition is used for things like suppression and intimidation than actually go into the enemy. In Iraq, the US fired about 250,000 rounds for every kill. Figures I've read for past wars are in similar range or higher (WW2 estimates are just ridiculous, with 47 billion rounds of ammunition being shipped to combat zones just from US manufacturers).

With the sort of weapons that various federal agencies have been buying, their combined forces would have difficulty maintaining martial law on a few rural counties, let alone an entire state or the country itself.

The links don't say how much they're buying because they're not buying anything yet. The announcement is to establish sources for these weapons. Government procurement is a many splendored thing.
 

hashermartha

New Member
this is what I find odd...

1) if you do a search on FBO.gov, only two results show up in the past year for USDA OIG, the one mentioned above and another posted on the same day for ballistic vests.
2) The Solicitation Number(s) aren't consistent with any other numbers used by the Department of Ag., most of the others requests start with AG-. Using USDA-OIG then WEA and the date just isn't how the Fed assigns numbers (it would make too much sense)
3) I've read a lot of RFP/RFIs and the wording in this request seems odd. There is usually a lot of information/specs about what needs to be submitted and how it should formatted...never have I seen, 'send us your name and phone number'.

while it might be true and there is a reasonable explanation...it may also be an elaborate hoax. it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake posting on the FBO.gov website.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
this is what I find odd...

1) if you do a search on FBO.gov, only two results show up in the past year for USDA OIG, the one mentioned above and another posted on the same day for ballistic vests.
2) The Solicitation Number(s) aren't consistent with any other numbers used by the Department of Ag., most of the others requests start with AG-. Using USDA-OIG then WEA and the date just isn't how the Fed assigns numbers (it would make too much sense)
3) I've read a lot of RFP/RFIs and the wording in this request seems odd. There is usually a lot of information/specs about what needs to be submitted and how it should formatted...never have I seen, 'send us your name and phone number'.

while it might be true and there is a reasonable explanation...it may also be an elaborate hoax. it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake posting on the FBO.gov website.

I'd agree though that the language is unusual. The "has a requirement for commercial acquisition" lingo is new. "Linda F. Josey" has never been a primary point of contact before. "Desiree Clayton" appears on a few solicitations.

My suspicion here is that it's genuine, but something new. Possibly the result of some restructuring, where some LEOs that were under another branch are now under OIG-Investigation.
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General," seeks "Body Armor as well . I think its absolutely ludicrous the USDA the BLM etc should be armed at all . Thats what Law Enforcement is for .

The BLM is law enforcement on the lands they manage. Just like Ranger Rick in Yellowstone who also carries a gun and is law enforcement.

...and with guys like Bundy around it is clear that it is appropriate.
 
J

Joe

Guest
The BLM is law enforcement on the lands they manage. Just like Ranger Rick in Yellowstone who also carries a gun and is law enforcement.

...and with guys like Bundy around it is clear that it is appropriate.
Yea if they werent ARMED they never would have had a standoff . They accomplished nothing by being armed .
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Without wishing to roam off-topic, a semi-auto by definition is not a sub-machine-gun unless it is capable of full-auto: Sorry to be pedantic but I think the correct definition would be a carbine.

Secondly, the .40 S&W is a fine round, but it is still a low velocity projectile regardless of how big the magazines are, so will likely not penetrate body armour, especially of they are using the hollow-point rounds favoured by law enforcement in the US.

So the weapon is hardly an act of war, and in cases such as the Bundy-ites vs Everybody else, the DoA are likely to find themselves outgunned, even with their shiny new Carbines...
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Yea if they werent ARMED they never would have had a standoff . They accomplished nothing by being armed .

That's funny! what a blzzare prism you look through.

There would not have been a stand off if Bundy wasn't a law breaking, govt subsidy fraudster.

It's completely logical and understandable why entities like the USDA and BLM would need to arm themselves.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html

http://www.usda.gov/oig/invest.htm

Keep in mind the US Forest Service is part of the USDA:

http://www.fs.fed.us/lei/
 
J

Joe

Guest
That's funny! what a blzzare prism you look through.

There would not have been a stand off if Bundy wasn't a law breaking, govt subsidy fraudster.

It's completely logical and understandable why entities like the USDA and BLM would need to arm themselves.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html

http://www.usda.gov/oig/invest.htm

Keep in mind the US Forest Service is part of the USDA:

http://www.fs.fed.us/lei/
They dont need machine guns and body armor . My bizarre prism ? I don't worship government and make excuses for them .
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General," seeks "Body Armor as well . I think its absolutely ludicrous the USDA the BLM etc should be armed at all . Thats what Law Enforcement is for . http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...an-Antonio-police-to-arrest-organic-activists .

Already explained up thread that USDA has LE division.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...guns-with-30-round-magazine.3653/#post-105856

as does the National Park Service, BLM, Florida Fish and Wildlife (and every other state DNR or DNR equivalent). Would you rather have one giant national police force that does everything from traffic stops to conservation enforcement?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
They dont need machine guns and body armor . My bizarre prism ? I don't worship government and make excuses for them .

Thats not for you to decide.

I dont "worship the government"- thats just you being spiteful - but I do have a very high respect for those in law enforcement - no matter what agency they are from. If they feel a need for machine guns then I suspect they have a very good reason for it.

No excuses are needed for proper law enforcement.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
As a general rule, as far back as the 1800's law enforcement buys equivalent equipment to those used by the criminals they deal with. Most police departments have weapons like this, even if you normally see them with pistols and the occasional shotgun.

The point made above about why they don't need them is spot on as to why: "Yea if they werent ARMED they never would have had a standoff." They would not have had a stand off because they would have come unarmed and found themselves obstructed by a group armed with high end weaponry. They would have gone home, leaving the laws they are tasked to enforce unenforced, and leaving those who have broken them free to break them with impunity.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Already explained up thread that USDA has LE division.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...guns-with-30-round-magazine.3653/#post-105856

as does the National Park Service, BLM, Florida Fish and Wildlife (and every other state DNR or DNR equivalent). Would you rather have one giant national police force that does everything from traffic stops to conservation enforcement?
It is the National thing that bothers me . The State as with the Florida Fish and Wildlife is fine because it Isn't controlled by the FEDS . I have a problem with the executive branch having its own police force . If you have ANY Examples of them needing this firepower for some reason Id like someone to post it ? We already have a civilian force . They are called armed Americans .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Thats not for you to decide.

I dont "worship the government"- thats just you being spiteful - but I do have a very high respect for those in law enforcement - no matter what agency they are from. If they feel a need for machine guns then I suspect they have a very good reason for it.

No excuses are needed for proper law enforcement.
I have plenty respect for those in law enforcement and know many and have family in law enforcement that also agree with me . Well I don't look through any Bizarre prisms either its called a Opinion .
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Call in the local police . Thats what they are for .
Your average local department is not the NYPD with assault vehicles and modified tanks at their disposal. Your average local police department is lucky if they're manned and equipped to handle traffic enforcement on a necessary scale, most of them need to call in higher departments to deal with street gangs, who on average are packing cheap pistols and woefully misinformed on their effective use.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Your average local department is not the NYPD with assault vehicles and modified tanks at their disposal. Your average local police department is lucky if they're manned and equipped to handle traffic enforcement on a necessary scale, most of them need to call in higher departments to deal with street gangs, who on average are packing cheap pistols and woefully misinformed on their effective use.
Id disgree 100% . Seems they've been equipping themselves pretty well . https://www.aclu.org/militarization
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I have a problem with the executive branch having its own police force

Why? The Executive Branch has one of the oldest police force in the Nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Park_Police

http://www.nps.gov/uspp/


The USDA does a lot of law enforcement work- who are you to say they do not need body armor or machine guns?(again- we dont know how many they are seeking which would add some clarity and perspective)

http://www.usda.gov/oig/invest.htm

 
Top