Why Does the Department of Education and USDA Need 'Weapons of War'?
Massie grills agency reps on why non-law-enforcement federal agencies are buying short-barreled rifles, body armor, and ammunition by the millions of rounds.
Original by RepThomasMassie on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →
Transcript
Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.
- uh are there any further amendments the amendment nature of a substitute mr chairman what purpose does mr massey seek recognition mr chairman i have an amendment to offer i reserve a point of
- order mr chairman clerk will report the amendment the point of order is reserved amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r 1808 offered by
- mr massey of kentucky without objection the amendment will be considered as red the gentleman is uh recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment i thank the uh the chairman um the bill the
- underlying bill that we're marking up today purportedly does two things it purports to ban weapons of war
- although it doesn't ban the sks the m1 grand the m1 carbine or a variety of other weapons that were designed for the military
- but it purports to ban weapons of war and it purports to ban magazines capable of carrying more than 15 rounds there are exemptions in the bill
- for federal agencies sort of blanket exemption my amendment is simple it says that the
- exemption does not cover the department of education or the department of agriculture for either the 15 round and
- above 15 round magazines or the so-called weapons of war i am at a loss to understand why the
- department of education or the department of agriculture would need the so-called weapons of war to complete their missions
- and um i would if if i may i would yield to any of the democrats who went to tell me why the department of education needs weapons of
- war uh mr swalwell i'll yield to you i would just ask if they don't need them why do you need them i yield back i would i would say that
- they are not weapons of war but i am taking the intent of mr sicilini on good faith that he's banning weapons of war here
- and so i would ask him why would he ban something that he calls weapons of war what why would he allow the us
- department of agriculture or the department of education to have what he considers to be weapons of war he said these weapons that he
- seeks to design have characteristics specifically for killing people if it's you know if it's at the usda i would wonder
- uh maybe you need to dispatch an unruly animal but if that's the case why would he seek to allow them to have weapons that in
- his by his definition and i will yield two here in a second are designed for killing people yeah i think that exclusion is included because they both have
- law enforcement agencies the gentleman yield i will yield to the chairman if he would try to answer the question why the department of education
- department of agriculture would need every so-called weapons of war every such department including the department of education and the department every department listed
- including the department of agriculture and the department of education have their own security forces who might need uh weapons i would um i like to ask why do
- they need more than 15 rounds and why would they need uh what the democrats have mostly characterized as weapons of war if they're not going to war i i
- understand that they might need firearms and i understand that the military should be exempt from from this
- prohibition and the department of homeland security and the fbi and the atf i'm starting to wonder why the irs would need weapons of war
- and i really have to scratch my head to understand why it why an agency that is involved with dealing with the education of children
- needs weapons of war and also you know maybe i've got a few articles that i'll submit for the record later on it is true
- that the fda but you see i haven't i'm not i'm not saying don't exempt the fda i understand why the fda wants weapons of
- war they conduct armed raids on armish farmers undertaking the crime of selling raw milk
- like so i i didn't seek to exclude the fda from your exemption but i cannot understand why the usda
- a department tasked with helping farmers is needs weapons of war or how they would be able to help farmers with
- weapons of war if they show up with them and i don't have anybody really who seems to want to answer that question so i offer
- my amendment and urge its adoption i think it's common sense i think it improves the bill and increases for you all it's likelihood of passage
- in the senate but your bill's probably dead on arrival there anyway and i yield back versus the gentleman from ohio secretary uh strike the last word mr chairman is recognized
- the basic principle here is this under the legislation if the legislation passed law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to purchase an ar-15 the most common rifle in the
- country no longer be able to do that but but the government will even bureaucrats at agencies like
- as mr massey's pointed out department of education department of agriculture now something just doesn't seem right about that
- it just seems strange to me yeah and i think if you ask you ask folks in the fourth district of ohio that i get the privilege representing they'll say what that that's what this bill allows
- so that's that's all that's all this amendment is like look fbi okay department of education probably not
- probably yeah i mean it's like this is this is pretty simple so i'd be happy to yield more time if he's got me
- more to say but it's it's pretty basic but i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from kentucky well to enter these agencies you have to go through a metal detector
- and uh they have a civilian mission they do not have a military mission and i think dan bishop said it well
- this it really begs the question are these and i'm not saying it as well as he did but how can you say these are weapons of war
- and then argue that they need to go to agencies that are not engaged in war and should never be engaged in war
- and let me just reiterate a vote for the underlying bill after voting against this amendment is saying that you think
- that these most americans would think are uh benign agencies like the department of education we're the government we're
- here to help like the department of agriculture we're the government and we're here to help most people don't think they need weapons of war that they
- don't have a military-style uh mission and you know i'm i'm not contending myself i
- am taking at face value that miss mr sissolini and what mr swalwell says that these are weapons of war they're clearly not weapons of war if you if you want to
- give them to the department of education which is involved in curriculum and whatnot in the department of agriculture these are not weapons of war
- so please either vote for the amendment or vote against the bill yield to the gentleman from florida the entire reason we have the bill of rights is because there are certain rights that have to be
- reserved to the people not government and mr massey's amendment shows how this legislation has turned the constitution the bill of rights on its head
- it takes powers reserved to the people and it deprives the people of those powers and rights and then it reserves explicitly the very same rights for
- government not for the military but for like the deputy commissar of pencil racers at the department of education they want you weak and the government
- strong they want you disarmed and the government armed to the teeth i'm reminded of a quote from austin powers
- where austin powers introduces one of his colleagues as a representative from the militant wing of the salvation army i didn't know he had a militant wing of
- the department of education or the usda but i am i am certainly aware that our fellow americans are concerned about a
- very troubling trend where these bureaucracies are getting their own militias and arsenals it would probably surprise most americans that just this
- year the irs has purchased 700 000 worth of ammunition so when you peel back all the layers of the onion the
- party of big government isn't actually against guns and ammo they're just against you having them because they want a citizenry that is repressed and
- dominated and ultimately subjected and by the way our founders were so brilliant they knew this would happen and they knew that the second amendment wasn't going to be about hunting or
- self-defense but about curating an appropriate balance that is necessary for a free society where we don't have to live in fear that one day some deputy
- administrator from the department of education is going to knock our door down and that as a result of us not having the appropriate protractor that
- we're somehow going to be in a in a disadvantageous position regarding our safety and far more important regarding our liberty i yield back to the gentleman from ohio under the gentleman
- from kentucky and as the gentleman from ohio has pointed out several times in this committee if they want federal agents at the school board meetings we don't need the
- department of education to go the fbi is already there i will yield back the gentleman from ohio back mr chairman