What are the practical purposes of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (usda) obtaining machine guns? On May 7, the department requested the commercial acquisition of Smith & Wesson .40 caliber submachine guns. It is unknown how many weapons the agency is looking to purchase.

The mission statement of the Department of Agriculture states: “We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management.” It can now add the beneficial side-note that all its policies can be backed by ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic weapons decked out with Tritium night sights for front and rear, flashlight and scope, collapsible stock, 30 round capacity magazines, sling, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.

The usda gave no explanation for its request of the military-grade hardware. The reasoning may stem from the same train of thought as the police. It isn’t about becoming militaristic, it’s just about keeping pace with the trends of society. As former Los Angeles Police chief William Bratton said, “We are a gun-crazed society.”

It is true that gun purchases have skyrocketed in the United States. In the past two years, according to cnn Money, “gun shop owners and consumers have complained of ammunition shortages and a dearth in fast-selling semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, even as manufacturing ramped up.”

But how often does the average usda worker expect to encounter a situation where the use of a .40 caliber submachine gun would be an appropriate course of action? Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security could have more justification with such an arms purchase, but the Department of Agriculture?

Is the U.S. government so afraid of lawlessness that it is prepared to militarize departments that are as far removed from combat as the Department of Agriculture? Did the events at the Bundy Ranch showdown in Nevada reinforce that view? While these farm and food police take on an image more akin to a swat team, many federal politicians call for stricter gun control laws.

The juxtaposing stance of bolstering government agencies, while trying to take away the individual’s right to bear arms, is certainly a cause for concern. Could the current administration’s efforts to militarize departments that have no such need be a part of something sinister? In the words of Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry, “Government tyranny isroutinein human history …. Let’s not be naive and think something like that could never happen here. Our forefathers weren’t stupid. They wanted to guarantee Americans’ freedom” (America Under Attack).

If you want to know more about Washington’s policies of arming and centralizing power, read our article “Why Does the Environmental Protection Agency Need Its Own SWAT Team?” The article exposes the militarization happening in America, and will prove a valuable read to anyone who wants to know where the military build-up is leading.