Desert Tactical Arms turned down a $15 million contract to provide arms to Pakistan for the moral issue that they employ many who are military veterans and fear that the equipment sold to Pakistan could be used against US troops.

Not sure which is the bigger story to debate: The fact that this company is making a courageous choice to turn down a lucrative contract in favor of doing the right thing—OR the fact that the Obama Administration is seeking a taxpayer funded contract to arm our enemies?

On the former debate another concern to consider is that the guns could also be used against Christians in those countries, so kudos to Desert Tactical Arms on multiple levels for making the right choice. On the latter debate: Can anyone say ‘Fast and Furious‘ or gun running to Syria in Benghazi?

Desert Tactical Arms posted the following statement on their Facebook page:

In 2013 we faced a moral dilemma that I wanted to get some opinions on. The current US administration is sponsoring FMS arms sales to Pakistan forces. In 2013 We had been approached with a multi-million dollar opportunity to legally supply sniper systems to Pakistan. I was never in the armed services but we employ several military veterans. Our greatest fear was that our equipment might be used against US troops. I started this company to protect Americans not endanger them. In consulting with other arms companies the general responses I got was, if they don’t buy it from you, then they will get it somewhere else, or money is money. After much internal review we elected not to sell to Pakistan. I wanted to throw this out to our military friends to see if our concern was legitimate and hear your thoughts on it.

Thanks

Nick Young

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/...ms-to-pakistan/