A little something for the nutjobs - all that ammo

[cosmo20002]

Homeland Security and its cache of bullets
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL | Associated Press – 10 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Online rumors about a big government munitions purchase are true, sort of.

The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them — roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States — for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.

Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall. That's when conservative radio host Alex Jones spoke of an "arms race against the American people" and said the government was "gearing up for total collapse, they're gearing up for huge wars."

The government's explanation is much less sinister.

Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga . The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department's umbrella. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department's training center last year.

The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government's second largest criminal investigative agency.

ICE's ammunition requests in the last year included:

—450 million rounds of .40-caliber duty ammunition

—40 million rounds of rifle ammunition a year for as many as five years, for a total bullet-buy of 200 million rounds

—176,000 rifle rounds on a separate contract

—25,000 blank rounds

The Homeland Security ammo buy is not the first time the government's bullets purchases have sparked concerns on the Internet. The same thing happened last year when the Social Security Administration posted a notice that it was buying 174,000 hollow point bullets.

Jonathan L. Lasher, the agency's assistant inspector general for external relations, said those bullets were for the Social Security inspector general's office, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.

Jones the talk-show host did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-secur...190840538.html

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by frazod

You act like the United States is one big unified group of people - that we operate and think as one. Seriously, could that be farther from the truth right now? Do you think your average congressman gets up in the morning thinking "Hey, I've got to remember my oath and go to bat for the little guy," or "Well, I wonder what my party leaders and biggest donors have on the agenda for the day"? The people who run this country, and more importantly, the people who run the people who run the country, don't give even a fraction of a shit about us. That much is obvious. As for who would do what, ask yourself - would Army units comprised of non-white urbanites really have a problem firing on "a bunch of rednecks"? Would U.N. peacekeepers? And I somehow doubt HS thugs are recruited based on their love of liberty.

are there enough all nonwhite urbanites to take over the country while the white urbanite soldiers look on?

and what about all those white and nonwhite suburbanites and all the white and nonwhite rural soldiers? are they gonna watch it all burn?

no, i think not...

are there enough un peacekeepers to enslave america?

i think not...

and which thugs are you talking about, specifically, when you reference HIS thugs?

are there really enough nonwhite urbanites, un peacekeepers and thugs to take over america and take everybody's guns away?

i guess that's why the government is buying ten bazillion rounds of ammo...

so each nonwhite urbanite army soldier and peacekeeper and thug will be able to carry around 247,000 rounds on his back while disarming the public...

[Fish]

Originally Posted by frazod

You act like the United States is one big unified group of people - that we operate and think as one. Seriously, could that be farther from the truth right now? Do you think your average congressman gets up in the morning thinking "Hey, I've got to remember my oath and go to bat for the little guy," or "Well, I wonder what my party leaders and biggest donors have on the agenda for the day"? The people who run this country, and more importantly, the people who run the people who run the country, don't give even a fraction of a shit about us. That much is obvious. As for who would do what, ask yourself - would Army units comprised of non-white urbanites really have a problem firing on "a bunch of rednecks"? Would U.N. peacekeepers? And I somehow doubt HS thugs are recruited based on their love of liberty.

What your average congressman thinks is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what he could actually accomplish. And a government takeover doesn't qualify. The people who run this country still would need an incredible force to execute these evil deeds. And non-white urbanites are not the answer. ... I can't believe you would even type that.

This has degenerated to the idea that the government is going to arm all the urban thugs and set them loose on the population, cause everybody knows they love to kill them some white folk. Good ****ing grief man. Listen to yourself....

[mr. tegu]

I am curious as to what some of you think the benefits for the government are should they try to take over the people.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I am curious as to what some of you think the benefits for the government are should they try to take over the people.

That's an easy one. Power and control.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Fish

What your average congressman thinks is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what he could actually accomplish. And a government takeover doesn't qualify. The people who run this country still would need an incredible force to execute these evil deeds. And non-white urbanites are not the answer. ... I can't believe you would even type that.

This has degenerated to the idea that the government is going to arm all the urban thugs and set them loose on the population, cause everybody knows they love to kill them some white folk. Good ****ing grief man. Listen to yourself....

I really can't defend hypothetical arguments - you realize that, right? These are things that could happen. Based on events that HAVE HAPPENED ELSEWHERE in the past. Ever heard the old addage about what happens to people who ignore history?

I know, racist, kook, tin foil hat, he hates everybody. Nothing to see here. Athenian democracy is alive and well. The Roman Empire - still going strong. The 1,000 Year Reich? I guess they're good until 2933.

It's all good dude. Have a big slice of government cheese and then put your head back in the sand.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by go bowe

are there enough all nonwhite urbanites to take over the country while the white urbanite soldiers look on?

and what about all those white and nonwhite suburbanites and all the white and nonwhite rural soldiers? are they gonna watch it all burn?

no, i think not...

are there enough un peacekeepers to enslave america?

i think not...

and which thugs are you talking about, specifically, when you reference HIS thugs?

are there really enough nonwhite urbanites, un peacekeepers and thugs to take over america and take everybody's guns away?

i guess that's why the government is buying ten bazillion rounds of ammo...

so each nonwhite urbanite army soldier and peacekeeper and thug will be able to carry around 247,000 rounds on his back while disarming the public...

That was "HS" not "HIS" HS = Homeland Security. Not to be confused with Fatherland Security or Motherland Security, of course.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's an easy one. Power and control.

They don't have that already? Wouldn't the wealth of the government and the people that make up said institutions be severly compromised in such a scenario? I would think so.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by frazod

That was "HS" not "HIS" HS = Homeland Security. Not to be confused with Fatherland Security or Motherland Security, of course.

hs?

ooops, can't read today, must be all that liberal crap spinning around in my head...

his makes sense too, sorta... :

[Fish]

Originally Posted by frazod

I really can't defend hypothetical arguments - you realize that, right? These are things that could happen. Based on events that HAVE HAPPENED ELSEWHERE in the past. Ever heard the old addage about what happens to people who ignore history?

I know, racist, kook, tin foil hat, he hates everybody. Nothing to see here. Athenian democracy is alive and well. The Roman Empire - still going strong. The 1,000 Year Reich? I guess they're good until 2933.

It's all good dude. Have a big slice of government cheese and then put your head back in the sand.

History is certainly a good reference. But you're talking about much much smaller countries, different land masses, different civilian firepower, etc.

My head is not in the sand. On the contrary, I've thought about this a lot. And I've found the referenced challenges with the idea to be so great that it easily approaches impossible. I've thought about the reasons why the government would want to do such a thing, and what advantages it would provide them, which you've still yet to try to address. And none of it makes sense.

And another thing that I find ironic... Many of the same people in this thread warning against government takeover, are the same ones in the Gun thread talking about how much ammo they're stocking up on. Yet nobody is questioning who those guys are planning to attack. Some government agencies stock up on ammo, and then it's outright panic and Nazi references...

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Fish

My head is not in the sand. On the contrary, I've thought about this a lot. And I've found the referenced challenges with the idea to be so great that it easily approaches impossible. I've thought about the reasons why the government would want to do such a thing, and what advantages it would provide them, which you've still yet to try to address. And none of it makes sense.

He's really good at spinning the wild stories (or endorsing the ones he hears), but when asked how or why, then he's got nothing.

I've asked several times why the govt ammo purchase should even be looked at with suspicion. What is the point of reference for how much is "legitimately" needed? How did they (the conspiracy nuts) decide what is "normal?" No answer to that.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

They don't have that already? Wouldn't the wealth of the government and the people that make up said institutions be severly compromised in such a scenario? I would think so.

Exactly. The US government right now has everything they could want. They depend greatly on what their citizens provide. Were they to take over, they'd destroy all of that and intentionally reduce their own power and wealth. It would require them to abandon all their presence in other countries, and fight a war back home on their own soil. Which would leave them severely susceptible to all kinds of outside forces, including many that they're currently fighting. Why? They don't have the resources to police the world like they're currently trying to do, along with fighting their own citizens. Where's the advantage in doing that? It would be self destruction.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't fear anything the government does. Far from it. But fearing that the government is going to break down our doors, steal our guns, and throw us all in the gulags is just insane...

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by frazod

The adults are having a conversation, Bongo. Stop smearing poo on the walls.

Which assumes you are capable of having one without exposing yourself as a complete whack job.

Regarding me, they don't let "windowlickers" into one of the most competitive fields in the nation.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Fish

Exactly. The US government right now has everything they could want. They depend greatly on what their citizens provide. Were they to take over, they'd destroy all of that and intentionally reduce their own power and wealth. It would require them to abandon all their presence in other countries, and fight a war back home on their own soil. Which would leave them severely susceptible to all kinds of outside forces, including many that they're currently fighting. Why? They don't have the resources to police the world like they're currently trying to do, along with fighting their own citizens. Where's the advantage in doing that? It would be self destruction.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't fear anything the government does. Far from it. But fearing that the government is going to break down our doors, steal our guns, and throw us all in the gulags is just insane...

Why bother?

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Which assumes you are capable of having one without exposing yourself as a complete whack job.

Regarding me, they don't let "windowlickers" into one of the most competitive fields in the nation.

Yeah, the reason you're here debating this silly shit with a bunch of paranoid rednecks is because you're so uber-successful.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

He's really good at spinning the wild stories (or endorsing the ones he hears), but when asked how or why, then he's got nothing.

I've asked several times why the govt ammo purchase should even be looked at with suspicion. What is the point of reference for how much is "legitimately" needed? How did they (the conspiracy nuts) decide what is "normal?" No answer to that.

I can't provide a link from plottodestroyamerica.org, so it's all in my head.