- This topic has 220 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM #762631June 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM #762632
livinincali
Participant[quote=SK in CV]The shortage of ammo is pretty easy to explain. People who are afraid the government wants to take guns is driving some people to buy ammo. The myth that ammo is being purchased by the government at any significantly higher rates than in the past has been debunked so many times, I shouldn’t have to address it. Because you might have read it on infowars.com doesn’t make it so.[/quote]
There’s articles from reputable sources that suggest the DHS did have contracts out to bulk buy more ammunition than they would ever need. Forbes published this http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
Recently the house passed a bill to delay the DHS’s purchase. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/05/house-votes-to-curb-dhs-stockpiles-ammo/
There certainly arguments to be made that the DHS purchase wasn’t ordinary but the reasons why are just speculation. Did they do it to limit supply for private citizens. Did they do it to push up prices. Is it something more nefarious, who knows, get your tin foil hat out.June 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM #762633SK in CV
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]The shortage of ammo is pretty easy to explain. People who are afraid the government wants to take guns is driving some people to buy ammo. The myth that ammo is being purchased by the government at any significantly higher rates than in the past has been debunked so many times, I shouldn’t have to address it. Because you might have read it on infowars.com doesn’t make it so.[/quote]
There’s articles from reputable sources that suggest the DHS did have contracts out to bulk buy more ammunition than they would ever need. Forbes published this http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
Recently the house passed a bill to delay the DHS’s purchase. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/05/house-votes-to-curb-dhs-stockpiles-ammo/
There certainly arguments to be made that the DHS purchase wasn’t ordinary but the reasons why are just speculation. Did they do it to limit supply for private citizens. Did they do it to push up prices. Is it something more nefarious, who knows, get your tin foil hat out.[/quote]Yeah, except that order for 1.6 billion rounds? There’s no evidence it actually ever existed. Lots of talk about it. Same number keeps going round and round. Changes a bit. One article actually doubled it. 1.6 billion on top of 1.6 billion used over the last year. But dig some. See if you can actually find a specific citation. If there are citations, they all seem to lead back to Alex Jones. What the DHS actually said is that they’ve contracted to purchase up to 750 million rounds. Not this week’s order. Or this month’s order. Or even this year’s order. It’s over 5 years. And the actual obligation to purchase? Zero. It’s tin foil hat material.
June 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM #762635Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Yeah, except that order for 1.6 billion rounds? There’s no evidence it actually ever existed. Lots of talk about it. Same number keeps going round and round. Changes a bit. One article actually doubled it. 1.6 billion on top of 1.6 billion used over the last year. But dig some. See if you can actually find a specific citation. If there are citations, they all seem to lead back to Alex Jones. What the DHS actually said is that they’ve contracted to purchase up to 750 million rounds. Not this week’s order. Or this month’s order. Or even this year’s order. It’s over 5 years. And the actual obligation to purchase? Zero. It’s tin foil hat material.[/quote]750 million rounds over a 5 year period is still rather large for an agency that admittedly uses about 15 million rounds in a given year for training purposes. For a government that’s been caught trying cover up all kinds of leaks and trying to distract attention through talking points I don’t have a whole lot of faith in just trust us.
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “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.”
June 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM #762637Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]
Yeah, except that order for 1.6 billion rounds? There’s no evidence it actually ever existed. Lots of talk about it. Same number keeps going round and round. Changes a bit. One article actually doubled it. 1.6 billion on top of 1.6 billion used over the last year. But dig some. See if you can actually find a specific citation. If there are citations, they all seem to lead back to Alex Jones. What the DHS actually said is that they’ve contracted to purchase up to 750 million rounds. Not this week’s order. Or this month’s order. Or even this year’s order. It’s over 5 years. And the actual obligation to purchase? Zero. It’s tin foil hat material.[/quote]750 million rounds over a 5 year period is still rather large for an agency that admittedly uses about 15 million rounds in a given year for training purposes. For a government that’s been caught trying cover up all kinds of leaks and trying to distract attention through talking points I don’t have a whole lot of faith in just trust us.
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “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.”
[/quote]
Based on what I’ve gathered, the DHS and its affiliate organizations include about 100,000 gun-toting law enforcement agents. 1,000 rounds a year for training is probably insufficient to maintain proficiency. Yet that would work out to 100 million rounds. Double that wouldn’t be unreasonable. That 15 million rounds a year is wrong. Not possible. The way it’s worded, I think the reference is to 15 million rounds for a single facility. And they have many others like it across the country.
And the 750 million rounds wasn’t an order. It was a request for quote. And the request was for a indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract. the 750 was a cap, not an order.
Some good info on it here:
June 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM #762639PCinSD
GuestA couple of anecdotal points:
I’ve tried recently to purchase ammo at WalMart. All sold out. Of everything.
My girlfriend is a federal agent with DHS. They recently cut way back on the amount of ammo they are allowed to use when going to the range. They get 1 box – 50 rounds. She chalks it up to sequestration.
She’s a senior agent and has never heard about DHS stockpiling ammo for no reason.
June 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM #762641spdrun
ParticipantClearly, it’s so sooper seekrit that only Obama and his top henchmen know … even senior DHS staff aren’t being told 🙂 Ammo is being stored at a secret warehouse in the Utah desert that we’re only being TOLD is a NSA data-mining center.
June 12, 2013 at 2:54 AM #762669CA renter
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
This wasn’t directed at me, but how about Bloomberg? Wouldn’t you admit that he represents the interests of Wall Street and many of the “moneyed elite”?
How about Walmart executives?
—–
“Wal-Mart Toughens Gun Policies
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest seller of firearms, announced Monday it will toughen rules for gun sales, from storing video of purchases to creating an internal log of which guns they sell that are later used in crimes.
J.P. Suarez, the chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., appeared with outspoken gun control advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York to announce the changes at a gathering of Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/ap_041408.shtml
——————-
It seems to me that Bloomberg would be doing society a much greater service if he would focus on the “financial terrorism” unleashed on us by Wall Street. Why is he so hell-bent on gun control, but so totally weak on breaking the backs of those in the financial industry who’ve just about brought this country to its knees? Why are there no high-level financial executives in jail for causing the financial bubble/collapse? Please don’t try to tell us that they “didn’t know what they were doing.”[/quote]
Bloomberg is the mayor of the biggest city in the country. That’s where his interest in gun control originates. His views are very similar to other big city mayors wrt guns. “Financial terrorism” isn’t within the purview of most mayors, including Bloomberg. The NY AG, whose scope of responsibility does include “financial terrorism” is addressing it.
The issue of why there aren’t any high-level executives in jail isn’t something I can defend, nor is it anything I would try to. Nor do I think it’s related to the issue we’re discussing. I suspect we’re in strong agreement on that point.
Do big corporations have disproportional influence? Absolutely. Does the finance industry have disproportional influence with both political parties? Absolutely. Is the federal government systematically invading our constitutional rights to privacy and due process? Absolutely. Do they have a motivation to take away guns? Quite possibly. Is there any evidence that they’re trying to do so? I’m still waiting. They couldn’t pass a watered down bill on background checks in the senate, much less the house. So what has actually happened over the last 5 years with regards to the government taking away guns? Absolutely nothing.[/quote]
Your assertions about Bloomberg’s motives are pure speculation, as are my theories about his motives. It’s highly doubtful he, or any other “one percenter,” would ever confess their desires to disarm the masses so that they (and their cronies) could more easily engage in their quest to amass more power and wealth.
To be sure, if there is any person who best represents the interests of Wall Street, leading corporations, and “the rich,” Bloomberg would have to be at the top of the list.
Also, while I understand that Bloomberg is not the AG, he is certainly capable of putting a lot more pressure on the right people in govt to get some indictments rolling, wouldn’t you agree?
How about George Soros?
Here, you have two heavy-hitters from the 1% club and they both have strong ties to the world of finance and corporatism. Both are rabidly in favor of gun control, and are using their own money and connections to (very effectively) fund and push anti-gun legislation. That the legislation has not made it all the way through (yet) is only because there is so much public pressure to protect our right to bear arms.
One must wonder, though, if their own security teams are armed. Somehow, I get the feeling that they think being unarmed and defenseless is for “the little people.”
June 12, 2013 at 6:53 AM #762671Participant[quote=CA renter]
Your assertions about Bloomberg’s motives are pure speculation, as are my theories about his motives. It’s highly doubtful he, or any other “one percenter,” would ever confess their desires to disarm the masses so that they (and their cronies) could more easily engage in their quest to amass more power and wealth.
To be sure, if there is any person who best represents the interests of Wall Street, leading corporations, and “the rich,” Bloomberg would have to be at the top of the list.
Also, while I understand that Bloomberg is not the AG, he is certainly capable of putting a lot more pressure on the right people in govt to get some indictments rolling, wouldn’t you agree?
How about George Soros?
Here, you have two heavy-hitters from the 1% club and they both have strong ties to the world of finance and corporatism. Both are rabidly in favor of gun control, and are using their own money and connections to (very effectively) fund and push anti-gun legislation. That the legislation has not made it all the way through (yet) is only because there is so much public pressure to protect our right to bear arms.
One must wonder, though, if their own security teams are armed. Somehow, I get the feeling that they think being unarmed and defenseless is for “the little people.”[/quote]
I think it’s funny that every time an example is needed of a 1% with a leftward lean, George Soros is rolled out. I’m not sure how you figure that Bloomberg and Soros, two rich guys out of hundreds of really rich rich guys or a couple million 1%ers, gets twisted into “rich guys want gun control”. How about the other few hundred who have never uttered a peep? Is that really all there is? The “they” in “they are trying to take our guns” is Michael Bloomberg and George Soros?
How’s all that hard work going for them? No new gun laws at the federal level in a decade, not even watered down background checks that even most gun owners support.
June 12, 2013 at 6:54 AM #762672dumbrenter
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
This wasn’t directed at me, but how about Bloomberg? Wouldn’t you admit that he represents the interests of Wall Street and many of the “moneyed elite”?
How about Walmart executives?
—–
“Wal-Mart Toughens Gun Policies
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest seller of firearms, announced Monday it will toughen rules for gun sales, from storing video of purchases to creating an internal log of which guns they sell that are later used in crimes.
J.P. Suarez, the chief compliance officer for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., appeared with outspoken gun control advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York to announce the changes at a gathering of Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/ap_041408.shtml
——————-
It seems to me that Bloomberg would be doing society a much greater service if he would focus on the “financial terrorism” unleashed on us by Wall Street. Why is he so hell-bent on gun control, but so totally weak on breaking the backs of those in the financial industry who’ve just about brought this country to its knees? Why are there no high-level financial executives in jail for causing the financial bubble/collapse? Please don’t try to tell us that they “didn’t know what they were doing.”[/quote]
Bloomberg is the mayor of the biggest city in the country. That’s where his interest in gun control originates. His views are very similar to other big city mayors wrt guns. “Financial terrorism” isn’t within the purview of most mayors, including Bloomberg. The NY AG, whose scope of responsibility does include “financial terrorism” is addressing it.
The issue of why there aren’t any high-level executives in jail isn’t something I can defend, nor is it anything I would try to. Nor do I think it’s related to the issue we’re discussing. I suspect we’re in strong agreement on that point.
Do big corporations have disproportional influence? Absolutely. Does the finance industry have disproportional influence with both political parties? Absolutely. Is the federal government systematically invading our constitutional rights to privacy and due process? Absolutely. Do they have a motivation to take away guns? Quite possibly. Is there any evidence that they’re trying to do so? I’m still waiting. They couldn’t pass a watered down bill on background checks in the senate, much less the house. So what has actually happened over the last 5 years with regards to the government taking away guns? Absolutely nothing.[/quote]
Your assertions about Bloomberg’s motives are pure speculation, as are my theories about his motives. It’s highly doubtful he, or any other “one percenter,” would ever confess their desires to disarm the masses so that they (and their cronies) could more easily engage in their quest to amass more power and wealth.
To be sure, if there is any person who best represents the interests of Wall Street, leading corporations, and “the rich,” Bloomberg would have to be at the top of the list.
Also, while I understand that Bloomberg is not the AG, he is certainly capable of putting a lot more pressure on the right people in govt to get some indictments rolling, wouldn’t you agree?
How about George Soros?
Here, you have two heavy-hitters from the 1% club and they both have strong ties to the world of finance and corporatism. Both are rabidly in favor of gun control, and are using their own money and connections to (very effectively) fund and push anti-gun legislation. That the legislation has not made it all the way through (yet) is only because there is so much public pressure to protect our right to bear arms.
One must wonder, though, if their own security teams are armed. Somehow, I get the feeling that they think being unarmed and defenseless is for “the little people.”[/quote]
But CA renter, where is the evidence? Do you have a notarized copy indicating the intent of the moneyed class with respect to arms control?
SK has direct mind control line with Bloomberg, so he obviously needs to make no effort to back up his “assertions” about Bloomberg’s intent or provide any “conclusive evidence”.SK is right though that there is a lot of public pressure to bear arms and it is also channeled well in terms of numbers and resources by the lobby groups. A bunch of “little people” putting in their $35 is the only thing standing between the moneyed class and their objective of control.
June 12, 2013 at 7:28 AM #762674Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
But CA renter, where is the evidence? Do you have a notarized copy indicating the intent of the moneyed class with respect to arms control?
SK has direct mind control line with Bloomberg, so he obviously needs to make no effort to back up his “assertions” about Bloomberg’s intent or provide any “conclusive evidence”.SK is right though that there is a lot of public pressure to bear arms and it is also channeled well in terms of numbers and resources by the lobby groups. A bunch of “little people” putting in their $35 is the only thing standing between the moneyed class and their objective of control.[/quote]
I’m not sure exactly where the sarcasm begins and ends here. Who are the little people putting in their $35? Is that the pro-gun lobby funded by gun manufacturers and right-wing groups like Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers? Or is it the citizens of Newtown who saw the damage caused by guns first hand?
My point is, there is some big money moving hands on both sides of this issue, but by far the biggest chunks of money come in on the pro-gun side. My own feelings are pretty much in alignment with Allan’s, maybe with only a few tiny tweaks. But I certainly don’t see any evidence that there’s any kind of conspiracy among the monied or the government supporting either side of this issue. If there was, we’d see movement, at very least consistent with popular opinion. We haven’t. Actual movement (or lack thereof) has gone contrary to popular opinion, even though, according to the theory of “they want to take away our guns” it should go the other way.
June 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM #762677no_such_reality
ParticipantIt’s okay, no oversight needed…
[quote] The Los Angeles Police Department investigates incidents involving the use force by officers in a way that makes it impossible in most cases for the city’s police watchdog to evaluate the thoroughness of those investigations, according to a recent report. [/quote]
June 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM #762700Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]It’s okay, no oversight needed…
[quote] The Los Angeles Police Department investigates incidents involving the use force by officers in a way that makes it impossible in most cases for the city’s police watchdog to evaluate the thoroughness of those investigations, according to a recent report. [/quote]
LAPD Watchdog Find Short Paperwork on Use of Force[/quote]
NSR: Well, given that LAPD only shoots people of color; if you’re white, you should be fine.
White, and driving a BMW, Audi or large SUV on the Westside, even better.
June 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM #762741ParticipantThey’re desperate. They’re already playing the nuclear card.
[quote]Mueller disagreed, and told the story of Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker Khalid al-Midhar, a muscleman on the plane that hit the Pentagon that morning.
Mueller said that during the period before the terror attacks, U.S. intelligence officials were following but “lost track” of al-Midhar and then “at the same time intelligence agencies found an Al Qaeda safe house in Yemen.”
He said agents had the phone number but did not know who was calling into the safe house. “We came to find out later that the person was al-Midhar who was in this country in San Diego at that time,” Mueller said.[/quote]
June 13, 2013 at 3:19 PM #762766ParticipantThey are pathetic. This little tidbit does not justify their spying on U.S. citizens, and it never will. It would be interesting to see how many (informed) people would be willing to give up their liberties in exchange for the supposed “safety” that the govt is claiming will result from their exploits.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.