PDA

View Full Version : Why You Should Question the Feds


Tombstone RJ
02-15-2013, 01:19 PM
What a boat load of horsecrap. The feds want to buy 1.6 BILLION ROUNDS of ammo! That's a staggering figure. At 15 million rounds a year that's over 100 years worth of supply:

http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-security-cache-bullets-190840538.html

The real reason they want all this ammo is to prevent citizens from buying it, and to drive up the cost. Next thing the feds will do is slap an exorbitant tax on ammo. Just watch. It's comming.

Tombstone RJ
02-15-2013, 01:22 PM
This, of course, is in addition to all the ammo the military absorbs for the "war on terror."

Requiem
02-15-2013, 01:27 PM
War, Religion and Politics Forum. . .

A thread will be coming to your part of the Mane very shortly. Please hold.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
02-15-2013, 01:30 PM
....unless the its a Dem everything is ok. Repub drinks water its national news.

rugbythug
02-15-2013, 01:32 PM
In step with this is the fact that the Armed forces no longer sell their used brass. They now shred it and sell as scrap. Reaping a fraction of the value.

gyldenlove
02-15-2013, 01:39 PM
I don't think this is the main reason you should question your government, just saying...

Tombstone RJ
02-15-2013, 01:41 PM
War, Religion and Politics Forum. . .

A thread will be coming to your part of the Mane very shortly. Please hold.

This is the offseason... and IMHO this is not about war, nor is it about religion, nor is it about politics. It's about the feds doing something completely unjustifiable, that is, buying a completely unecessary amount of pistol and rifle ammunition.

Forget about the cost, forget about fact that local law enforcement is also screwed by this policy, forget about the staggering figure for just a moment and ponder the greater ramifications of this policy. It's just an inexcusable amount of small arms ammunition.

Drunken.Broncoholic
02-15-2013, 01:43 PM
....unless the its a Dem everything is ok. Repub drinks water its national news.

How embarrassing is that. A "career ender"? Yep. Dems really are that immature.

peacepipe
02-15-2013, 01:54 PM
What a boat load of horsecrap. The feds want to buy 1.6 BILLION ROUNDS of ammo! That's a staggering figure. At 15 million rounds a year that's over 100 years worth of supply:

http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-security-cache-bullets-190840538.html

The real reason they want all this ammo is to prevent citizens from buying it, and to drive up the cost. Next thing the feds will do is slap an exorbitant tax on ammo. Just watch. It's comming.

This thread is horse crap.
Is our military,police suppose to use paint balls.
BTW,are ammo producers limited in the amt of ammo they can make.
Is there some ammo mine out there that's going dry.
Let me let you in on a little secret,they can make more ammo.

mkporter
02-15-2013, 02:38 PM
A few notes:

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.

To me that reads that this particular training center uses as many as 15 million rounds per year. So the 1.6B rounds would be a 100 year supply for this facility, not for all of homeland security. 1.6 Billion rounds would supply 20 such facilities for 5 years (which is the noted duration of the contract).

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. ... More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department's training center last year.

750 Million rounds for 5 years with 70,000 agents per year is roughly 2000 rounds per agent trained at DHS facilities. Is that a lot? I have no idea. The contract also notes that "up to" 750 Million rounds can be purchased, which may mean that they don't purchase this many. The contract probably has a minimum amount as well to ensure good pricing.

Ammunition purchased in the US on the whole was about 10-12 Billion rounds last year as far as I can tell. This government purchase would account for 2.5%-3.5% of the total market. A significant portion to be sure, but enough to intentionally drive prices significantly higher? I wonder if the logic doesn't work the other way? The American public has been significantly escalating their guns and ammo purchases over the past several years, which has put significant pressure on pricing and supply. If I'm a large consumer of ammunition, like the DHS, I'm probably also looking to make large volume purchases to keep cost down, and ensure adequate supply over the next several years. Or maybe I'm just looking to start a war against the american public. Hard to say.

JLesSPE
02-15-2013, 02:39 PM
This thread is horse crap.
Is our military,police suppose to use paint balls. 1.6 BILLION rounds for ONE agency
BTW,are ammo producers limited in the amt of ammo they can make.Yes, just like every other producer of goods. Manufacturers have supply pipelines that are configured based upon past, current, and projected need. Try telling a bullet manufacturer, oh hey can you crank out a couple extra BILLION bullets for me this month? The gov't bought all mine
Is there some ammo mine out there that's going dry. If there was an ammo mine I would live there.
Let me let you in on a little secret,they can make more ammo. Cute, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Irish Stout
02-15-2013, 03:10 PM
This thread is horse crap.
Is our military,police suppose to use paint balls. 1.6 BILLION rounds for ONE agency
BTW,are ammo producers limited in the amt of ammo they can make.Yes, just like every other producer of goods. Manufacturers have supply pipelines that are configured based upon past, current, and projected need. Try telling a bullet manufacturer, oh hey can you crank out a couple extra BILLION bullets for me this month? The gov't bought all mine
Is there some ammo mine out there that's going dry. If there was an ammo mine I would live there.
Let me let you in on a little secret,they can make more ammo. Cute, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Its 90 agencies that fall under one department.

Its about 400Million bullets a year, so not as direct of a hit on the manufacturer "pipeline" as 1.6B all at once. 400 Million gets spread out over a year to make about 32 Million a month - not the 1.6B/month you implied. Also - last year ICE bought almost 500Million bullets.

Will you invite me over to your ammo mine for tea and scrumpets when and if you ever find the magical place. It would be interesting for sure.

Not sure if any of us know what we're talking about.

errand
02-15-2013, 03:16 PM
What a boat load of horsecrap. The feds want to buy 1.6 BILLION ROUNDS of ammo! That's a staggering figure. At 15 million rounds a year that's over 100 years worth of supply:

http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-security-cache-bullets-190840538.html

The real reason they want all this ammo is to prevent citizens from buying it, and to drive up the cost. Next thing the feds will do is slap an exorbitant tax on ammo. Just watch. It's comming.

in Missouri and New York the Democrats have already submitted legislation to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens...... add in the fact that Barack Obama has already stated that there should be a civillian security force that needs to be as well-armed, equipped and funded as our military.....can you say der Sturmabteilung?

I once saw a movie where only the police and the military had guns it was called Schindler's List.....

errand
02-15-2013, 03:33 PM
amazing how everyone wants to limit me to 10 rounds but government can get 1.6 billion

Inkana7
02-15-2013, 03:42 PM
in Missouri and New York the Democrats have already submitted legislation to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens...... add in the fact that Barack Obama has already stated that there should be a civillian security force that needs to be as well-armed, equipped and funded as our military.....can you say der Sturmabteilung?

I once saw a movie where only the police and the military had guns it was called Schindler's List.....

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/

yawn

mkporter
02-15-2013, 04:05 PM
amazing how everyone wants to limit me to 10 rounds but government can get 1.6 billion

I'm guessing from your posts, that you are sitting on your fair share of ammo. Amiright?

JPPT1974
02-15-2013, 04:14 PM
Feds will never tell cause they are not honest with the American people!

Rohirrim
02-15-2013, 04:23 PM
Average Right Winger watching Fox Noise...

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gif.gif

errand
02-15-2013, 04:35 PM
so what are you lied to liberals going to do if we are correct? if our government decides to take away all the rights and amendments you care about..... most of you don't own guns so you don't care if the Second Amendment is abolished.

just because I don't own a newspaper or a radio/television station doesn't mean I won't defend the First Amendment...... like I say my right to own a gun is what defend your right to tell me I cannot.

I'm not a criminal but would defend the IV and V amendments as well....

I've never owned nor condoned the ownership of slaves, so should I be concerned if someone wanted to abolish the 13th Amendment? Damn right I should.....

Eventually the over reaching government will get to an amendment that you do care about and does affect you

RaiderH8r
02-15-2013, 04:38 PM
Average Right Winger watching Fox Noise...

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gif.gif

And your typical Lunatic Lefty

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1375721&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/1375721/monkey-smells-finger.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com/)

rugbythug
02-15-2013, 04:42 PM
http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/

yawn

Hitler only wanted people he trusted to have guns. Not everyone as per your link. What kind of Crazy Gov't would let those that appose you politically have weapons.

Link also goes onto use waco as a reference on how armed resistance is futile. I imagine jews in the ghetto would have appreciated a 50 day stand off before being slaughtered.

yawn

Inkana7
02-15-2013, 05:34 PM
Hitler only wanted people he trusted to have guns. Not everyone as per your link. What kind of Crazy Gov't would let those that appose you politically have weapons.

Link also goes onto use waco as a reference on how armed resistance is futile. I imagine jews in the ghetto would have appreciated a 50 day stand off before being slaughtered.

yawn

lol look up the Warsaw Uprising. As a hunter and gun owner I appreciate gun rights but I assure you that errand and his dad's 12-gauge are not what's standing between any government and tyranny.

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 06:08 PM
How successful was that LA cop killer at repelling the Government with his gun?

Gun owners keep bringing up that we have a right to own a gun to protect us from a tyranny. That might of worked back in 1791 but all it takes today is one strike from a drone flying at 60,000 feet and your AR15's and 30 clips of Ammo go "Poof", or KABLOOIE! Either way you won't know.

oubronco
02-15-2013, 06:57 PM
in Missouri and New York the Democrats have already submitted legislation to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens...... add in the fact that Barack Obama has already stated that there should be a civillian security force that needs to be as well-armed, equipped and funded as our military.....can you say der Sturmabteilung?

I once saw a movie where only the police and the military had guns it was called Schindler's List.....

The day they Outlaw Guns is the day I become an Outlaw

oubronco
02-15-2013, 07:06 PM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.360.360/p403x403/1994_465198273529030_1833798843_n.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=1y9ngw67V9nozM&tbnid=zyLXK_twPhzcZM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FArmsAuthority&ei=VvceUfeZE6P02gXS3YCgAw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNG-RM_BTZPd64nNT420Jm58acFYPg&ust=1361070224514135)

oubronco
02-15-2013, 07:15 PM
http://i931.photobucket.com/albums/ad158/FrankRob/OBAMAALLTHEGUNS_zps05cb3c90.jpg

oubronco
02-15-2013, 07:17 PM
http://amiglobalsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/NAZI-GUN-LAW-QUOTE-AH.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=a1hLkG_uNFF6dM&tbnid=1L31OvJeV2KFuM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Famiglobalsecurity.com%2Ftag%2Fnew-york-senate-passes-gun-ban%2F&ei=TfoeUeWNAeWp2QWTvoHYCg&psig=AFQjCNEFjOPq0_EcEoZfmVFR5Jn_l2c8xg&ust=1361070450038676)

oubronco
02-15-2013, 07:18 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/398022_423095161106054_2091417427_n.jpg

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 07:19 PM
http://i931.photobucket.com/albums/ad158/FrankRob/OBAMAALLTHEGUNS_zps05cb3c90.jpg

Can you walk into a store, say Cabella's, and walk out with some C4 Explosives?

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 07:21 PM
Can you buy an RPG at a gun store?

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 07:31 PM
Suddenly got silent in here.

You mean I can't walk into a gun store and buy an RPG? WTF is this country coming to!

I gots to be protecten me an mine! Plus I like blowin stuff up REAL GOOD!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uHkvD7-u7y8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

driver
02-15-2013, 07:36 PM
The vast majority of this ammo is 40s&w and 357sig in varying bullet wgts and almost all of it is hollow point. The calibers are pistol and smg. Very little rifle ammo.
The Us military is barred from using hollow point ammo by the geneva convention.
Almost no one uses hollow point ammo for target practice. My conclusion is that it's being purchased for use against living targets. You make up your own minds.

Tombstone RJ
02-15-2013, 07:46 PM
A few notes:



To me that reads that this particular training center uses as many as 15 million rounds per year. So the 1.6B rounds would be a 100 year supply for this facility, not for all of homeland security. 1.6 Billion rounds would supply 20 such facilities for 5 years (which is the noted duration of the contract).



750 Million rounds for 5 years with 70,000 agents per year is roughly 2000 rounds per agent trained at DHS facilities. Is that a lot? I have no idea. The contract also notes that "up to" 750 Million rounds can be purchased, which may mean that they don't purchase this many. The contract probably has a minimum amount as well to ensure good pricing.

Ammunition purchased in the US on the whole was about 10-12 Billion rounds last year as far as I can tell. This government purchase would account for 2.5%-3.5% of the total market. A significant portion to be sure, but enough to intentionally drive prices significantly higher? I wonder if the logic doesn't work the other way? The American public has been significantly escalating their guns and ammo purchases over the past several years, which has put significant pressure on pricing and supply. If I'm a large consumer of ammunition, like the DHS, I'm probably also looking to make large volume purchases to keep cost down, and ensure adequate supply over the next several years. Or maybe I'm just looking to start a war against the american public. Hard to say.

With the war on terror and the US Military, that 10-12 billion rounds gets soaked up quickly. The US Federal government is supposed to have it's own ammo producing facility but they have that thing maxed out already. So now they are absorbing up all the other ammo producers with this bogus purchase of 1.6 billion rounds JUST FOR THE FEDS.

Guess what local law enforcement, it's gonna be harder and more expensive for you to get ammo too. It's just for the Feds. And it is not for the US Military.

The reason there has been such a mad rush by the average US citizen to buy guns and ammo if because people are scared of the current administration and rightly so. Just look at this DHS BS buying up 1.6 billion rounds of ammo just for the Feds. Add in the fact that there's already legislation being written to limit magazine capacity and types of guns you can own and that is why people are buying everything is sight. People are paranoid and BO is not helping the situation.

Theres a perfect storm going on right now--there's the US Military absorbing a huge supply of ammo because of the "war on terror", there's the US Consumer freaking out because of the idiot in the white house, there's all the local law enforcement people trying to buy ammo and now, wouldn't you know it, just to bottle neck everything up more, the DHS decides it's gonna buy another 1.6 billion rounds, because, yah know, there's soooo many threats all over the place and the feds just have to have a billion + rounds for all their training because there's just so many terrorists running round killing people!

BS.

This is a power play by the feds. It's nothing more than limiting the ability of the average citizen to buy ammo. Not only that, it limits local law enforcement too although I'm sure they will get priority over the average joe. The next thing that will happen is the feds will limit the amount of ammo you can buy at one time (they are already trying to stop online ammo purchases) and they will then slap a 50% tax on all ammo purchases.

The feds don't care about the states. They don't care about the people in Wyoming. They don't care about the local police who really are the FIRST RESPONDERS to an attack or a problem. Nope, the feds only car about Big Brother.

gyldenlove
02-15-2013, 07:50 PM
http://amiglobalsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/NAZI-GUN-LAW-QUOTE-AH.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=a1hLkG_uNFF6dM&tbnid=1L31OvJeV2KFuM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Famiglobalsecurity.com%2Ftag%2Fnew-york-senate-passes-gun-ban%2F&ei=TfoeUeWNAeWp2QWTvoHYCg&psig=AFQjCNEFjOPq0_EcEoZfmVFR5Jn_l2c8xg&ust=1361070450038676)

Gun control was enacted in Germany in 1928 by the government that was before Hitler and was relaxed by Hitler in 1938. I am not sure why morons keep using this bull**** quote.

Inkana7
02-15-2013, 07:52 PM
selling tin foil hats, 4 for $10

Tombstone RJ
02-15-2013, 07:55 PM
The vast majority of this ammo is 40s&w and 357sig in varying bullet wgts and almost all of it is hollow point. The calibers are pistol and smg. Very little rifle ammo.
The Us military is barred from using hollow point ammo by the geneva convention.
Almost no one uses hollow point ammo for target practice. My conclusion is that it's being purchased for use against living targets. You make up your own minds.

I saw that most of the pistol ammo is .40S&W which is odd IMHO. The standard NATO pistol round is the 9mm. It's standard because it's cheap. Why .40S&W??

Now you are saying it's not FMJ ammo, it's hollow point? If this is true than its NOT FOR TARGET PRACTICE. FMJ ammo is for target practice.

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 07:56 PM
I need to find a grenade range to practice my grenade target practice.

Gun shops all carry grenades right? This is America and I can bear arms to prevent paying a couple more % of tax right?

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:01 PM
BTW Will honey boo boo and Swamp People still be on during the Gun Owners Civil War?

I hope Jimmy makes it to next season on Ax Men, dude is trying to do right by his boy at the end of his life.

Got to have me some History Channel while I am cleaning my RPG, fueling my drones, and putting grenades on my belts! ****in A AMERICA at it's best! WHOOOO HOOOO!

Get 'r done boys!

errand
02-15-2013, 08:04 PM
How successful was that LA cop killer at repelling the Government with his gun?

Gun owners keep bringing up that we have a right to own a gun to protect us from a tyranny. That might of worked back in 1791 but all it takes today is one strike from a drone flying at 60,000 feet and your AR15's and 30 clips of Ammo go "Poof", or KABLOOIE! Either way you won't know.

I guess that's why our military takes an oath to defend the Constitution not our government......

That's also why Obama is allegedly using whether or not military officers would fire on civilians as his litmus test

http://www.examiner.com/article/renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:05 PM
Can I claim my fully loaded Blackhawk Chopper on my taxes this year if I put my business name on it and fly it to work every day?

Mutha fuggers gonna think twice about raising my taxes when I roll up on those bitches in their review with my sidewinders gleaming in the sun!

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:06 PM
I can buy a sidewinder at a gun store right?

errand
02-15-2013, 08:23 PM
lol look up the Warsaw Uprising. As a hunter and gun owner I appreciate gun rights but I assure you that errand and his dad's 12-gauge are not what's standing between any government and tyranny.

...well my 12-gauge, M-14, and 1911 .45 and .380 ankle piece (conceal carry)...not to mention as a former Recon Marine, I'm quite skilled at using explosives and have fired most military weapons in our arsenal like the TOW, mortars, claymores, M-60, 50-cal, etc....and many former military men and women side with me as well....just because I do not currently possess current military weaponry doesn't mean I can't operate it if I did acquire it.

BTW, I'm not the only one who is worried about our government over reaching their power.

As for whether or not we the people could defeat an army better equipped....well, we did in Revolutionary War...Texas did in their war for independence....partisans in Yugoslavia......Vietnam war....the rebels in Afghanistan in 1980's.....so history says it can be done.

again, in the US, our military swears an oath to defend the Constitution...not the president or our government.....because the Constitution puts limits on government, not we the people.

The question isn't if my "fears" are well founded....you can call me a nut job all you want....the question is what would YOU do if the government does?

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:28 PM
Know what else I hate!

When they have pepsi on sale and there is a limit to how many cases I can buy and I have to have my kid follow behind me with another couple cases or I have to go back in and get in a different line. It is not everyday you can get 4 cases of Pepsi for $4.99 each.

The man is keeping me down!

errand
02-15-2013, 08:28 PM
I never expect anyone to take my word for it on anything.....perhaps we should go to the horse's ass....err mouth -

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_fO-usAlqak?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

errand
02-15-2013, 08:31 PM
If this doesn't scare you, then I don't know what to tell you.....
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1EDlfScsSM0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:31 PM
...well my 12-gauge, M-14, and 1911 .45 and .380 ankle piece (conceal carry)...not to mention as a former Recon Marine, I'm quite skilled at using explosives and have fired most military weapons in our arsenal like the TOW, mortars, claymores, M-60, 50-cal, etc....and many former military men and women side with me as well....just because I do not currently possess current military weaponry doesn't mean I can't operate it if I did acquire it.

BTW, I'm not the only one who is worried about our government over reaching their power.

As for whether or not we the people could defeat an army better equipped....well, we did in Revolutionary War...Texas did in their war for independence....partisans in Yugoslavia......Vietnam war....the rebels in Afghanistan in 1980's.....so history says it can be done.

again, in the US, our military swears an oath to defend the Constitution...not the president or our government.....because the Constitution puts limits on government, not we the people.

The question isn't if my "fears" are well founded....you can call me a nut job all you want....the question is what would YOU do if the government does?

Do you plan on yelling "WOLVERIES!" when your civil war breaks out?

http://www.carolinashootersclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=32287&d=1353383621

Tombstone RJ
02-15-2013, 08:34 PM
...well my 12-gauge, M-14, and 1911 .45 and .380 ankle piece (conceal carry)...not to mention as a former Recon Marine, I'm quite skilled at using explosives and have fired most military weapons in our arsenal like the TOW, mortars, claymores, M-60, 50-cal, etc....and many former military men and women side with me as well....just because I do not currently possess current military weaponry doesn't mean I can't operate it if I did acquire it.

BTW, I'm not the only one who is worried about our government over reaching their power.

As for whether or not we the people could defeat an army better equipped....well, we did in Revolutionary War...Texas did in their war for independence....partisans in Yugoslavia......Vietnam war....the rebels in Afghanistan in 1980's.....so history says it can be done.

again, in the US, our military swears an oath to defend the Constitution...not the president or our government.....because the Constitution puts limits on government, not we the people.

The question isn't if my "fears" are well founded....you can call me a nut job all you want....the question is what would YOU do if the government does?

Yep, I also like the fact that there's a large number of retired military people all over the place. They are in every community, all across the country and this gives me great comfort. Some are in local law enforcement, some are employed by the feds but most are just the average joe on the street.

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:36 PM
Errand,

Where is the rally point?

You guys going to sit it out in your houses waiting for stormtroopers? Take out local governments 1st or jump in your hummers and take out one dude? I don't get the plan. Seems like lots of people not on board would be hurt or singled out as "Traitors" to your cause and put down.

driver
02-15-2013, 08:39 PM
I saw that most of the pistol ammo is .40S&W which is odd IMHO. The standard NATO pistol round is the 9mm. It's standard because it's cheap. Why .40S&W??

Now you are saying it's not FMJ ammo, it's hollow point? If this is true than its NOT FOR TARGET PRACTICE. FMJ ammo is for target practice.

Yeah the SS admin solicited bid for 175k of 357sig 125gr jhp.
A few weeks earlier the NWS took bids for approx 50k rnds of 40s&w hp when asked why the wrather service needed this ammo they denied the purchase,said it was a typo, that it was for the NOAA fisheries office.

There is a site FBO.GOV . If you want to register with this site, you can learn a lot, I personally choose not put myself on their radar screen.

I can't sight all purchases but they contracted for over 700mil of 357sig rnds in 2012. Various agencies SS, NWS,DEQ,ATF,DOJ, FEMA.
Draw your own conclusions.

Inkana7
02-15-2013, 08:40 PM
hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:42 PM
hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

Everything on the internet is true or they wouldn't put it there.

errand
02-15-2013, 08:44 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HSWt7hOYYLY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

errand
02-15-2013, 08:49 PM
hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

Really? so you're claiming his speech where he says we need a civillian security force that is as well armed, equipped and funded as our military is a fake?

errand
02-15-2013, 08:51 PM
Everything on the internet is true or they wouldn't put it there.


They were his exact words...I didn't say them....your fearless leader did

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 08:56 PM
3 1/2 years before we get a brand new President. He might be a democrat or Republican or maybe some new NRA type party. So maybe we can hold off on the Gun War for a couple years? This way you can stock up on ammo and after some lame republican with ties to Saudi Kings and oil gets voted in you can just shoot all your stock piled Ammo into the air after the new guy gets voted in.

errand
02-15-2013, 08:59 PM
3 1/2 years before we get a brand new President. He might be a democrat or Republican or maybe some new NRA type party. So maybe we can hold off on the Gun War for a couple years? This way you can stock up on ammo and after some lame republican with ties to Saudi Kings and oil gets voted in you can just shoot all your stock piled Ammo into the air after the new guy gets voted in.

LOL...funny **** man.

Think of it like this dude....if that does happen, you're gonna have the Republicans running your healthcare. Careful what you wish for.....

driver
02-15-2013, 09:03 PM
hey bro, protip: if you're getting the majority of your info on a topic from a youtube video, it's probably not actually true.

I never do!
Check it out for yourself.
FBO.GOV
FBO stands for Federal business Office all solicitation for purchases "must be listed there".

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 09:15 PM
I never do!
Check it out for yourself.
FBO.GOV
FBO stands for Federal business Office all solicitation for purchases "must be listed there".

Architect of the capitol?

errand
02-15-2013, 09:18 PM
nothing to worry about huh broncosteven?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/14/missouri-dems-introduce-alarming-gun-confiscation-bill-giving-law-abiding-gun-owners-90-days-to-turn-in-certain-firearms-or-become-felons/

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
02-15-2013, 09:23 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/377614_543564402331268_2040096426_n.jpg

broncosteven
02-15-2013, 09:35 PM
nothing to worry about huh broncosteven?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/14/missouri-dems-introduce-alarming-gun-confiscation-bill-giving-law-abiding-gun-owners-90-days-to-turn-in-certain-firearms-or-become-felons/

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public

McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

Confiscation of "assault weapons."
Confiscation of ten round clips.
Statewide database for all guns.
Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
State issued pistol permits.
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
Mandatory locking of guns at home.
Fee for licensing, registering weapons.\\




Considering I don't have a gun I am good with all of this. I think this is fair. If You need to shoot an automatic machine gun then join the armed forces or join up the National guard and then you guys can play a live drill of CApture the Flag.

driver
02-15-2013, 10:01 PM
Architect of the capitol?

They take bids for toilet paper, condoms too and bullets.

Inkana7
02-15-2013, 10:49 PM
Really? so you're claiming his speech where he says we need a civillian security force that is as well armed, equipped and funded as our military is a fake?

doop doop doop

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

Pony Boy
02-16-2013, 08:48 AM
Know what else I hate!

When they have pepsi on sale and there is a limit to how many cases I can buy and I have to have my kid follow behind me with another couple cases or I have to go back in and get in a different line. It is not everyday you can get 4 cases of Pepsi for $4.99 each.

The man is keeping me down!

Know what I hate?

When the federal government passes a law that says if I buy a firearm from my neighbor I must pass a background check. So I have to have my wife or her sister go down and pass the background check and buy the gun for me. What a hassle!

The man ain't keeping me down.

errand
02-16-2013, 10:17 AM
McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

Confiscation of "assault weapons."
Confiscation of ten round clips.
Statewide database for all guns.
Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
State issued pistol permits.
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
Mandatory locking of guns at home.
Fee for licensing, registering weapons.\\




Considering I don't have a gun I am good with all of this. I think this is fair. If You need to shoot an automatic machine gun then join the armed forces or join up the National guard and then you guys can play a live drill of CApture the Flag.

Yeah, they got rejected....so the fact that it is even being suggested or submitted doesn't give you cause to ponder the long term implications?

I highlighted the key words.....typical words used when the government is trying to control you and take away your freedoms.....forget that they're talking about guns.....what if they were talking about free speech?

I don't own a newspaper, a radio station, write a blog, or own a TV station so I should be OK with that? GTFO of here!


What if they were talking about any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

errand
02-16-2013, 10:19 AM
doop doop doop

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

So, your internet source is telling the truth, and mine is lying....OK, got it.

your source says that Obama wasn't talking about an armed security force...but yet he says in the speech he wants us to have a civilian security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and as well funded as our military

sorry, but his words are his words......

Endy
02-16-2013, 10:37 AM
I think its funny that anybody would ever believe that our military, which is composed of many people who really don't like Obama, would ever follow his orders to take over the entire country.

If you really believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you and this stock you really need to buy, which is totally can't miss.

And the "Civilian Security Force"? If you are afraid of the Peace Corp then you've got bigger problems than the President.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

Ironic how the internet is the world's largest cache of information, yet also the world's largest cache of ignorant people.

broncosteven
02-16-2013, 11:27 AM
Yeah, they got rejected....so the fact that it is even being suggested or submitted doesn't give you cause to ponder the long term implications?

I highlighted the key words.....typical words used when the government is trying to control you and take away your freedoms.....forget that they're talking about guns.....what if they were talking about free speech?

I don't own a newspaper, a radio station, write a blog, or own a TV station so I should be OK with that? GTFO of here!


What if they were talking about any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.

I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.

Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

mkporter
02-16-2013, 01:08 PM
With the war on terror and the US Military, that 10-12 billion rounds gets soaked up quickly. The US Federal government is supposed to have it's own ammo producing facility but they have that thing maxed out already. So now they are absorbing up all the other ammo producers with this bogus purchase of 1.6 billion rounds JUST FOR THE FEDS.


That 10-12 billion number was for non gov't sources. With 300 Million guns in this country, that comes out to 40 bullets per gun per year. I hope most of you gun owners use a lot more than that each year to stay proficient with your fire arms, and ensure that they are in proper working order.


The reason there has been such a mad rush by the average US citizen to buy guns and ammo if because people are scared of the current administration and rightly so. Just look at this DHS BS buying up 1.6 billion rounds of ammo just for the Feds. Add in the fact that there's already legislation being written to limit magazine capacity and types of guns you can own and that is why people are buying everything is sight. People are paranoid and BO is not helping the situation.


You hit the nail on the head here. People are paranoid. But what has BO really done to warrant this type of paranoia? Pretty much nothing in the way of gun legislation in his first term, even though he had a democratic senate and congress for a couple of years. It clearly wasn't one of his priorities. The only reason there is legislation now is that the general public wants it because of the horrific gun incidents recently. But here, he's just responding to public pressure. And the DHS contracts (note that they have not purchased all of this ammo, they just have contract with manufacturers that allow them to purchase this much) have come well after the general public's gun's and ammo surge, and are for a 5 year duration which limits the market impact. The problem is the cost of copper. Go yell at the Chinese.


This is a power play by the feds. It's nothing more than limiting the ability of the average citizen to buy ammo. Not only that, it limits local law enforcement too although I'm sure they will get priority over the average joe. The next thing that will happen is the feds will limit the amount of ammo you can buy at one time (they are already trying to stop online ammo purchases) and they will then slap a 50% tax on all ammo purchases.

The feds don't care about the states. They don't care about the people in Wyoming. They don't care about the local police who really are the FIRST RESPONDERS to an attack or a problem. Nope, the feds only car about Big Brother.

I just don't see why anyone thinks that this administration gives a rat's ass about private gun ownership. Find me some legislation that Obama put any effort into passing during his first term. What happened after Ft Hood? What happened after Giffords was shot? What happened after Virginia Tech? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" End of story. What happened after Aurora? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" Nothing happened. Then Sandy Hook happened, and for those of us who are not nut jobs who think it was faked, it was pretty much one of the most horrific things you can imagine. The build up of all these events has created significant pressure from a majority of the general public (You know, the citizens of the united states) to do something to address gun control. Politicians being who they are, follow suit with proposed legislation.

Even after all this, despite many conservatives beliefs otherwise, most liberals, myself and pretty much everyone I know included, still support the right to own firearms. We just think it's reasonable to discuss what the bounds of these rights should be. All rights have bounds, because if extended without bounds, your rights will begin to infringe on mine. Even the most revered right in our amended constitution, the freedom of speech, has it's limits. The 2nd amendment is no different.

Remember, that while we disagree on many issues, liberal's are not the opposites of conservatives. Lower taxes might always be the answer for the right, but that doesn't mean higher taxes are always the answer for the left. Unrestricted firearm ownership may be the goal of the right, but that doesn't mean that the left wants to eliminate firearm ownership. That's just a fantasy.

I'm 1000x more likely to get intentionally or accidentally shot by a private, previously law abiding citizen, than I am to suffer from a tyrannical government takeover, not even to mention non-law abiding citizens. You'll have to pardon me for playing the odds and being more concerned about how we regulate guns. Same reason why I'm glad we've put so much emphasis on regulating car ownership and usage. Gotta play the odds.

Inkana7
02-16-2013, 01:30 PM
So, your internet source is telling the truth, and mine is lying....OK, got it.

your source says that Obama wasn't talking about an armed security force...but yet he says in the speech he wants us to have a civilian security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and as well funded as our military

sorry, but his words are his words......

Dude, my internet source actually uses all of Obama's speech, in which he was talking about the goddamn Peace Corps.

rugbythug
02-16-2013, 01:32 PM
You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.

I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.

Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

Let me get this straight the Public can't help themselves they need the Gov't to control them? Really?

Just put me down for the opposite of that.

The Gov't can't control themselves and require the people to control them.

rugbythug
02-16-2013, 01:32 PM
You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

Just like the banking system. The government is not trying to control the banks through regulation, they are stepping in because the banks could not regulate themselves.

I would bet more than not that anywhere there is regulation, there was an abuse of power that led to the regulation being inacted.

Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

Let me get this straight the Public can't help themselves they need the Gov't to control them? Really?

Just put me down for the opposite of that.

The Gov't can't control themselves and require the people to control them.

Tombstone RJ
02-16-2013, 01:35 PM
That 10-12 billion number was for non gov't sources. With 300 Million guns in this country, that comes out to 40 bullets per gun per year. I hope most of you gun owners use a lot more than that each year to stay proficient with your fire arms, and ensure that they are in proper working order.



You hit the nail on the head here. People are paranoid. But what has BO really done to warrant this type of paranoia? Pretty much nothing in the way of gun legislation in his first term, even though he had a democratic senate and congress for a couple of years. It clearly wasn't one of his priorities. The only reason there is legislation now is that the general public wants it because of the horrific gun incidents recently. But here, he's just responding to public pressure. And the DHS contracts (note that they have not purchased all of this ammo, they just have contract with manufacturers that allow them to purchase this much) have come well after the general public's gun's and ammo surge, and are for a 5 year duration which limits the market impact. The problem is the cost of copper. Go yell at the Chinese.



I just don't see why anyone thinks that this administration gives a rat's ass about private gun ownership. Find me some legislation that Obama put any effort into passing during his first term. 1.What happened after Ft Hood? What happened after Giffords was shot? What happened after Virginia Tech? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" End of story. What happened after Aurora? "We need to have a serious discussion about guns!" Nothing happened. Then Sandy Hook happened, and for those of us who are not nut jobs who think it was faked, it was pretty much one of the most horrific things you can imagine. The build up of all these events has created significant pressure from a majority of the general public (You know, the citizens of the united states) to do something to address gun control. Politicians being who they are, follow suit with proposed legislation.

Even after all this, despite many conservatives beliefs otherwise, most liberals, myself and pretty much everyone I know included, still support the right to own firearms. We just think it's reasonable to discuss what the bounds of these rights should be. All rights have bounds, because if extended without bounds, your rights will begin to infringe on mine. Even the most revered right in our amended constitution, the freedom of speech, has it's limits. 2.The 2nd amendment is no different.

Remember, that while we disagree on many issues, liberal's are not the opposites of conservatives. Lower taxes might always be the answer for the right, but that doesn't mean higher taxes are always the answer for the left. 3.Unrestricted firearm ownership may be the goal of the right, but that doesn't mean that the left wants to eliminate firearm ownership. That's just a fantasy.

4.I'm 1000x more likely to get intentionally or accidentally shot by a private, previously law abiding citizen, than I am to suffer from a tyrannical government takeover, not even to mention non-law abiding citizens. You'll have to pardon me for playing the odds and being more concerned about how we regulate guns. Same reason why I'm glad we've put so much emphasis on regulating car ownership and usage. Gotta play the odds.

1. All those incidents involved people who already broke the laws on the books. Again, you are talking about people who broke laws to carry out killings and crimes and again, you are now punishing all law abiding citizens for the acts of a few. We live in a country of 300m people and you just pointed out what, 5 incidents where some crazy nuts went ballistic on innocent people? Again, over and over and again, this is the act of insane people that broke multiple laws to perpetrate crimes.

If you are going to restrict gun rights for everyone based on the sick actions of a few sick people, then you better also put laws in the books about the violence Hollywood and the video game industry pump out to the masses. If you want to blame the violent incidents on the availability of guns and NOT on the individual's responsible for these horrific crimes then you have to point the finger at the entertainment and gaming industry for spewing out violent movies and games over the last 40 years that coincide with these incidents.

Yes?? You cannot argue with me on this point. I will only accept a YES from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

2. There are already restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I can't own a fully automatic gun. I can't own a rocket launcher. I can't own plastic explosives and such. I can't own an armed tank nor an armed jet. I can't own an armed helicopter, etc., etc., etc.

3. See point 2. Nobody is asking for "unrestricted right to bear 'arms'".

4. You simply cannot predict the future. Just because the feds up to this point and time haveing invaded your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to do something you didn't want to do does not mean this won't happen in the future, even in the immediate future. You are banking on the past which limited government much more than today and the foreseeable future. I'll take my chances with an armed law abiding citizen any day of the week over trusting the federal government with my safety.

jerseyboiler120
02-16-2013, 01:47 PM
The 2nd amendment was created to enable civilians to protect themselves from the government should it get out of control. So, now that the government is trying to take this defense away, what does that tell you?

Requiem
02-16-2013, 01:49 PM
Move this **** to WRP.

jerseyboiler120
02-16-2013, 01:50 PM
Just got home from work, and started watching history channel. It's a documentary about how hitler came to power and what happened with the media. Reminds me spot on of what's been going on for years now with the messiah and his merry band of communists.

Rother8
02-16-2013, 01:51 PM
I think its funny that anybody would ever believe that our military, which is composed of many people who really don't like Obama, would ever follow his orders to take over the entire country.

If you really believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you and this stock you really need to buy, which is totally can't miss.

And the "Civilian Security Force"? If you are afraid of the Peace Corp then you've got bigger problems than the President.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/

Ironic how the internet is the world's largest cache of information, yet also the world's largest cache of ignorant people.
They might not want to take an order from Barack but they way they've been trained to take a knee at the guy who yells at them, they say yes sir to their brother. This would happen in most situations imo. If you're in the army and you're actually doing some fighting you're probably the type that's going to keep fighting for a "cause" if it's presented to you. You don't exactly join for a resume booster.

DHallblows
02-16-2013, 01:56 PM
Just got home from work, and started watching history channel. It's a documentary about how hitler came to power and what happened with the media. Reminds me spot on of what's been going on for years now with the messiah and his merry band of communists.

That goddamn Kenyan, Muslim...

jerseyboiler120
02-16-2013, 01:57 PM
That goddamn Kenyan, Muslim...

Exactly

errand
02-16-2013, 05:55 PM
You understand that the reason we need the government to intervene and regulate guns is because the public can't control themselves.

The law abiding public doesn't have a problem controlling themselves....psychos and thug criminals on the other hand do....please show me the legislation limiting their ammo and weapons of choice

If gun owners would stop allowing their toys to fall into the hands of mass murderers then we wouldn't need regulation.

They're not toys...they're lethal weapons that need to be treated with respect....but then again you don't own one so you have no sense of how to handle one.....and you do realize that very few if any of these mass murderers legally acquired their weapons right?



Do I believe in a free society you should be able to own a hand gun or hunting rifle, sadly yes. Do I think you need an AR15 and a 30 round clip? No, Do I think any of the regulations being asked for are out of line? No, I think they are too weak to stop another attack on the public by another gun owner.

Once again, tell us your plan to keep guns and magazines that hold 30 rounds out of the hands of criminals?





in bold

errand
02-16-2013, 06:00 PM
Dude, my internet source actually uses all of Obama's speech, in which he was talking about the goddamn Peace Corps.


So he never said what he said in the video I posted?

errand
02-16-2013, 06:07 PM
That goddamn Kenyan, Muslim...

Knock knock

who's there?

Kenya...

Kenya who?

Kenya tell me the name of the president who wants his own Sturmabteilung?

Inkana7
02-16-2013, 06:22 PM
So he never said what he said in the video I posted?

As president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up..

broncosteven
02-16-2013, 08:16 PM
.

I like this idea, I am already performing service for those in my community by volunteering my free time for thing that will hell all the citizens of my comunity.

errand
02-16-2013, 09:49 PM
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO:
As president I will expand 1- AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an 2- energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our 3- Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the 4- Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a 5-civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand 6-USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

So he did say what I posted......a simple yes would have sufficed, but whatever.

you read this and think he's just talking about getting people to join one organization.....

I read this and see that he's advocating people to join six organizations......including his civilian security force.

Rohirrim
02-16-2013, 10:50 PM
This thread gets the mega face palm...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bUyUbFAiB9Q/TavDWGNHeCI/AAAAAAAAAKw/KF_CWcKndFo/s320/Epic_Facepalm_by_RJTH%255B1%255D.jpg

mkporter
02-17-2013, 08:48 AM
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO:
As president I will expand 1- AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an 2- energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our 3- Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the 4- Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a 5-civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand 6-USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

So he did say what I posted......a simple yes would have sufficed, but whatever.

you read this and think he's just talking about getting people to join one organization.....

I read this and see that he's advocating people to join six organizations......including his civilian security force.

Didn't you join a federal government organization? Is the only acceptable way to serve your country joining the military?

mkporter
02-17-2013, 09:34 AM
1. All those incidents involved people who already broke the laws on the books. Again, you are talking about people who broke laws to carry out killings and crimes and again, you are now punishing all law abiding citizens for the acts of a few. We live in a country of 300m people and you just pointed out what, 5 incidents where some crazy nuts went ballistic on innocent people? Again, over and over and again, this is the act of insane people that broke multiple laws to perpetrate crimes.

If you are going to restrict gun rights for everyone based on the sick actions of a few sick people, then you better also put laws in the books about the violence Hollywood and the video game industry pump out to the masses. If you want to blame the violent incidents on the availability of guns and NOT on the individual's responsible for these horrific crimes then you have to point the finger at the entertainment and gaming industry for spewing out violent movies and games over the last 40 years that coincide with these incidents.

Yes?? You cannot argue with me on this point. I will only accept a YES from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.


A few points:
a) I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.


2. There are already restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I can't own a fully automatic gun. I can't own a rocket launcher. I can't own plastic explosives and such. I can't own an armed tank nor an armed jet. I can't own an armed helicopter, etc., etc., etc.


Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.


3. See point 2. Nobody is asking for "unrestricted right to bear 'arms'".


Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.


4. You simply cannot predict the future. Just because the feds up to this point and time haveing invaded your home and put a gun to your head and forced you to do something you didn't want to do does not mean this won't happen in the future, even in the immediate future. You are banking on the past which limited government much more than today and the foreseeable future. I'll take my chances with an armed law abiding citizen any day of the week over trusting the federal government with my safety.

And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

Tombstone RJ
02-17-2013, 12:09 PM
A few points:
a) 1. I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. 2. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) 3. Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.

Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. 4. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.

Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.

5.And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

6. The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

7. I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

1. So, you only want more gun legislation without dealing with the violence fed to the masses from the entertainment industry? Again, and again and again, if more gun restrictions are going to be in place with these new laws the Obama is drawing up (Biden is actually doing it) then YOU MUST acknowledge that there are other issues that coincide with these shootings like the violence in movies, tv and video games. If you don't agree with this, we have nothing to discuss. A simple yes or no will suffice.

2. Obama via Biden is in the process of writing legislation for more restrictive gun laws and he's talked about this in several speeches including his state of the union address, right? Correct me if I'm wrong here, Also democrates like that woman from CA (feinstein?) has legislation on the books for gun restrictions.

3. See point one. I know what you are saying, now try to understand what I am saying.

4. The legislation that is being written affects much more than this one gun, it's much more pervasive. If it passes it will make millions of people criminals because they already own these weapons. How are the feds going to enforce this? Are they going to go to everyone's house who owns these type of guns and ask for them? Are they going to grandfather in the weapons already out there and just enforce new gun sales? How are they going to regulate all this stuff. IMHO, it's just an excuse for more spending by the feds as they will now have to substantially increase their numbers to enforce this crap. In other words, it's just more taxes and more waste by the feds.

5. How can I lose you on this simple point--the feds are changing the rules!!! You want to say "well this has never happened in the past, that is, I'm not afraid of the feds abusing their power because it (as far as I know) has never happened to anyone, I'm more afraid of my neighbor the Big Brother!" The feds are expanding, see the DHS as EXAMPLE A. All I'm saying is that this is another stepping stone into the a statist type of government where personal freedoms are abandoned.

6. There are many checks and balances against the federal governement, one of which is the right to bear arms. The others are as you mentioned like the first amendment. One of the most important checks and balances against tyranny is the right of the states. However, that has been eroded too over the years and now the feds overrule the states on everything. Point being theres been a steady erosion of the rights of the people and the states for many years. Obama is now using executive orders in ways that were never used by any previous president. Yes, executive orders have been used in the past but not for the reasons the president is using them. Obama is setting new precedent in the ways he is using executive orders and I and many others see this as yet another erosing of democracy.

7. You didn't acknowledge my point where I said if you are going to force more gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens you also have to force restricitions on the entertainment industry that promotes gun violence. Tell me yes or no on that!

As for the numbers you discussed, I'm still not buying it. When you read the article the feds state that these 1.6 billion rounds are needed for training. Tell me why then they are buying hollow point ammo? When you go to the gun range you shoot FMJ ammo, not hollow point ammo. Hollow point ammo is much more expensive because it is designed to break apart upon impact doing much more damage to flesh. So, in fact, the feds are buying a lot of ammo for killing people, not for training.

I've answered your question, now answer mine.

Inkana7
02-17-2013, 06:34 PM
6. There are many checks and balances against the federal governement, one of which is the right to bear arms. The others are as you mentioned like the first amendment. One of the most important checks and balances against tyranny is the right of the states. However, that has been eroded too over the years and now the feds overrule the states on everything. Point being theres been a steady erosion of the rights of the people and the states for many years. Obama is now using executive orders in ways that were never used by any previous president. Yes, executive orders have been used in the past but not for the reasons the president is using them. Obama is setting new precedent in the ways he is using executive orders and I and many others see this as yet another erosing of democracy.


1) The federal government has always overruled the states, ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?

2) Please, tell me how Barack Obama is using executive orders in ways that differ in how they've been used in the past. (HINT: he isn't.)

Tombstone RJ
02-18-2013, 02:46 PM
1) The federal government has always overruled the states, ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?

2) Please, tell me how Barack Obama is using executive orders in ways that differ in how they've been used in the past. (HINT: he isn't.)

http://bradenton.patch.com/articles/executive-orders-is-obama-going-too-far

Inkana7
02-18-2013, 05:55 PM
http://bradenton.patch.com/articles/executive-orders-is-obama-going-too-far

Do you people even read the links you post? This is just a dude soliciting opinions from his readership on the issue.

broncosteven
02-18-2013, 10:53 PM
A few points:
a) I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.



Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.



Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.



And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.

I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

I think you and I are on the same page. I AM Trying to do Public Service locally by joining boards of an old historic school houe from 1872 on through 1960. and by joining the board as President of the Friends of the Library.

We promote culture and history without manging to shoot things or blow them up real good. It is an honor learning what the older docents did during their younger days. and how these historic houses were spared and kept for my child to come across them and get interested in helping out.

Very fun, We just had a great open house last Sunday while I am guessing gun owners were oiling up their guns.

Tombstone RJ
02-19-2013, 12:40 PM
Do you people even read the links you post? This is just a dude soliciting opinions from his readership on the issue.

lol, he's stating facts, but whatever.

BroncoBeavis
02-19-2013, 01:48 PM
And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.

One, using this logic, honey bees are defenseless. The threat of the sting is just as important as the ability. Needless to say there are plenty of corrupt federal and local officials willing to exchange your life for something of value to them. It's only natural to expect that they'd be much more hesitant to risk their own in the process. Myopic faith in government at the height of the age of skepticism is one of the greatest ironies we have on display today.

The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias..

Dead wrong. I've put out the challenge, after quoting numerous founders myself... show me who said that the 2nd amendment was only about defense from foreign invaders. Virtually every founder is on record stating that an armed citizenry was a last check against a runaway government.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28