These preparations are for us?

IDK About the legitmacy of the pregnant women target claim, but the buying of billions of rounds is very true. They did it to dry up the ammo supplies. I just finished taking my cpl class, and it just so happens that it was a perfect oppurtunity to speak with my county sheriff. He said that ever since it was announced that the DHS bought this massive amount of ammunition, his department has found very few places to get ammunition at a low cost. And i have found the same problem, every single gun store is sold out of ammo, 9mm, 5.56, 7.62 there is nothing, at walmart, mom and pop gun shops, or even stores like gander mountain. The lack of ammo is most likely a compaction of two problems, the panic of gun control, and this massive purchase by the DHS. The manufacturers simply cannot handle this large of a volume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0pS9aw5pcJo

Also could not verify the number bought by the DHS (i'll look later) but i did find this video of them showing An MRAP off. Notice it says "Customs and Immigration" and not bomb disposal thought that was odd, are they expecting the people sneaking into this country to find work, to be planting ieds along the border.

ITS NOT WRONG TO ASK QUESTIONS!!!!

 

Sigh. Why is this crap still going around in circles?

The DHS didn't actually buy a massive amount of ammunition, they effectively placed an order. It was arranging supply of ammunition over a period of time, not suddenly stockpiling a warehouse full. The totality of their order, especially over a period of time, is a drop in the ocean of total US ammunition manufacture so there is no rational reason for it to impact availability, especially of other types of ammunition.

So, any shortage of available ammunition following the announcement can't have been directly related to it. It could have been indirectly related due to the manufacturers deliberately holding back supplies or falsely claiming shortages to push up prices or due to idiots believing the conspiracy theories and all stocking up on everything they could get their hands on (reportedly even on ammunition they have no weapons for).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

 

Exactly, whatever it was, an order, purchase whatever, it effectively dried up the ammo supply. Whether it was their intention or not but now they have billions of rounds (being shipped to them in the future) and the american public is left high and dry with whatever we already have. Anyway did you check out that video of the armored truck what do you think about that?

Also check this article out, here is an excerpt

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/04/02/ammo-shortage/

 

Again, why is this still going around? All of the claims you're making have been made and countered countless times.

First, none of this is about "billions" of rounds. If you add all of the various DHS orders covering several years, taking the upper limits of those orders, you get millions, not billions. Even that top estimate accounts for a small proportion of the total ammunition produced in the US over the same period (which is measured in billions). It's also worth noting that the reported shortages cover a much wider range of ammunition types than these orders involve.

You've not established even an indirect link to these orders and the ammunition shortage. Even if there were the kind of indirect link I suggested, it isn't clear what your point is. You seem to be trying to lay blame for the shortage on these orders, which strikes me as totally dishonest. The orders didn't take any ammunition out of the market at the time they were placed and nor did they ever risk taking a singificant proportion out of the market at all. Any impact they had must have come entirely from the misinformation and lies promoted about them (which makes you continuing to propogate them even worse).

I can't actually see the video but I believe I've seen it before. I guess you didn't check my link though; http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

"A March 2013 claim that the Department of Homeland Security had "purchased 2,700 tanks" for use in the U.S. was based on a year-old (i.e., March 2012) notice posted on the DHS web site announcing that a contractor had been engaged to install new chassis on a number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles (not "tanks") that were being returned from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although similar vehicles have been used by DHS (and local police forces) for <A HREF="http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1209/120906slidell.htm" TARGET=ice>functions</A> such as carrying Rapid Response Teams to disaster sites, the DHS did not "purchase" the MRAP vehicles referenced in that announcement, and the chassis work was <A HREF="http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4701" TARGET=con>contracted</A> for by the Marine Corps Systems Command."

 

Apparently you did not read the whole thing, roughly two billion rounds is billions, and its is a maximum order for the next five years. Still even then that is enough for manufacturers to shift resources towards that, you can't just (*)(*)(*)(*) out 2 billion.40 caliber rounds overnight. And the type of ammunition does not matter, do you think they only make one type of shell at every single factory? No they have to allocate resources, choose what rounds to manufacture at what facilities at what times. The article i linked was to show you that manufacturers were not "falsely claiming shortages" or "deliberately holding back supplies". Lets say that were true, say Winchester decides to cut production so they can drive the cost up, well they would need to convince every single other ammunition manufacturer to also cut output, otherwise, Winchester's lack of production would be made up by another company within the market.

Oh to clarify i suppose you are right the DHS is only getting 750,000,000 rounds while Customs and immigration gets the other 1.6 billion. (splitting hairs)

 

It isn't overnight though, it's over several years. Also, you're point would only apply if these orders represented significantly more ammo that the federal agencies previously bought. The stated point of these contracts was saving money, not ordering more ammo and they account for the numbers on the basis of existing usage.

That assumes there is no price-fixing in the industry of course. Regardless, I wasn't saying that was the case, I was saying it was one of the few ways the orders from the DHS could have be an even indirect cause of the reported ammunition shortage. On this basis, we're back to there being zero evidence linking, even indirectly, the DHS orders and the ammunition shortage.

Splitting hairs maybe but it does demonstrate how inconsistant and misleading many of the claims thrown out about this were (and still are!). We can hardly reach an honest conclusion without accurate information to base it on. Of course, that presumes the people propogating the information want us to reach an honest conclusion.

Speaking of which, I'm still not clear what your point actually is.

 

My point is that the Obama administration, which has been trying to force gun control down the american peoples throats, suddenly places orders for a large amount of ammunition. Then bam! ammo is pretty much unavailable to the public. Effectively controlling the use of guns, not exactly what the administration was going for, but in a round about way achieved their goal of "controlling" guns.It is my opinion they knew what they were doing when they ordered that ammo.

Here are some numbers, just to show how excessive this purchase is. Lets look at the order that is headed for customs and immigration. About 1.6 billion rounds over the next five years. According to wikipedia their are 58,000 people employed by customs and immigration. Now of those, 21,180 are actually officers at ports. Just to be nice and round we will say that a little less than half of that 58,000 actually carry a firearm. So here is the math 1.6 billion rounds over five years split up among 25,000 employees means that every employee would have to shoot about two magazines of ammo everyday for the next five years to justify that purchase, even if we say that the majority of that ammo will be used on the target range, half of it. That still means that there is enough ammo for every single officer inspecting vehicles, boats etc. to empty a magazine everyday for the next five years.

That doesn't seem incredibly excessive but that's assuming every single customs agent will get in a gunfight every single day for the next five years. So meh take it how ya want. Its probably nothing super sinister, probably not meant for "civil unrest" like some speculate.I just think its the current administration getting its way by whatever means necessary, they want gun control, they couldn't garnish enough support, so make the bullets to put in the guns nearly impossible to get. Surely you could agree with me on that?

 

First, "suddenly"? How quickly do you believe these orders were put together, put to tender and filled? Secondly, you've still failed to establish any kind of connection at all between these orders and the reported ammunition shortage.

No, the 1.6 billion purported to be the total from every DHS order (I suspect taking the maximum option they have available in each case). At least 750 million are accounted for elsewhere so no more than 850 million could be for ICE. Incidentally, in their response to a congressman, DHS stated they assign 100 rounds per weapon for training, which is sure going to add up. It could still be excessive for their true needs but that in itself would prove anything.

No. Strangely enough I can't agree with you on a speculative theory, requiring a widespread criminal conspiracy, presented with zero concrete evidence. Again, you've not even shown how it is possible for the simple existence of these orders to have such a sudden and significant impact on the massive US ammunition market, let alone demonstrated it was in any way planned.

Of course, if all the kooks hadn't been so keen to fulfil their prophesies, there wouldn't be some much misinformation and confusion surrounding all this and any real malpractice could be established.

 

Plus to me what is the most obvious issue. Most people tend to forget that the United States Coast Guard now falls under the Department of Homeland Security. They use a lot of ammo every year.

 

I think the best way we can work to prevent a horrific scenario such as the National Guard slaughtering peaceful protesters and strikers is to communicate as often and in as friendly a manner as possible with as many individuals in law enforcement and the military as possible.

I'm not saying if you're an activist that you have to spend your weekends buying drinks for agent provocateurs and others hellbent on discouraging dissent and then think this will help keep you safe personally. Because let's not pretend that there isn't a repressive war going on in this country to marginalize and neutralize activists. There is and has been since long before any of us were born.

Nevertheless, when you have run ins with certain people try to be logical, calm, and open to discussion. Try to see the point of view of whoever you are speaking with even when you disagree and it seems you have zero common ground. You never know when something you might say or something about who you are could change someone's outlook and perhaps in the future help prevent a tragedy.

There are whistleblowers and people who just up and quit in disgust from every agency, even the ones with the most loathsome reputations. I'm sure that is true of corporations, too, even though it is less likely to be publicized.

Something wakes people up and makes them realize that what they're doing is against their own morality. Sometimes maybe that something is actually a someone. And as much fun as it sometimes is to just lose it on someone and spew, rarely does raging and ranting and screaming help others overcome their cognitive dissonance enough to rethink their worldview.

 

Oh yes, because everybody knows that the National Guard absolutely loves to slaughter "peaceful protestors". It happens every day when we can arrange it.

 

Well already stuck my foot in it I see. It has happened in the past is what I was saying. Not that current National Guard members schedule protestor slaughter to pass the time on slow weekday mornings.

 

Oh no, that only happens on our monthly weekend drills.

The rest of the time we are making plans on breaking into people's houses and taking away their rifles and pistols.



And yes, I frequently make light fun of those that come off sounding like paranoid conspiracy theorists. WHen you are talking about things that happened before even my grandparents were born, it really is pretty much a non-issue (and one of my grandparents was born when there were only 46 stars on the US flag).

 

We can still learn from the past, even a past with less starry flags. But as to the gun thing, you know as well as I do that a lot of gun owners consider their guns to be, in the words of your sig, worth war. Personally I rather like living in a country where citizens can own guns even if they are no longer all that useful for the prevention of governments behaving badly. Because I have to admit, assault rifles versus drones capable of shooting missiles probably isn't going to go well for the person holding the rifle.

 

Personally, I am rather ambivalent towards most arguments of that sort.

I leave the ideas of the government taking away all the guns and drones flying around killing everybody to the crazy conspiracy theorists. I do not see either one of them happening in this country, ever.

And as for the right to have guns, be it for self protection, protection against invaders or a tyrannical government, It does not matter much to me. It was put in the Bill of Rights at the foundation of our modern country, therefore inviolate. To me it can no more be repealed then the right to assemble, speak freely or assemble and worship peacefully without fear.

 

I certainly don't see a near future of drones flying about murdering people willy nilly, but as Jose Padilla found out, just because our Constitution guarantees us a right does not mean we will receive that right.

Also just because the National Guard is not currently being used to repress Constitutionally guaranteed dissent does not mean other groups are not doing so.

I don't expect you to take my word for it, so I will link some info obtained through FOIA highlighting some of the repression by these so-called Fusion Centers. Some of it is so petty and ridiculous it would be funny if it weren't our rights at stake:

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Spyfiles_2_0.pdf

I think my favorite one on the list as an example of pure, paranoid pettiness on the part of these so-called intelligence agencies is this one:

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/04/kinberg_0410

Joshua Kinberg's internet-connected, sidewalk-printing graffiti bike got him a lot of attention ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention; he was Boing Boinged, Slashdotted and featured on CNN and in Popular Science.

Though he didn't know it at the time, his gadget also landed him a spot in secret files being compiled by the New York Police Department's intelligence arm against protest groups across the country.

 

Actually, I did look through that. And got a good laugh.

Sorry, I do not really take the ACLU seriously most times. And most of those reports are pretty reasonable.

Protest planned outside of a MEPS station, be aware that vandalism might happen.

Protection agent placed inside of a protest planned against military recruiting on campus.

Another warning due to a protest planned once again at the Sacramento MEPS station.

Now, is it really a shock that this might happen? Because we all know that these protesters are all completely peaceful, and a more subversive and militant group absolutely never participates with their own agenda.

OK, so the vast majority of these cases involve the warning that something might happen, and the placement of observers inside the groups. In what way does this violate anybodies "First Amendment Rights"?

I read of observations and investigations. Nowhere did I read where the protests were prohibited, individuals arrested or locked up for speaking their mind, or anything else even remotely like that. And sorry, I do not equate one with the other. Personally, I would think that the legitimate protest groups would welcome and embrace this, to help prevent their groups from becoming unwitting fronts for possible acts of domestic terrorism.

After all, I am old enough to remember groups like The Weathermen, who hid behind such "peaceful groups", and used their activities as a front to carry out their own acts of terrorism.

And funny how much 2013 is like 2001. We have a terrorist attack, and at almost the same time items sent through the mail containing biological weapons. So you think that law enforcement would not be concerned about a device designed to move around with multiple arasol canisters? I am not very paranoid at all, but even I would want a closer look taken at something like that.

ANd yea, I always laugh at how most people look at the military and law enforcement. Most actually have a rather short memory span, and forget what happened last week because of the latest Brittney Agulera scandal.

After all, how many in Boston remember 1-31-07?