Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Does The Government Intend To Shoot?
The Virginian ^ | 9/4/2012 | Moneyrunner

Posted on 09/04/2012 6:24:32 PM PDT by moneyrunner

It's time that someone started doing a little checking. Major General Jerry Curry, US Army (Ret) asks questions about some curious purchases. Who does the government intend to shoot?

Have you been to a Social Security Administration office? What is it doing with guns?

The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.

What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

Are the men and women at the SSA going to shoot people is there's a problem instead of calling the police?

What about the atmospheric scientists at NOAA?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Notice that all of these purchases are for the lethal hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes.

Or DHS?

In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public....

Why buy all this ammunition unless you plan to use it. Unknown to Congress, Does DHS plan to declare war on some country? ...

Is there some private army that's being created outside of the police and the military? I have been reading about this and have dismissed it. After all, we really don't have a history of military coups. But what's the purpose of all this ammunition being delivered to "civilian" members of the government?

We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does DHS need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?

Were I the JCS, and if I wasn’t already fully briefed on this matter, I’d stop the purchase of hollow point bullets, ask the secretary of Defense why all this ammunition is being purchased and spread around the country? If I got answers like the ones Congress got during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious – I’d start tracking all ammunition deliveries nationwide to find out what organizations and units are using them, for what purpose and, if it is not constitutional, prepare to counteract whatever it is that they are doing.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Politics
KEYWORDS: ammunition

1 posted on 09/04/2012 6:24:34 PM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

We know the answer: if one was old, on SS or close to it, and lost it all, one is bound to get ‘upset’ and those running things can’t have that, that is all.


2 posted on 09/04/2012 6:29:15 PM PDT by elpinta (John 17:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

The Democrats don’t have any problems with guns as long as they get to say who the guns are pointed at.


3 posted on 09/04/2012 6:34:27 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elpinta

All this talk of domestic terrorists from Janet Napolitano tells me they expect to need those bullets to combat US when we get mad as hell. What other explanation could there be ?


4 posted on 09/04/2012 6:36:36 PM PDT by chiller (GO TEA, especially in the Senate and WE will fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

Sigh.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2921292/posts


5 posted on 09/04/2012 6:37:05 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

Zombies, of course. The government is “prepping.” It’s the greatest of the latest fads. If they prepare for the “marauding hordes,” they’ll stay rich and live forever. ;-)


6 posted on 09/04/2012 6:41:44 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chiller

It does seem suspicious that the Federal government should have so much need of VAST quantities of ammunition, particularly hollow-point, which makes a devastating wound on exit.

Maybe they are getting ready to transfer this supply of ammo to the Mexican drug cartels?

Or is it to cause an artificial scarcity of this kind of ammunition domestically?

Seems like overkill. Only, who is going to be overkilled?


7 posted on 09/04/2012 6:44:22 PM PDT by alloysteel (Are you better off than you were four years ago? Well, are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

For anyone who is buying into the argument that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo is just a normal purchase bear in mind that the military only used about 70 million rounds per year in Iraq.


8 posted on 09/04/2012 7:01:32 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

you may have a point I didn’t think of and thats to make ammun. shortage nation wide, buy up all they can...Lefty’s cannot shoot straight..


9 posted on 09/04/2012 7:04:30 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

The government should fear it’s citizens, not the other way around.

Maybe they should be looking over their shoulders. People are fed up.


10 posted on 09/04/2012 7:17:51 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Le sigh.....


11 posted on 09/04/2012 7:46:37 PM PDT by onona (Thank you fellow Freepers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

I was told that each federal agent must shoot something like 25,000 rounds a year at the practice range as part of job skill maintenance. As there are about 20,000 of these people.....do the math. It’s a lot of rounds, but harmless in intent.


12 posted on 09/04/2012 7:52:01 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

My theory: SS and other agencies are buying ammo for Homeland Security, which will be the domestic version of the US Military for putting down any insurrections.


13 posted on 09/04/2012 7:59:50 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
...the military only used about 70 million rounds per year in Iraq.

Which year; how many men/women; and whose statistic are you using, and where can I verify your number?

14 posted on 09/04/2012 8:10:25 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: expat2

I remember that during his first presidential campaign, the Bamster stated on camera that he wanted a domestic federal police force that was as big and well armed as our military. Does anyone have the link to this?


15 posted on 09/04/2012 8:13:24 PM PDT by Avid Coug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

I’d be wary of flying pigs crapping on my head before I would ever believe that each federal agent fired 25,000 rounds per year for practice/qualification. If, for the sake of argument, that each magazine held 10 rounds, that would make 2,500 magazines per agent fired. Say, for the sake of argument, that each agent practiced/qualified once a month, that would be 200+ magazines per month fired. NONSENSE!


16 posted on 09/04/2012 8:16:12 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Skittle pooping unicorns are more common than progressives with honor & integrity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet

Say, for the sake of argument, that each agent practiced/qualified once a week, that would be 50+ magazines fired per week. With automatics, is that really so much? Burrrrrp, clip change, burrrrrrp, clip change, burrrrrp, clip change. Wouldn’t take but 30 minutes. MAKES SENSE!


17 posted on 09/04/2012 8:22:06 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

This move MUST be to dry up supply and availability, while raising prices.

Giving a bunch of pencil pushers, weapons, is not exactly a threat to the American people.

Now, I know there are a lot of desk jockies, like me, who cringe at this characterization.

But, given the agencies these newly endowed staffers work for, what are the odds they have ever fired a weapon or are the least bit proficient with one?


18 posted on 09/04/2012 8:31:36 PM PDT by G Larry (Progressives are Regressive because their objectives devolve to the lowest common denominator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
But, given the agencies these newly endowed staffers work for, what are the odds they have ever fired a weapon or are the least bit proficient with one?

What are the odds that a USMC fresh recruit has ever fired a weapon or is the least bit proficient with one? How long does it take the USMC to create a superb marksman? Not that long, really, when you think about it....what, 3 or 4 months?

19 posted on 09/04/2012 8:41:42 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I seem to recall some years back, the Department of Education ordered a bunch of 12ga riot shotguns and tactical buckshot ammo. The Freepers online at the time speculated that Department of Education was setting up their own SWAT teams.

Regards,
GtG

20 posted on 09/04/2012 8:59:28 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

500 rounds a week on average? Not credible.


21 posted on 09/04/2012 8:59:32 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Moonrunner - I was a Fed - We qualified four times a year - 60 rounds each time - plus we were given a box of 50 as practice ammo. Those who shoot more are SWAT type teams, and even then the average agent does not fire near 25,000 rounds. 25,000 rounds would be fired by those testing an arm proposed for adoption by his service.

Most firearms will not last even 10,000 rounds before they become too worn for practical use and become dangerous.


22 posted on 09/04/2012 9:10:21 PM PDT by Ed Story
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
I think it just makes a whole lot more sense to think things through a bit before swirling down the conspiracy hole.

For instance: Out of all people working in some way for the vast federal government, how many carry weapons, or are required to be proficient with weapons of varying kinds? How often do departments purchase weapons and ammunition? For how many years must the purchase last? Are there bulk discounts? Are there joint purchases with other departments? How often do "agents of the government" have to practice firearm use? How many rounds does it take to train a raw recruit? How long is the training program? How many rounds does an agent carry with him during his normal duties? How many rounds/year is he required to practice?

I have so many questions with so few answers. But it seems that some people want to immediately veer down the "conspiracy road" before knowing much about it, if anything at all, other than the number of bullets purchased.

What happened to critical thinking in this country?

23 posted on 09/04/2012 9:23:14 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
There is no way that the typical armed federal agent gets enough range time to shoot 25,000 rounds per year. They can only wish. Of course one must be careful what one wishes for...

These supplies are being stockpiled for use in suppressing anticipated civilian insurrections in the next three years. Large numbers of Government officials are thinking along the same lines as the most paranoid survivalists. I have met some of them. They also have fiscal year-end budgets to spend down. Why not place that order?

And while the prospects of a mob sacking the offices at NOAA (what???, they have an armory for the weather guessers??) are somewhat unlikely, the odds of a violent confrontation at the Social Security office are well within betting range.

The Child Support Agency in my metro area already has a very polite and conspicuously armed receptionist at their main location. Discreetly armed guards roam the perimeters. They do know the inclinations of their clientle.

That ammo dump at NOAA is definitely surplus to requirements though. It will probably be diverted to supply one of the pro-government citizen militias that are organized when the military becomes unreliable.

24 posted on 09/04/2012 9:23:17 PM PDT by flamberge (What next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

When I qualified in the USMC it took 250 rounds. One week of training followed by a week of range firing of 50 rounds per day.

Seems a little short of 25,000 rounds.


25 posted on 09/04/2012 9:28:28 PM PDT by jimpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

I was a hard practicing competative IPSC shooter in the 90’s. I put a little under 100,000 rounds out of my favorite racegun in just a few years. I had an indoor range to myself most of the time and spent a couple hours a day practicing. It was hard work, with a lot of focus on good quality practice. To get over a couple thousand rounds a month of good practice, unless that is all I did for several days a week, was nearly impossible without just wasting ammo. That’s with 27 round magazines, fast guns and fast targets, virtually unlimited ammo available.

Yes, you can hose away and put a lot more down range, and sometimes I did. But even a government agency like NOAA cannot take half trained non tactical team members and have them use up even a small portion of the ammo bought.

Not saying there is a conspiracy. But even if there were, your average half trained gov’t bureaucratic desk driving idjit with a handgun is not much of a threat (other than maybe to each other). Yeah, the military, FBI, HRT, and many LEO special weapons teams are good at their trade and practice a lot. Anyone else is going to mostly be in the way.


26 posted on 09/04/2012 9:37:12 PM PDT by Borderline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ed Story
Most firearms will not last even 10,000 rounds before they become too worn for practical use and become dangerous.

I don't think you can categorically state a number like that. It depends on the gun, make/model, ammo used, etc. http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-434260.html

27 posted on 09/04/2012 9:45:51 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Borderline; jimpick; flamberge; theBuckwheat; RetiredTexasVet; Ed Story
Gentlemen, please. Before we go too much further in this discussion about the reasons for governement purchases of firearms and ammunition, let me say that I have nowhere near your experience when it comes to firearms, and defer to your knowledge.

Secondly, I, too, was concerned about what appeared to be excessive volumes of rounds being purchased. Two days ago I brought the matter up with my brother-in-law, who is a Republican (Tea Party type) Congressman, whom I shall not name. He gave me the 25,000 rounds/agent figure along with a figure of 20,000 agents to help explain to me the volumes involved. We did not discuss it in detail. Apparently, he made inquiries as a result of many calls he was receiving.

I am simply repeating his statement to me about the issue. Take it up with your own Congressmen, if you are seriously concerned.

Finally, there seem to be two types of people around here: a) those who examine and search for facts before coming to conclusions and b) those who form snap conclusions and then search for info to verify that conclusion, ie, the conspiracy buffs. I am a Type-a person and frankly loath speculation as a waste of time. Let me again make a plea for more research on the topic, which IMHO, is now sorely lacking.

28 posted on 09/04/2012 10:13:54 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

“3 or 4 months?”

Do you think we might notice large groups of federal desk jockies starting weapons training?

I just received a copy of a Teacher’s Union letter, where the leaders are encouraging the rank and file to protest tonights School Board meeting.
(our county has elected a conservative school board)

Even though these groups are 98% liberal, the other 2% will leak and broadcast their plans.


29 posted on 09/05/2012 4:45:49 AM PDT by G Larry (Progressives are Regressive because their objectives devolve to the lowest common denominator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Scooter, I appreciate your comments. What I find … ummm … “interesting” is that I never viewed the clerks at the Social Security administration, or the people manning the NOAA vessels in the Norfolk harbor as the kind of people who would be carrying guns. I was under the impression that if someone got ugly in the social Security office they would call the cops, not whip out a gun and start shooting with hollow-points. It seems that a lot of the “civilian” government departments have either created their own police force, or that guns have been issued to people who work for the government but are not part of law enforcement. Should we expect the mail carrier to be armed? How about the clerk who sells you your stamps?
Even as there is an attempt on the part of Liberals in government to deny civilians outside of government the right to own and carry guns, the people in government are being armed in increasing numbers. While this is not a reason to set up barricades or fit ourselves for tinfoil hats, it should set off a very faint alarm bell. What is going on and why are the non-military branches of the government stockpiling ammunition? And, no, 25,000 rounds of hollow-point ammo for practice is not a plausible number. As an aside, when I shoot for practice I don’t us hollow point ammo. Much too expensive.


30 posted on 09/05/2012 4:54:04 AM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

My friends that work for the feds that do real criminal investigative work qualify four times a year. I have shot their course and it doesn’t come anywhere near 25000 rounds. Or ever 250 rounds.

They can, however, shoot up to 16 times a year if they wish but few do.

Also, if fed shot 25000 rounds a year, that would be in excess of the life expectancy of the pistol they were issued. They would get a new weapon every year.

Something else is going on with those rounds being purchased....


31 posted on 09/05/2012 5:06:00 AM PDT by Molon Labbie (Prep. Now. Live Healthy, take your Shooting Iron daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Sigh.

I see it’s been covered before. Perhaps someone missed the first time.

You’re welcome.


32 posted on 09/05/2012 5:06:49 AM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Posted on FR Aug 21 Scoot.


33 posted on 09/05/2012 6:14:21 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner; Molon Labbie
I think problems such as these stem from weak management, and we all know where that buck stops. Without a focused mandate and tight budgetary control, departments self-expand their roll and end up over-lapping other spheres of responsibility. Before you know it HUD and Labor and Veterans Affairs will all have their own forces, we'll end up with (how many depts are there?) 15 different military units.

I retired from a very large corporation and witnessed over the years the effects of unbridled departmental power grabs. It results in inter-departmental battles for control and only ends up affecting production, corporate goals, and morale.

Bad management and a lack of fiscal control. Anyway, that's my take on it. Good points, by the way MR.

34 posted on 09/05/2012 6:52:38 AM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
The DHS, according to Wiki, has 208,000 employees. I don't think that is a recent figure, and Obama has been adding to it at a great rate. The organization chart can be found here:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-orgchart.pdf

Without knowing how many of the staff on that chart are currently carrying, using, and training with firearms, and for what period of time, and the dispersal of the purchases...I, personally, am unable to make any logical assumptions at this point regarding the deployment of such a purchase. You are free to draw conclusions from your perspective and appreciation of the known facts.

Personally, with the huge size of the agencies involved, I fail to see anything devious at this point, and refuse to speculate. Time, of course, will tell. I am always willing to admit being wrong.

35 posted on 09/05/2012 8:54:16 AM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100

Have you ever fired a weapon? Automatic pistols are not machine guns, you pull the trigger and one shot is fired, then AUTOMATICALLY the next round is chambered for the next trigger pull. The feds, state or locals generally do not issue or use machine pistols (although some drug cartels do). Secondly, it stretches the core of common sense to think feds, other than spec ops, would even practice/qualify at intervals less than quarterly and for most it is only annually which is like pulling teeth to get them to the firing range. I’m sure that you are aware that most of the agencies do not have firing ranges in their offices and must schedule and travel to ranges where range operators, supervisors, medical, and supply personnel are available. I’m sure that with the proper application of pixie dust anything is possible.......


36 posted on 09/05/2012 7:43:25 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Skittle pooping unicorns are more common than progressives with honor & integrity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
Let me again make a plea for more research on the topic

What would you have that would satisfy your desire for "more research"?

I have spoken with my Congressman, other political leaders, and Government officials at various levels. I also have various contacts in Law Enforcement and Military organizations.

The conclusions that I reach from available data are unsettling to say the least. The numbers simply do not fit any scenario for "training needs". More data and more research does not improve the conclusions.

At best we have a large number of fashionable bureaucrats in all branches of government who want to equip their own para-military forces. They are being given permission to do so with little oversight or follow-up. What could possibly go right under such conditions?

Congressmen are in the business of reassuring the public. I do not find their reassurances very convincing. As for "taking up the matter with your own Congressman" - I have. He is not interested in such conversation.

Nobody in Government wants to talk about that elephant that is hidden under the blanket. (Blanket? What blanket?).

37 posted on 09/05/2012 9:09:49 PM PDT by flamberge (What next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet
Please read my post #28 again, RTV. I was merely trying to explore the nature and possibilities of the figures my Congressman brother-in-law gave me. I admit I am not a weapons expert, far from it.

If you have serious doubts about what he expressed to me, call your own Congressman and find out what the agencies are telling him/her. In fact, it would be an interesting exercise to see if they are being fed similar stories in justification of these purchase orders.

Please let me know if you uncover any new facts.

38 posted on 09/06/2012 11:54:55 AM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: flamberge
As for "taking up the matter with your own Congressman" - I have. He is not interested in such conversation.

So your Congressman refused to talk to you about it, and as a result, you have no information at all from him on which to base your assumptions? Did you "talk" to him in person, on the phone, or via electronic means? Exactly how did he convey to you that he was not interested in this topic, and what were his precise words? Do you have it documented?

Nobody in Government wants to talk about that elephant that is hidden under the blanket. (Blanket? What blanket?).

Nobody? So, I assume you talked with, or tried to talk or communicate in some manner, to them ALL in order to state this so confidently?

And so far, this "elephant" is composed of what list of hard facts? If they are "hidden", how have you come to see them?

39 posted on 09/06/2012 12:31:45 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
The hard facts are “hidden” in plain sight for all to view. They are:

1) Over twenty Federal agencies are known to be buying quantities of ammunition which are orders of magnitude greater than anything in their history. In many cases, organizations which were not known to have armed forces have now been identified through these purchases.

The purchase contracts are a matter of public record in the Federal Register and the list of buyers has been published in many forums along with the known quantities.

2) The widely quoted estimate of 25,000 rounds per armed federale is obtained by dividing the total purchase quantities by the employee populations of the affected agencies. It is a very conservative underestimate. Less than 30% of any agency population has official weapons. Unarmed support staff comprise most of the ranks. Even in the FBI, ATF, and Secret Service, the shooters are an elite minority.

Range time is very expensive and training budgets are the first thing that gets cut as funds dry up. Others in this forum have mentioned the paltry supplies of ammunition that most armed agents are allocated for their annual qualifications.

Math is simple. Divide one number by another. When the result seems way too large, start asking why that is so.

3) I have spoken in person with my Congressman and been given bland reassurances that all is well, along with polite insistence on changing the subject. (He is very busy you know and has many more people waiting). That is certainly useful information in which to help reach an assessment. It does not, however, improve the conclusions that I reach.

Your mileage may vary of course. Perhaps your Congressman is paragon of virtue who would never mislead you and you can trust his every word. If he says “nothing to see here, just move along” then you are free to believe him.

BTW - did you have it documented? No, I did not supposed that you did. Congressman do not like to be recorded on potentially controversial subjects.

4)My sample size of contacts is certainly not ALL people in Government, and is subject to “confirmation bias” (after all I can only talk with people who are willing to talk with me.)

Even so, there are more than enough data points to disprove the thesis that Government is stockpiling ammunition for training needs. Whatever could they be doing then?

There are not enough data points to disprove the thesis that Government officials are planning to suppress civilian insurrections in the near future.

----------------------------------

If I saw more real training activities that would be using up the new inventory, I would be less extreme in my conclusions. Likewise, if I saw postponements and order cancellation by managers who say “Aww, we don't need this stuff after all”, I would be quite relaxed.

I don't see this things. Do you?

In fact a Texas Government official recently made an appalling public statement that his department was explicitly planning to suppressing insurrections after the next election.

There was the not so recent call from the Governor Beverly Perdue (D-NC) to cancel elections altogether, so that Congress could "solve the National Debt crisis" and "allow members of Congress to focus on the economy". [No, No, that was just a joke. She didn't really mean what she said in those prepared remarks did she? Besides that was so last year...]

When I see once cockroach, I generally conclude that there are about one hundred more that I do not see.

If you present yourself as sympathetic and like-minded, you too can get some astonishingly candid statements from your local officials about their need for security and control of certain population segments. Such items are "off-the-record" of course.

Some of the people I meet are very uneasy - and they are the ones supposedly in charge.

If I were in an official public-facing capacity, I too would be making soothing noises - and quiet plans for protection of my staff.

40 posted on 09/06/2012 8:05:38 PM PDT by flamberge (What next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: flamberge
I just don't think we know enough to conclude anything yet.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/large+government+ammo+purchase

Read the above carefully. Here's how I figure there is nothing to be alarmed about. ATK was awarded a contract by DHS for (up to a maximum) of 450M rounds of .40 caliber ammunition "over 5 years". That's roughly 90M rounds/yr. If your figure of 30% of DHS are "carrying", then 30% of 208,000 staff is 62,400 that are carrying. That means 1,442 rounds/yr per person, or about 120 rounds per month.

Is this excessive? How much ammo do staff carry on a day-to-day basis; how much is required for training programs; and how much is expended in ongoing skills practice sessions?

I don't know enough to say anything. But this quick "back of the envelope" scribbling suggests to me that it doesn't seem like anything to worry about (regarding DHS).

41 posted on 09/07/2012 12:10:44 PM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Scooter100
The Department of Defense uses about 70 million rounds per year (in all calibers) for the hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So the Department of Homeland Security is going to use 90 million rounds per year of just one caliber (.40) “for training purposes”? This does not really pass the smell test.

And they have other large purchases in the works for .223 rifle ammunition, .357 pistol ammunition and .50 caliber machine gun ammunition, and... [urp! .50 cal. What ????]. Total pending buys are estimated at 1.4 billion rounds of mixed caliber munitions from multiple vendors. Deliveries are not necessarily spread over a five year period either.

For example, the USFS wants 170,000 rounds of mixed ammunition for urgent delivery - in September. Other agency solicitations call for delivery in October.

None of this information is secret. It is openly published on government web sites. It is just tedious to find. Check out this little gem:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3768c8b1540796310de2137c36df6ada&tab=core&_cview=1

Bear in mind that 1 "unit" is a standard case of 1000 rounds.

I wonder what the significance of those required delivery dates might be?

Say, Isn't there some special event scheduled for November 2012?

42 posted on 09/07/2012 9:37:34 PM PDT by flamberge (What next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: flamberge

Flamberge—bumping your posts and thread bump.


43 posted on 09/08/2012 9:19:15 AM PDT by Miss Behave (All ways, always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson