1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo + 2,717 Military Asssault Vehicles And Nothings Going On?

Per Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbe...ecurity-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/) the DHS has an open purchase request for 1.6 billion rounds of ammo.

While the debunking community has educated the rest of us that the previous order of 450 million rounds of hollow points is nothing to be concerned with, I’m curious if the same can still be said when you add to that another 1.6 billion rounds of ammo combined with 2,717 retrofitted ‘Mine resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles manufactured by Navistar Defense, LLC.

The MaxxPro MRAP vehicles are going to local law enforcement (aka Police Departments) and so I guess its just the norm that every major urban city needs a military style assault vehicle in addition to what their SWAT department combined with other military style acquired vehicles and weapons compliments of the Federal Governments 1033 Program. The 1033 prgram being a Federal program that assists local police departments with obtaining military grade weapons and related items (i.e vehicles), all at the expense of the tax payer. This is still all just A-OK and nothing to be concerned with and any questons raised about this or concerns are just conspioracy theory and over-blown hype, right?


To summarize…
During a period of huge deficits (short term deficit is over 10 trillion dollars) and threats of austerity as well as an ever increasing rate of unemployment, the federal government decides to…

  1. Purchase over 2 billion rounds of ammo that can only be used domestically because of the restrictions on hollow-points outside our country
  2. Provide local law enforcement departments with military grade weapons, ammos and other military supplies all at the tax payers expense
  3. Ramp up domestic use of drones
  4. Claim that the president has the authority to assassinate US citizens both domestically as well as aboard if he or the military believe the citizen is a terrorist or associated in some way with terrorism or terrorist activities
  5. Allow the Federal Reserve to purchase toxic assets on a monthly basis to a tune of billions of dollars all to be put on the tab of the American Citizen


On top of this the Federal, State and even some local governments are trying to heavily restrict and or outrightban and confiscate personal fire arms cliaming that you as private citizens don't need let alone have the right to firearms because the government wiill keep you safe.


So debunkers, tell the rest of us again how this is all normal and there’s nothing going on.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Ok, it would help if the video did not have the heavy pounding music in the background. It seems to be there to distract folks from what she is saying. I did not hear her mention confiscating weapons. I did hear the interviewer pushing her into a comment on handguns. I court that would be called 'leading a witness'.

Even if she does think that, she is ONLY one member of Congress. We have others that don't think that women that are raped can get pregnant. A personal opinion is NOT a plan.

Now I ask again to show us a PLAN to confiscate weapons.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How does Schakowsky's opinion translate into a plan? You can find memmbers of congress with all kinds of opinions, that does not mean all of their opinions constitute a plan.

The supreme court has rules out a ban on handguns. It would require a constitutional amendment. It's not going to happen.
 

jvnk08

Active Member
With regards to the 1.6bn rounds, I think Mick spelled it out pretty well in the other thread. People are misinterpreting the purchase orders(nevermind the logic of publicly displaying the purchase orders for bullets to be used in the martial law crackdown that seems to be forever just around the corner).
 

Joe

Senior Member
How does Schakowsky's opinion translate into a plan? You can find memmbers of congress with all kinds of opinions, that does not mean all of their opinions constitute a plan.

The supreme court has rules out a ban on handguns. It would require a constitutional amendment. It's not going to happen.
The same way as with a single payer healthcare Mick . Its the way they work . little by little .
 

Joe

Senior Member
There purchase of ammo was to dry up the supply . What good is any gun without ammo ?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
But Obamacare is NOT single player healthcare. In fact I don't any plans for turning it into single player.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Really? your proof is a 'hacker' claim in a You Tube. Sorry, I choose to look for facts, not someone's opinion

My hubby used to load his own, that seems a reasonable option. I wonder how many rounds the general public has bought? I would guess a LOT more than the government did.

I read those purchase orders as a lot of that ammo was from later delivery.
 

Joe

Senior Member
Really? your proof is a 'hacker' claim in a You Tube. Sorry, I choose to look for facts, not someone's opinion

My hubby used to load his own, that seems a reasonable option. I wonder how many rounds the general public has bought? I would guess a LOT more than the government did.

I read those purchase orders as a lot of that ammo was from later delivery.
His name Is Jacob Hacker from the tides foundation and Schakowsky was there as well . There is a longer version on YT if youd care to look . Its a Trojan Horse . you dont know how Progressives work . Like the frog in boiling water , slowly turn up the heat until they are cooked . I think your right on the public buying the most ammo . :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There purchase of ammo was to dry up the supply . What good is any gun without ammo ?
But what would be the purpose of drying up supply? Huge orders will ultimately REDUCE the price. So if your theory is correct they must be be planning something like, next year.

And is the price actually rising on the types of ammo they ordered?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
the boiling the frog analogy seems more appropriate to the scaremongering going on than anything else.

By slowly raising the fear factor, suggesting first that this is goign to destroy the constitution, and then when it doesn't "actually it is that"....constantly putting up rubbish and always claiming that the end of "real democracy" is just 1 evil plan away from happening and so on and so forth, the reactionary idiocracy is slowly innuring the population to threats - soon we won't care any more.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
. Its a Trojan Horse . you dont know how Progressives work . Like the frog in boiling water , slowly turn up the heat until they are cooked .
Have you ever considered that that's what the anti-progressives want you to think.

To stop anything good from happening, it's cast as a "slippery slope". Restrictions on selling guns to felons means they are going to take away everyone's handguns. Adding a bike lane means they will forbid ownership of cars. Saving a wildlife refuge means they will confiscate your land. Regulations mean socialism. Tiny tax changes for the rich means revolution. Good leads to bad.

Perhaps it's just the way they (the rich Conservatives) phrase things to make you have a kneejerk reaction to anything they deem not in their best interests.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
It is just an OPINION, not a fact. I see a lot of the 'frog in water' analogy. Can you supply 3 cases where that has happened? Anywhere?

I guess that one could claim that outlawing smoking is one. However, that was also a health issue and more and more folks did not want to be exposed to someone else's filthy habit. I never did, and both parents smoked. It stunk when I was 4 and it still does.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
It seems that it is NOT the government causing the shortage, but folks like you


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/24/business/la-fi-mo-gun-sales-brownells-20121224



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12...mo-flying-off-shelves-after-newtown-massacre/


More sales in a week, than in the year before.
 

Joe

Senior Member
It seems that it is NOT the government causing the shortage, but folks like you


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/24/business/la-fi-mo-gun-sales-brownells-20121224



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12...mo-flying-off-shelves-after-newtown-massacre/


More sales in a week, than in the year before.
Its a better investment then Gold :)
 

Joe

Senior Member
But what would be the purpose of drying up supply? Huge orders will ultimately REDUCE the price. So if your theory is correct they must be be planning something like, next year.

And is the price actually rising on the types of ammo they ordered?
pretty much the price is up on all ammo , Im sure it will settle down and go down a little . If it doesnt it doesnt matter to me becuase i saw this coming a while ago and have more then Ill ever need . Even if you dont need to use it its always worth something last for years and years . Plus good to barter with in case of WROL . Hows the quakes in Cali ? I wonder if Dutchsinse has any videos on it yet ? :)
 

JRBids

Senior Member
Really? your proof is a 'hacker' claim in a You Tube. Sorry, I choose to look for facts, not someone's opinion

My hubby used to load his own, that seems a reasonable option. I wonder how many rounds the general public has bought? I would guess a LOT more than the government did.

I read those purchase orders as a lot of that ammo was from later delivery.
I would guess the same thing. The gun advocates have created a run on guns and ammo.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
It seems that it is NOT the government causing the shortage, but folks like you


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/24/business/la-fi-mo-gun-sales-brownells-20121224



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12...mo-flying-off-shelves-after-newtown-massacre/


More sales in a week, than in the year before.
Shoulda bought some stock!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I keep wondering WHO did buy stock, in the hours after the Newtown shootings, knowing that there would be a run on guns and ammo? Not really a conspiracy, just folks 'wise' in what would be said afterward.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
All theories surrounding recent purchases aside, there's little question that America is ramping up its capacity to handle domestic unrest, and quite understandably so. Americans have been surprisingly stoic in recent years given the increasingly dire situation, but as this drive for 'austerity' picks up its pace, it's only a matter of time before protests become more common-place and less peaceful. Hence tools such as the once-named 'Active Denial System', a crowd-control device which literally cooks people over an incredibly wide area at considerable distances, causing unbearable, unendurable pain. Though the Military quickly discarded it as a tool for use abroad, it was always the intention it be used domestically first anyway. They actually shipped one of these things to New Orleans during the Katrina incident, for use on the crowds of evacuees should they grow unruly. It's now being used in the LA prison and police scene, and many domestic authorities are incredibly enthusiastic about it. Technologies like these have the potential to make public civil unrest a thing of the past in the West, which is a frightening thought.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All theories surrounding recent purchases aside, there's little question that America is ramping up its capacity to handle domestic unrest, and quite understandably so. Americans have been surprisingly stoic in recent years given the increasingly dire situation, but as this drive for 'austerity' picks up its pace, it's only a matter of time before protests become more common-place and less peaceful. Hence tools such as the once-named 'Active Denial System', a crowd-control device which literally cooks people over an incredibly wide area at considerable distances, causing unbearable, unendurable pain. Though the Military quickly discarded it as a tool for use abroad, it was always the intention it be used domestically first anyway. They actually shipped one of these things to New Orleans during the Katrina incident, for use on the crowds of evacuees should they grow unruly. It's now being used in the LA prison and police scene, and many domestic authorities are incredibly enthusiastic about it. Technologies like these have the potential to make public civil unrest a thing of the past in the West, which is a frightening thought.
So what are all the bullets for anyway?

And why would they use it domestically if they gave up using it overseas? (and it does not "literally cook" people, it heats their skin, sometimes causing slight surface burns - no fun, but better than being shot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
 

Grieves

Senior Member
(and it does not "literally cook" people, it heats their skin, sometimes causing slight surface burns - no fun, but better than being shot).
It's a device that emits microwaves to induce pain externally and internally, which can cause burns. Long-term exposure to the device at a high setting would almost certainly prove fatal eventually. The effect it has on your flesh is the same effect a microwave has on yesterdays steak, only to a much lesser degree. I think it's entirely accurate to say the device 'literally cooks' people, it just doesn't cook them till they're 'done'.
And why would they use it domestically if they gave up using it overseas?
Don't ask me. If I'd been asked to make a decision as to what should be done with these things, I'd suggest smashing them to bits, burning the plans, and wagging the finger at anyone who had anything to do with it. In my personal opinion they never intended to actively employ these things overseas, and the intention was always as a device for domestic use. When I first heard of this thing several years back, I saw a quote of some high official in the what I believe was the Air Force discussing the device, and how she didn't want to see it deployed abroad until it had seen use at home. I'll try and dig up the quote... used to be top-of-the-pile when you googled the subject, but I'm having trouble tracking it down now. Fact of the matter is though, they are using these things domestically. And I wholly expect we'll see more of them, in more areas, in little to no time at all.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
research australia, canada, russia, and now our in house "Chicago"
Don't even start, dude. We're entirely happy with our comparatively stringent gun-laws, thanks... and It's the Conservative Government, who are unquestionably the major corporate lackeys of the Canadian political system ( most parties are guilty, them the main offender) , pushing for less gun regulation.

A friend of mine just got his hands on a long-range Russian rifle complete with 'prop' and sniper-scope, a full box of 'zombie-rounds' (Walking Dead fanboy to an extreme degree, talks about the Zombie Apocalypse like it's on the way), and a pair of 9mm pistols. I like the guy, but he's not the sort of person I feel should be in possession of multiple weapons capable of dispensing instant death. None the less he was able too, and without much hassle, right here in Canada.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's a device that emits microwaves to induce pain externally and internally, which can cause burns. Long-term exposure to the device at a high setting would almost certainly prove fatal eventually. The effect it has on your flesh is the same effect a microwave has on yesterdays steak, only to a much lesser degree. I think it's entirely accurate to say the device 'literally cooks' people, it just doesn't cook them till they're 'done'.
Not true, it just heats the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System#Effects
Obviously it would be very unpleasant. But it seems less damaging than some other alternatives like tea gas, tasers, or baton rounds (or even just batons).

I'm no police violence cheerleader, but sometimes the police have to stop riots.



 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The US is NOT any of those other countries. I ASKED about here in the good ole USA. Limit guns/ make them harder to get, I can see that---take them away from folks, NOPE. Remember, that the crooked cops in NOLA did do seize some guns in the wake of Katrina, and that bit them in the butt
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I believe there's video of the device being tested on a reporter who both tries to use a mattress and another person to obstruct the effect, and both prove largely ineffective. Apparently the microwaves can even penetrate concrete walls. Perhaps it can only burn externally, but from the descriptions of those exposed to it it sounds as though there's an element of internal pain, and clearly the waves the device exudes are capable of passing through a person.

Obviously it would be very unpleasant. But it seems less damaging than some other alternatives like tea gas, tasers, or baton rounds (or even just batons).

I'm no police violence cheerleader, but sometimes the police have to stop riots.
You're not wrong, it's a somewhat less violent method of dispersing a crowd than many men with many sticks, or worse many men with many guns. I also agree that sometimes the police have to step in with force where riot-situations are involved. The difference between a protest and a riot is often one authorities fail to see however. It's not at all uncommon for the batons and the tear-gas to come out long before a window's been broken or a fire's been set. When common citizens clash with police, the police obviously have the extreme advantage, the only leverage citizens have in such a conflict being numbers and grit. It's a horrible thing, but sometimes the only way for significant change to take place is for authorities to be pushed into crossing the line. The May 4 massacre is a good example of this. Students stood up to their government, military force was employed to oppress them, and in the ensuing clash the military opened fire, killing several. Up until that moment the protestors were viewed by many at home as Anti-American, as communists, as 'stupid kids'. It took seeing those 'stupid kids' being gunned down by their own military to turn the tide of public opinion where Vietnam was concerned. Now imagine how history might have been different if no 'force' had been necessary to compell every student at Kent State to flee as fast as possible, simply by flipping a switch. What chance does protest have of ever proving truly effective again if we allow our authorities to employ technologies which allow them to decide 'that's enough of that', push a button, and send everybody packing no matter how righteous the cause/how determined they are?

How many decades before there's a miniature version of this thing set up on every third lamp-post, allowing full-spectrum pacification of entire communities? Two young guys break out into a scrap? ZAP. Some kid smoking dope on a street corner? ZAP. A drunk taking a leak in an alley? ZAP. Probably sounds like a science-fiction scenario, right? If you'd told someone 30 or 40 years ago that the near entirety of the UK would be under video-surveillance, they'd have thought the same thing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I believe there's video of the device being tested on a reporter who both tries to use a mattress and another person to obstruct the effect, and both prove largely ineffective. Apparently the microwaves can even penetrate concrete walls. Perhaps it can only burn externally, but from the descriptions of those exposed to it it sounds as though there's an element of internal pain, and clearly the waves the device exudes are capable of passing through a person.
See videos above. The waves do NOT pass through a person. It's physically impossible. Using a person as a a shield is ineffective because they don't cover every inch of you.


You're not wrong, it's a somewhat less violent method of dispersing a crowd than many men with many sticks, or worse many men with many guns. I also agree that sometimes the police have to step in with force where riot-situations are involved. The difference between a protest and a riot is often one authorities fail to see however. It's not at all uncommon for the batons and the tear-gas to come out long before a window's been broken or a fire's been set. When common citizens clash with police, the police obviously have the extreme advantage, the only leverage citizens have in such a conflict being numbers and grit. It's a horrible thing, but sometimes the only way for significant change to take place is for authorities to be pushed into crossing the line. The May 4 massacre is a good example of this. Students stood up to their government, military force was employed to oppress them, and in the ensuing clash the military opened fire, killing several. Up until that moment the protestors were viewed by many at home as Anti-American, as communists, as 'stupid kids'. It took seeing those 'stupid kids' being gunned down by their own military to turn the tide of public opinion where Vietnam was concerned. Now imagine how history might have been different if no 'force' had been necessary to compell every student at Kent State to flee as fast as possible, simply by flipping a switch. What chance does protest have of ever proving truly effective again if we allow our authorities to employ technologies which allow them to decide 'that's enough of that', push a button, and send everybody packing no matter how righteous the cause/how determined they are?
It seems like you are arguing that the police should only be armed with more dangerous weapons, so they use them less.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
One problem with 'simple protests' is that they can deny OTHERS the use of their property or businesses. I live in a neighborhood with front entrance driveways and here, a friend stopping at a neighbor's house can block my driveway. I don't really CARE why their friend is visiting, I just need be able to leave my house. Protests are often like that visiting car, blocking others use of property. When the police attempt to move them, that will often start trouble. The police need non violent means to move them.
 

solrey

Senior Member
One problem with 'simple protests' is that they can deny OTHERS the use of their property or businesses. I live in a neighborhood with front entrance driveways and here, a friend stopping at a neighbor's house can block my driveway. I don't really CARE why their friend is visiting, I just need be able to leave my house. Protests are often like that visiting car, blocking others use of property. When the police attempt to move them, that will often start trouble. The police need non violent means to move them.
That aspect of protesters infringing on other peoples right to go about their lives is the primary reason I couldn't support the "occupy movement", even though I agree with some of their grievances. They took over green space, which is often few and far between, that people in cities need for walking their dogs, and a place in their neighborhood to play and enjoy other forms of outdoor recreation.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
It seems like you are arguing that the police should only be armed with more dangerous weapons, so they use them less.
That is, to a limited degree, the argument I'm making, yes. There are situations such as extreme rioting where extreme force, perhaps even deadly force is needed. When used, that use of force should endure the most thorough scrutiny to ensure it was absolutely necessary. There's no excuse for the use for extreme force on a non-violent protest action. None whatsoever. And yet extreme force (batons, tear-gass, pepper-spray, ect.) are often employed on people engaged in peaceful protest.
occupy_pepper_spray_AP111118053177_fullwidth_620x350.jpg
When it is, those peaceful protests are made all the more powerful, especially when the force used is peacefully endured. The above protest action is one we'd likely have never heard about had some prick of a Police officer not sprayed them down like weeds. What might have been a more or less ineffectual effort abruptly became an incredibly potent symbol for police-oppression that everyone can understand and no-one can deny, which has gone on to receive global attention. Some crowds don't deserve to be dispersed. It's essential to the health of the nation that some crowds aren't dispersed. If a crowd of common citizens is willing to risk tear-gas, mace, beatings and sound-cannons to remain firm in their peaceful action, and deadly force becomes the only option for authorities to disperse them, then authorities should withdraw and concessions of Government should be made. So long as there's that point where the authorities have to choose between backing down and killing someone, and so long as it remains unacceptable for someone to be killed by the authorities while participating in a peaceful protest, peaceful protest will remain an effective, if not overly powerful tool in combating Government and bringing change.
This machine, described by the LA Warden as 'the Holy Grail of crowd-control', can make peaceful protest rapidly and truly unbearable. If trained Marines can't endure this thing for more than a few seconds, a crowd of civilians, no matter how determined, doesn't stand much of a chance. It has the potential to make peaceful civil unrest in defiance of authority an impossibility, and could give the authorities the ability to switch protest-actions off at their leisure.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
That aspect of protesters infringing on other peoples right to go about their lives is the primary reason I couldn't support the "occupy movement", even though I agree with some of their grievances. They took over green space, which is often few and far between, that people in cities need for walking their dogs, and a place in their neighborhood to play and enjoy other forms of outdoor recreation.
So your nation is at the mercy of crooks in hundred-thousand-dollar suits, your banks are laundering drug-money and terrorist funds and your courts wont even prosecute them out of fear of the American jobs lost, your nation is about to engage in wide-scale 'austerity measures' that basically amount to the rape of the middle-lower class on the basis of being broke while spending hundreds of billions of dollars on nonsensical wars, but you can't support the occupy movement because they were an obstacle/eyesore for dog-walkers and park-goers?
Priorities.
To each his own I guess.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So your nation is at the mercy of crooks in hundred-thousand-dollar suits, your banks are laundering drug-money and terrorist funds and your courts wont even prosecute them out of fear of the American jobs lost, your nation is about to engage in wide-scale 'austerity measures' that basically amount to the rape of the middle-lower class on the basis of being broke while spending hundreds of billions of dollars on nonsensical wars, but you can't support the occupy movement because they were an obstacle/eyesore for dog-walkers and park-goers?
Priorities.
To each his own I guess.
That's all great if the person protesting is protesting something you agree with (and I do actually agree with a lot of the Occupy movement's goals). But where do you draw the line? Should anyone be allowed to set up camp anywhere for any length of time if they claim any political motivation?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The 'Occupy movement' was not an effective way of changing anything. Many of the 'occupiers' were upper middle class kids that had lost their jobs and such. It was not even an American movement, it came from Canada. They railed against the oil companies, while they camped in 'earth pimple' and wore high tech clothing. They ranted against business, while they used the internet and FB and Twitter to further their 'cause'. I saw them as hypocrites, doing more harm to their 'cause' than help.
 
Top