Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
npv708 wrote:I'm as much as a anti-war, peace-loving democrat as the next guy, but I'd love to see North Korea aggravate China enough for some military retaliation. Enough with this two-bit country so we can actually focus our military on threats from "real" countries.
npv708 wrote:And shaf, as far as DHS's budget is concerned, it looks like Milulski's budget will actually give them more funds to equal or go beyond pre-sequester levels.
shafnutz05 wrote:npv708 wrote:And shaf, as far as DHS's budget is concerned, it looks like Milulski's budget will actually give them more funds to equal or go beyond pre-sequester levels.
I am far less concerned about budgetary matters, and more concerned about the absolutely ridiculous amount of ammunition and military-grade weaponry they are purchasing.
shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone been following this story? I don't know how much of it is verified, but it sounds like it is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone been following this story? I don't know how much of it is verified, but it sounds like it is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.
shafnutz05 wrote:npv708 wrote:And shaf, as far as DHS's budget is concerned, it looks like Milulski's budget will actually give them more funds to equal or go beyond pre-sequester levels.
I am far less concerned about budgetary matters, and more concerned about the absolutely ridiculous amount of ammunition and military-grade weaponry they are purchasing.
pittsoccer33 wrote:I don't know if any other people who work in downtown Pittsburgh have noticed, but over the last six months I have seen DHS agents in tactical gear walking around downtown on numerous occasions. Kind of creepy.
Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.
PensFanInDC wrote:Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.
Yes sir. I'm more concerned about an "internal invasion" than that of a foreign one.
columbia wrote:PensFanInDC wrote:Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.
Yes sir. I'm more concerned about an "internal invasion" than that of a foreign one.
What leads you to believe that this is at all likely to happen?
columbia wrote:PensFanInDC wrote:Yes sir. I'm more concerned about an "internal invasion" than that of a foreign one.
What leads you to believe that this is at all likely to happen?
shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone been following this story? I don't know how much of it is verified, but it sounds like it is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers.
Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:
r
[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”
Shyster wrote:shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone been following this story? I don't know how much of it is verified, but it sounds like it is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
DHS needs that ammo for the 7,000 full-auto machine guns they're also buying (with matching 30-round magazines):
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01 ... l-defense/
From Section C of the request for proposals:DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.
Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.
tifosi77 wrote:Personally, I don't think it's a question of believing a 'domestic invasion' is at all likely to happen. It's alarm and concern as to why DHS seems to think it's likely to happen.
shafnutz05 wrote:There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.
shafnutz05 wrote:There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.
columbia wrote:shafnutz05 wrote:There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.
That's an argument, which is eerily similar to one used by some gun control advocates.
Funny how that works.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests