Another Run on Ammo: DHS's New 900 Million Round Purchase

*sigh*

Remember weeks ago when the very number - 1.6 billion- was a "conspiracy theory"?

Sigh my ass. Your the one with the theories, not me. My counter to your nonsense from a couple weeks ago was not that the numbers ordered were a conspiracy. Your views are skewed at best.

Where is Snake Plissken when we need him. Someone please pull the plug and put the nut jobs, conspiracy theorists, perverts, criminals, etc. out of a platform.
 
JBS what you have to remember first is ammo purchased is a budgetary line item like everything and the increases were justified to many people in both the House and Senate. The money to make all these purchases can't just be pulled from different line items without approval from Congress and that lack a flexibility is what makes the across the board sequestration cuts such a problem.

A little more searching you can find that in 2006 we had 12,349 Border Patrol Agent and expanded that number to 18,319 by 2008 and further expanded that number to 21,370 by 2012. When you think about the increase numbers in just the Border Patrol those ammo purchase numbers might be justified especially if you look for changes to training in regards to shooting. How are agents armed these days versus 2004? For example are more M-4 carried today by border agents along with a side arm? That would require more range time staying qualified on multiple weapons and it would also demand a higher patrol load requirements.

The attached *.pdf has the '06 and '08 BP numbers and the following link it what I used for '12 numbers:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp112BIGAR&r_n=hr091.112&dbname=cp112&&sel=TOC_112368&

This is just one example of then many different departments that fall under the DHS umbrella.
 

Attachments

  • d07540r(1).pdf
    998.5 KB · Views: 1
Sigh my ass. Your the one with the theories, not me. My counter to your nonsense from a couple weeks ago was not that the numbers ordered were a conspiracy. Your views are skewed at best.
I never had any working theories on this, only questions. You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate otherwise. In the very first post of this thread, the only thing I did speculate on was that the orders were likely to drive the availability in the private sector down. That's a reasonable degree of speculation. Other concerns mentioned later in the thread- like financial instability- are not new concepts. There are thousands of books and perhaps tens of thousands of articles on this concern. $16 trillion in debt makes thoughts like large scale financial instability seem within the realm of possible.

I am aware that wherever this viral story has been re-printed across the web, the story has been flooded with all kinds of speculation and conspiracy-like responses from people who comment. But that's this Administration's fault and the one before it for not fostering trust among the American people, not necessarily "conspiracy theorists". In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to the latest poll that shows that 3 in 10 Americans trust this government. That's not my fault. Now, if you took my posts the wrong way, and your mind immediately interpreted what I said to mean all kinds of conspiracy theory scenarios, then you can surely understand why those without your background (i.e., the general public) would do the same thing and far worse. This story isn't a story from some hillbilly's blog. The issue of massive ammo acquisitions has been carried on FOX, CNN, CBS, and in publications like Forbes and the like. Asking questions about what is driving these huge ammo purchases - these are also legit questions.

If we had on page 1 of this thread what we have on page 5 and 6- which is links to real numbers, and a serious attempt at trying to understand this issue, this would have been a 1 or 2 page thread.

The numbers I used regarding ammo consumption are all quotes from Generals and publications from the time period specified. This is why I linked to them. If they're inaccurate, then so be it. The PREMISE of this thread was inaccurate (i.e. the global amount of ammo being 730 million rounds per year+, vs. the earlier stated 400 million rounds per year), but the questions raised as a result are/were not "conspiracy theories". And here's one of those earlier quotes:
Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dhs-...-million-200-million-40-caliber-rounds-2013-1
 
This number of the rounds used in Iraq and Afghanistan is misleading at best. Less than 10 percent of our military is deployed, and believe it or not we fire way way way more rounds in training CONUS than we do in either theater. Furthermore that is 1 year. The actual figure for 2005 was in excess of 1.7 billion rounds used by the Army in 2005 alone. A far cry from the 70 million number that keeps getting thrown around. Also the DHS purchase supports four years, the Armys 1 billion plus per year far exceeds anything close to what had been purchased.

Here is the link the tables on usage are about half way down.

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct10/spectrum_smallarms_ammo.html
 
Has anyone come across any website out there that discusses this issue intelligently, with real numbers like the ones being thrown out on page 5 & 6 of this thread? I have not. And I've Googled this topic way too much now. As far as I know, SS is the only site to have the real scoop on this. It's still alot of ammo, it's still more than any other year, and it's still an issue that bears watching, but when put in the proper perspective it takes on a completely different character.

A few weeks ago I checked the Snopes website, among others, and there was nothing anywhere even close to dissecting this the way the entries here on the last two pages have done. This story is still being reprinted all over the web, and I've heard short clips from major radio commentators addressing the issue as well.
 
While she's at it, she could accuse Americans of stockpiling arms and ammunition. The bottom line is that without digging up actual numbers, I pretty much pointed out what cback, free, and scott said. Granted, some of that was based on my limited knowledge of the expansion of the federal government over the last decade as well as ammo expenditures (not the ones cited by some dumb ass general). In the same turn, without citing anything, my nonsense is irrelevant.

I've pretty much had it with politics, politicians, and anyone who chooses to involve themselves with the two. What ever happened to the days when people like us viewed ourselves as enforcers of policy rather than political mouthpieces? One thing I have realized over the last few years is the older people get, the more politicized people get. That sort of answered the previous sentence/question, but it makes one wonder why. Perhaps it is education or availability of information provided by media outlets with an agenda, thus allowing people to read information that feeds their agenda. Maybe it is the individual need to feel relevant. Maybe it is a dip in testosterone or estrogen. Ultimately, who gives a fuck. (That was more of a statement than a question).
 
I don't know about that, I fired a lot more 5.56 in 04-05 than I had ever fired in any training.

I wasn't referencing specific individuals. I was saying that the military fires way more rounds in training than in combat.
 
Has anyone come across any website out there that discusses this issue intelligently, with real numbers like the ones being thrown out on page 5 & 6 of this thread? I have not. And I've Googled this topic way too much now. As far as I know, SS is the only site to have the real scoop on this. It's still alot of ammo, it's still more than any other year, and it's still an issue that bears watching, but when put in the proper perspective it takes on a completely different character.

A few weeks ago I checked the Snopes website, among others, and there was nothing anywhere even close to dissecting this the way the entries here on the last two pages have done. This story is still being reprinted all over the web, and I've heard short clips from major radio commentators addressing the issue as well.

I have got my Google-fu on a couple times for this subject and I couldn't agree more. There is so much regurgitation of the same fact less statements with out an ounce of critical assessment for what was said it is staggering. It is so vast it can make it hard to find out real information.
 
Speaking of stockpiles, I was thinking of how much of an annual purchase would be to replenish outdated stockpiles. We all know that more is purchased than is used, it's the standard practice for all Government purchasing and budget "management". If you don't spend, you lose it and with the last decades push for security; I'm sure that's what the deal was.
 
While she's at it, she could accuse Americans of stockpiling arms and ammunition. The bottom line is that without digging up actual numbers, I pretty much pointed out what cback, free, and scott said. Granted, some of that was based on my limited knowledge of the expansion of the federal government over the last decade as well as ammo expenditures (not the ones cited by some dumb ass general). In the same turn, without citing anything, my nonsense is irrelevant.

I've pretty much had it with politics, politicians, and anyone who chooses to involve themselves with the two. What ever happened to the days when people like us viewed ourselves as enforcers of policy rather than political mouthpieces? One thing I have realized over the last few years is the older people get, the more politicized people get. That sort of answered the previous sentence/question, but it makes one wonder why. Perhaps it is education or availability of information provided by media outlets with an agenda, thus allowing people to read information that feeds their agenda. Maybe it is the individual need to feel relevant. Maybe it is a dip in testosterone or estrogen. Ultimately, who gives a fuck. (That was more of a statement than a question).

My take/retort:

I am now in a position as a civilian to not enforce policy but influence it. I don't buy into everything the media says, which is why I am following this among other things. If there's a valid reason, given DHS/etc generally is pretty transparent with their stupidity, it'd be in the clear. It doesn't quite add up, which is why I'm more inclined to go "Ok, why?"

I no longer must do or die, because I now have latitude to question WHY.
 
OK, so here's the deal...

If you post something on Shadowspear if had better be a FACT or stated clearly as an opinion.

If you post something that you think is correct and imply is correct and state is proof without fact/evidence backing it up then you are going to get the scrutiny and the brunt of my displeasure, not to mention the other mods/admins.

I'm sick to death of the bullshit posted here and it will NOT be tolerated!
 
My take/retort:

I am now in a position as a civilian to not enforce policy but influence it. I don't buy into everything the media says, which is why I am following this among other things. If there's a valid reason, given DHS/etc generally is pretty transparent with their stupidity, it'd be in the clear. It doesn't quite add up, which is why I'm more inclined to go "Ok, why?"

I no longer must do or die, because I now have latitude to question WHY.

But at what level are you influencing policy? By reading/writing about it on a message board or by actually getting involved? I am not sharp shooting you but rather asking a serious question. As all of us have seen over the years, it is real easy to sit on the couch or in front of the computer and read crap that supports our own beliefs and agenda and then proceed to bitch and complain about it, all the while using the excuse that we somehow influence our government (city, county, state, fed, etc.) by voting, which while is true in part, it is only one very small way of being involved.

Just like bitching about how things are done at work, anyone's work. We all know tons of people who bitch about their job, but when promotion opportunities present themselves, the majority of the bitchers say fuck that! Rather than put themselves in a position to influence change, they sit in that same old job, bitching.
 
But at what level are you influencing policy? By reading/writing about it on a message board or by actually getting involved? I am not sharp shooting you but rather asking a serious question. As all of us have seen over the years, it is real easy to sit on the couch or in front of the computer and read crap that supports our own beliefs and agenda and then proceed to bitch and complain about it, all the while using the excuse that we somehow influence our government (city, county, state, fed, etc.) by voting, which while is true in part, it is only one very small way of being involved.

Just like bitching about how things are done at work, anyone's work. We all know tons of people who bitch about their job, but when promotion opportunities present themselves, the majority of the bitchers say fuck that! Rather than put themselves in a position to influence change, they sit in that same old job, bitching.

short list?

widespread internet Fact distribution, political office-holders email/snail mail/petitions, rally's I can afford to drive to, and other things up to and including going in person to Reid's office in-state every day until I actually talk to him. I have the time to be a pain in the ass for politicians until they actually answer with a real uncanned answer if the cause "is just". I may not get the answer we like though, but that's life.

If you want us to just stop talking about this, it's fine. I like gag orders. Putting things out in the open so that facts can be found or unburied and bullshit can be called on its namesake is how a discussion and information is found. There's enough disinformation within the major news media today that there's no possible way that you can honestly enforce that.
 
Right on. I have no issue calling things like you see them. Speaking for myself, I am tired of the whole sky is falling mentality. Not just here, but on the news and with people at work who perpetuate the BS put forth by the media and their political view of choice.

Disinformation is the keyword and the media (left and right slanted media) are guilty of it, as are people who further what they read without either putting in some extra research or waiting for the true facts to come out.

Wait until the whole story comes out about the father of that baby (who was shot five times and died) on the southside of Chicago.
 
That's exactly why I would like to continue the discussion on this and other topics. People like yourself, and others, are in positions to be able to interject what you see on your end compared to what's coming out in "THE MEDIA" and while I don't think there's a huge sky is falling mentality on my part, understanding is key now. I mean, I can get behind buying the ammo when it makes sense, but there's all sorts of different angles which may/may not be true.

Basically getting all sides to bring reality to the table to compare it to the talking heads already going RA RA RA at said table.
 
While she's at it, she could accuse Americans of stockpiling arms and ammunition.

If she did claim it, she'd be correct. Americans have stockpiled and purchased weapons and ammo at what some would call an alarming rate, according to every stat I've come across on the topic. I've heard the same joke from gun dealers and pawn brokers over and over again, "Obama is the best gun salesman the firearms industry has ever had". But I would rather live in a situation where the government fears the people, rather than a situation where the people fear the government. Thanks to the agenda of those in power, we are living in a time of unprecedented lack of trust between the government and the people.

Consider: there are TV shows now that have made "prepping" something just shy of mainstream. And although the focus of these shows is usually something about preparing for catastrophes and disasters, there are also frequent shows about how to deal with martial law, etc. What does it say about the average state of mind of the American people when you can't even buy ammo in Wal Mart or Bass Pro Shops anymore? This is a state of distrust. And on the government side, it's no better. We have seen a steady trickle of reports and various kinds of memos and alerts, warning Law Enforcement of the dangers posed by US military veterans, people flying the Gadsen flag, people buying military surplus gear, and anyone who talks just a little too much about the US Constitution. I mean, what kind of Twilight Zone BS is that? We've also seen the SPLC grow ever more influential in many law enforcement circles and frequently referring to the dangers posed by white conservative gun owners.

Yet despite the culprit for today's tension clearly being the state of mistrust between government and the population, the response of this Administration has been to do things like pursue further gun control, redact government reports on the numbers of ammo and equipment acquisitions, and to speak in hushed tones about how they will pursue influencing domestic policy outside of overt channels. I refer to when The President was quoted as saying he would pursue gun control "under the radar", as well as his complete embrace of radical Leftist political strategy. Namely, the unethical idea of leveraging and capitalizing on whatever domestic crisis happens to emerge in order to advance the agenda:

 
Back
Top