Obama admin stonewalling on big ammo buildup
Mar 24, 2013 01:14:21 #
Mar 24, 2013 01:34:32 #
Oh no, not another political forum that allows articles from crap sites like wnd. Boo Hoo. I thought maybe this one was different.
Mar 24, 2013 01:38:52 #
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
Jerseyfishcat wrote:
Oh no, not another political forum that allows articles from crap sites like wnd. Boo Hoo. I thought maybe this one was different.
Why not? We allow crap articles from sites like HuffingtonPost.
Mar 24, 2013 08:05:12 #
Some of the smallest magazines have great reputations for their credibility. However after reading this article, and the others to the side. I think this site (WND) is a "foil hat club".
The government is buying the ammunition, not all in 1 year, but over a 5 year period of time. Now if you think Obama is going to send security forces out to shoot their mom, and dad, brother, and sister you need to think again.
The government is buying the ammunition, not all in 1 year, but over a 5 year period of time. Now if you think Obama is going to send security forces out to shoot their mom, and dad, brother, and sister you need to think again.
Mar 24, 2013 15:13:04 #
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
Katfish wrote:
Some of the smallest magazines have great reputations for their credibility. However after reading this article, and the others to the side. I think this site (WND) is a "foil hat club".
The government is buying the ammunition, not all in 1 year, but over a 5 year period of time. Now if you think Obama is going to send security forces out to shoot their mom, and dad, brother, and sister you need to think again.
The government is buying the ammunition, not all in 1 year, but over a 5 year period of time. Now if you think Obama is going to send security forces out to shoot their mom, and dad, brother, and sister you need to think again.
The argument the government has been making does not add up to the facts. That they are buying the ammo over five years does nothing to change the fact that the volume of ammunition they are buying grossly exceeds their need for ammo, unless you are planning on using it. If it is purely for training then why buy more than the estimated 15 million rounds currently used annually for training? There simply is no justification for the DHS ammo purchase. Congress should withhold their funding until they can adequately answer the question "why?'.
Mar 25, 2013 08:12:53 #
Mar 25, 2013 08:16:19 #
In 1938 Germany's War Minister answered an American industrialist who told him , " but you can't buy all this war material if you're not going to use it"
the german just said "Exactly"
the german just said "Exactly"
Mar 25, 2013 08:33:47 #
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
MannyB wrote:
Pretty much my point. Let us not also forget Mr BHO's statement during his first run for President that we need a civilian force as powerful as our military force. Sounds ominous to me.In 1938 Germany's War Minister answered an American industrialist who told him , " but you can't buy all this war material if you're not going to use it"
the german just said "Exactly"
the german just said "Exactly"
Mar 25, 2013 12:36:48 #
memBrain wrote:
Pretty much my point. Let us not also forget Mr BHO's statement during his first run for President that we need a civilian force as powerful as our military force. Sounds ominous to me.
Yet we still have all those Obama supporters that refuse to see the signs that he makes so obvious. It reminds me of "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up". If anyone thinks he is not gearing up for a government takeover of our country they have their heads in the sand. At the very least, we should be preventing anything like that from ever happening by demanding t***sparency and accountability from our leaders. Sadly, we treat them like royalty and blindly trust them.
Mar 25, 2013 13:30:04 #
I don't care if it is 1 year or 5 years it's an awful lot of ammunition. Enough to cause me concern. Especially when you combine it with Obama's statement on Homeland Security and the issue of gun control and a Federal Gun Registry. Is he planning a civil war or a take-over?
Mar 25, 2013 13:57:04 #
Alene49 wrote:
I don't care if it is 1 year or 5 years it's an awful lot of ammunition. Enough to cause me concern. Especially when you combine it with Obama's statement on Homeland Security and the issue of gun control and a Federal Gun Registry. Is he planning a civil war or a take-over?
I think that any critically thinking person can come to no other conclusion, Alene49.
Mar 25, 2013 14:07:38 #
Katfish wrote:
Some of the smallest magazines have great reputations for their credibility. However after reading this article, and the others to the side. I think this site (WND) is a "foil hat club".
The government is buying the ammunition, not all in 1 year, but over a 5 year period of time. Now if you think Obama is going to send security forces out to shoot their mom, and dad, brother, and sister you need to think again.
The government is buying the ammunition, not all in 1 year, but over a 5 year period of time. Now if you think Obama is going to send security forces out to shoot their mom, and dad, brother, and sister you need to think again.
Stick your head back in the sand, Katfish, then you will never know when your freedoms are gone. You need to study history if you don't think we will turn on each other.....it happens (and has happened)all through history. I believe it's happening in Syria and Egypt and other African and Middle Eastern countries right now. What is the leader of a country's biggest fear? That the people will turn on him in civil unrest and revolution. How do you prevent that? By keeping the civilians happy. But what if the leaders policies don't make them happy? By taking away their weapons and having a fully armed m*****a to quell any and all r**ts (like Tianemmen Square in China). Why do you think it can't happen here?
Mar 25, 2013 16:26:39 #
Mar 25, 2013 16:58:36 #
Now that sounds like a very good question. Am I correct in my assumption, from your question, that these are the most lethal kind?
Mar 25, 2013 18:06:56 #
memBrain
Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
Indeed they are. So lethal in fact that several brands have been declared illegal: Black Talons, Silver Shredders, and Teflon tipped to name a few. The Teflon is especially nasty as it is armor piercing.
The real goal here is gun control. They can't get new legislation passed into law, and they know it. So the only options left to them are to control the availability of arms and ammo. Buy out the manufacturers of Arms, and you can control who you sell them to. Buy up the ammunition, and the gun becomes a paper weight. Something to seriously think about...
The real goal here is gun control. They can't get new legislation passed into law, and they know it. So the only options left to them are to control the availability of arms and ammo. Buy out the manufacturers of Arms, and you can control who you sell them to. Buy up the ammunition, and the gun becomes a paper weight. Something to seriously think about...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.