assault weapon ban again

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Especially taking into account most of the agencies are purchasing bullets for the next four years (anticipating the rise in cost of ammunition)

You said earlier that the reason why they're target shooting with hollow points instead of the cheap stuff was "federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I." Now you're saying that they want to eliminate their wasteful ways and stockpile ammo anticipating a rise in cost? So before they weren't concerned with cost, but now they are? Well, since you've explained it all to me, I guess there's no more need to carry on the conversation. Thanks for the clarification.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

You know, I have explained the reasons for the purchases and my opinions on the matter, but I have yet to hear your opinion. Why do you believe the government purchased so much ammunition?

Yes, sir, you did and I appreciate that. Thank you for doing what Scott wouldn't. I disagree with your opinion (after all, when has the government ever been conscientiousness about spending tax-payer dollars?), but I do respect it. I'm about to step into a meeting, but I'll give you my opinion later.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I believe that it's the governments way to try and control ammunition sales. You may find that far-fetched, but which is more far fetched: The government buying in bulk to save money (as if they've ever cared about how much tax payer money they spent) or the government trying to control ammunition sales?

Here are some numbers for you:

• DHS - 704,390,250 rounds of ammo. With 65,000 armed personnel, that's nearly 11,000 rounds per agent.

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - 46,000 rounds of ammo.

• Department of Agriculture - 320,000 rounds of ammo (must be to protect us from those mad cows).

• Social Security Administration - 174,000 rounds of ammo (you know how those old people can get when they don't get their SS checks).

• FBI - 100,000,000 rounds of ammo for their 14,000 agents (7,000 rounds per agent)

But, whether you're right or I'm right or neither of us is right, there is one thing I just have a hard time understanding. You've been gracious enough to give your opinion on my other questions, maybe you'll oblige me on this one too.

There is a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc., that supplies targets to the DHS. The DHS specifically requested "no hesitation" targets which depicted images of pregnant women, children, and old people in residential settings. My question is, why would the DHS request such targets? Oh, it's true. Just look it up.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Oh, and by the way, there are seven targets in the series: Pregnant Woman, Older Man 1, Older Man 2, Older Woman, Young Mother, Young Girl and Little Brother.

Knowing how conscientiousness our government is about saying tax payers money (they do buy ammo in bulk after all), maybe these just happen to be "on sale" and were less expensive than a regular target.

Here are 5 of the images:

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Today, all of this ammo is readily available.

Clearly you haven't been shopping for ammo in a while. I did just Wednesday. I found bare shelves.

Originally Posted by jhs5120

These pregnant women, children and old people are all pointing guns at you! The purpose of a "no hesitation" target is to train yourself not to hesitate when your life is on the line. It's no some dark conspiracy to train super soldiers to kill children.

So, it's ok to put any image on a target as long as they're holding a gun? Umm, ok. On that note, I'm done with the conversation. Have a good evening.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I believe that it's the governments way to try and control ammunition sales. You may find that far-fetched, but which is more far fetched: The government buying in bulk to save money (as if they've ever cared about how much tax payer money they spent) or the government trying to control ammunition sales?

Here are some numbers for you:

• DHS - 704,390,250 rounds of ammo. With 65,000 armed personnel, that's nearly 11,000 rounds per agent.

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - 46,000 rounds of ammo.

• Department of Agriculture - 320,000 rounds of ammo (must be to protect us from those mad cows).

• Social Security Administration - 174,000 rounds of ammo (you know how those old people can get when they don't get their SS checks).

• FBI - 100,000,000 rounds of ammo for their 14,000 agents (7,000 rounds per agent)

But, whether you're right or I'm right or neither of us is right, there is one thing I just have a hard time understanding. You've been gracious enough to give your opinion on my other questions, maybe you'll oblige me on this one too.

There is a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc., that supplies targets to the DHS. The DHS specifically requested "no hesitation" targets which depicted images of pregnant women, children, and old people in residential settings. My question is, why would the DHS request such targets? Oh, it's true. Just look it up.

Those "no hesitation" targets are extremely disturbing to me. Also, it is insane that the DHS would "need" that much ammo-are they planning for a decade long war? They are a "domestic" agency for God's sake. They don't even fight foreign wars-in fact, they don't even protect our borders, so I think even their title doesn't make any sense.And, maybe it was already stated, but aren't those rounds banned in war by the Geneva Convention? If that's true, should we not be concerned that a domestic agency is buying these up? WHAT or WHO are they for exactly?

Just look at those numbers David posted. That's insane, and unjustifiable in my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Those "no hesitation" targets are extremely disturbing to me.

I guess you and I are the only ones.

I bet if our military trained with "no hesitation" targets that depicted images of Afghan and/or Iraqi women, children and elderly people, it would cause an outrage in the media.

[jhs5120]

.