assault weapon ban again

[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.

[Runscott]

David, you have won all the discussions - congratulations.

[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]

.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

As previously established, the numbers are underwhelming and completely justifiable. David forgot to divide those numbers by four (since this purchase is for over the next four years).

Ahh, got it. So those 11,000 rounds for each DHS agent should be divided by 4 years. That makes sense. So each agent only needs 2,750 rounds per year.

[jhs5120]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Honestly, you would think they get more.

What makes you think that?

DHS agents are required to quilify with their weapon 4 times a year. I really don't think it would take more than 2 50 round boxes of shells to qualify each time. That's 400 rounds a year. So, 4 months out of the year they're qualifying.

Now, let's say they go to the range another 8 times a year - the months that they're not qualifying - just to target practice. Let's also say they use another 2 50 round boxes each time they go. That's another 800 rounds a year.

That comes to 1200 rounds a year. What about the other 1,550 rounds? I think my numbers are a very fair estimate. I don't ever go through more than 2 boxes of shells at the range (at least not for one particular gun). But who knows, maybe my numbers are way off? But at least I'm trying to put into perspective how many rounds they need.

How do you justify 2750 rounds a year?

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

[QUOTE=jhs5120;1273184]Obviously unarmed American civilians.


Armed and unarmed. Tell me, what are the MRAP's for, and the bulletproof checkpoint booths? Why are they militarizing local police forces? And, why isn't DHS protecting our borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles? I'm assuming they are used to eliminate the American population and bulletproof checkpoints as well..

Honestly, what do you think they're for? Have the local police been going on rampages with their MRAP's in South Florida?



Who are "they"? Are we talking about local governments, the local police force, the NRA, Aliens? I want to know who the mastermind behind the upcoming mass-murder of the entire United States population will be.

I know you are being sarcastic, but you don't need to put words in my mouth.

I never said anything about an upcoming mass murder of the entire United States population.

"They" would be the Federal Government. They are the ones providing the local police agencies with MRAP vehicles. They are the ones providing the militarized gear that looks like it belongs in a war zone.

Have you not noticed the rash of unarmed civilians being killed by police lately? Could it have something to do with the "militarization" of local police forces?

And, why is an agency called "The Department of Homeland Security" not protecting our borders at all??????

Anyhow, you can believe there is nothing strange about all of this, reply with sarcastic remarks, and justify all of this nonsense- but keep in mind, all it takes is for good people to remain silent.

Sincerely, Clayton

[jhs5120]

.

[teetwoohsix]

I guess this is nothing to be alarmed about either, right?:

http://benswann.com/supreme-court-denies-ndaa-lawsuit/

How much does it take for someone to see that something is seriously wrong with this picture? When will you be convinced? Those "no hesitation" targets should be enough to raise an eyebrow, no? Small children, pregnant women? WTF?

Sincerely, Clayton