It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anybody remember the DHS ordering 1.6 billion or so rounds of ammunition ( hollow point) back in Feb

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Hardy the objective though is it?


Explain. The objective during a firefight is to live another day. Explain that statement




posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

LEOs aren't stalking they are patrolling to maintain peace,not search and destroy.
I am having trouble believing YOU DON'T GET IT.
A soldiers job is VERY different from law enforcement,take HEADSHOTS for instance in my job it was optimal ,the same could be said of a SWAT team member. BUT a beat cop is NOT an offensive combatant.
THEY can defend themselves,not snipe targets.



DUH



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: NOTurTypical

LEOs aren't stalking they are patrolling to maintain peace,not search and destroy.
I am having trouble believing YOU DON'T GET IT.
A soldiers job is VERY different from law enforcement,take HEADSHOTS for instance in my job it was optimal ,the same could be said of a SWAT team member. BUT a beat cop is NOT an offensive combatant.
THEY can defend themselves,not snipe targets.



DUH


Straw man after straw man, I never claimed anything you said. Go back and re-read what I actually said.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
How many officers does the DOHS have? They all need to be on the range regularly. It probably was some kind of bulk deal supposed to last a while or a bulk contract to be serviced over years to come. I am certain 99.99 % of that ammo is either gonna end up on the range or age and be replaced.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda
How many officers does the DOHS have? They all need to be on the range regularly. It probably was some kind of bulk deal supposed to last a while or a bulk contract to be serviced over years to come. I am certain 99.99 % of that ammo is either gonna end up on the range or age and be replaced.


10 year deal



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Just a few things I want to get out on this thread. First thing, what does FEMA camps have to do with the DHS ammo deal at this point? They signed a contract for UP TO a specified amount of ammunition over a specified period of time.

For another, it is absolutely recommended that you always train with the ammo you are going to be carrying and using. Different types of ammunition are going to behave differently when fired. If you don't believe that, take a good look at a ballistics chart. There is a reason that I was shooting the same exact rounds stateside that I would have been loading my M16A2 with if I would have been sent to Iraq while I was serving in the Marine Corps. Even something that might seem as trivial as the weight of the bullet to the Average Joe is going to affect ballistics.

I also noticed a comment about ammo possibly being replaced due to age. I don't think that the powder and primers age quite like you might think. I have some Russian rounds that were manufactured in 1977 that still fire great, with amazing accuracy. I do not know, however, whether or not any government agencies have any policies about the age of the ammunition being used in the line of duty.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlysyn




For another, it is absolutely recommended that you always train with the ammo you are going to be carrying and using. Different types of ammunition are going to behave differently when fired. If you don't believe that, take a good look at a ballistics chart.


The differences are not that great. I mostly fire FMJs at the range because of cost, but I also fire from time to time the same rounds I use when my handgun is loaded for carry.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlysyn
I do not know, however, whether or not any government agencies have any policies about the age of the ammunition being used in the line of duty.


Depends on how much cash the arms industry doled out to the right people I guess.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
It's illegal to shoot an ejecting pilot, not a paratrooper.


Your source for that claim is what?


It's illegal to shoot an unarmed combatant according to both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ.

Cite? Not that you can't shoot people parachuting from distress, but that you can't shoot any unarmed combatant?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
It's illegal to shoot an ejecting pilot, not a paratrooper.


Your source for that claim is what?


It's illegal to shoot an unarmed combatant according to both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ.

Cite? Not that you can't shoot people parachuting from distress, but that you can't shoot any unarmed combatant?


Section III

A combatant that is unarmed is classified as "hors de combat", it's a French term meaning "out of the fight, or out of combat". Under section 3 of the Geneva Conventions it is unlawful to fire on anyone hors de combat. And under the same section it is also illegal to fire upon a parachuting pilot. That person is likewise unarmed and not engaged in warfare.

Section III, Geneva Convention pdf

Rule 47, Customary IHL


Simple rule of thumb which makes it easy, ANY person who has laid down their weapons is hors de combat, it shows a clear intention that they have surrendered and have exited the fight. Now with that said, it would be illegal on them as hors de combat designated soldiers (showing intentions of surrender) to lure in enemy soldiers for ambush.



edit on 24-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: freedom7


They could be just buying up all the ammunition to make it more expensive for American Citizens.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
a reply to: freedom7


They could be just buying up all the ammunition to make it more expensive for American Citizens.


Yeah, that's why I remarked earlier that it's just an attempt at a backdoor gun control.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join