Homeland Security to Purchase 141,000 Rounds of Sniper Ammo...feeling twitchy now?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.


You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

DJW001

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.


You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



Well by all means demonstrate how the constitution supports a "bureaucracy" to arm itself against ostensibly domestic enemies. Where armed bodies separate from state militias and federal armies have the power to be armed to this level?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.


You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



Well by all means demonstrate how the constitution supports a "bureaucracy" to arm itself against ostensibly domestic enemies. Where armed bodies separate from state militias and federal armies have the power to be armed to this level?


No, you're the one who claimed it was unconstitutional. You need to show where an armed bureaucracy is forbidden by the Constitution. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Broccoli is not unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Here you two go.Link enjoy



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Danbones
"can't go to school cause I ain't got a gun..."
-The Coop

continuity of government...
or maybe
The cartels got all that fancy fire power from Holder and co via fast and furious...
maybe thaey need some ammo too?


They more than likely got all the ammo they needed during operation wide receiver.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

EyesOpenMouthShut
Here you two go.Link enjoy


Thank you. Well, Logarock? Where do you see anything about Homeland Security?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Learn to run in ZigZags.

But seriously, there are certain elements of society that have reached their brink it would be prudent to be prepared.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

DJW001

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.


You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



Well by all means demonstrate how the constitution supports a "bureaucracy" to arm itself against ostensibly domestic enemies. Where armed bodies separate from state militias and federal armies have the power to be armed to this level?


No, you're the one who claimed it was unconstitutional. You need to show where an armed bureaucracy is forbidden by the Constitution. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Broccoli is not unconstitutional.


You don't like Broccoli? I love the stuff.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.


You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



Well by all means demonstrate how the constitution supports a "bureaucracy" to arm itself against ostensibly domestic enemies. Where armed bodies separate from state militias and federal armies have the power to be armed to this level?


No, you're the one who claimed it was unconstitutional. You need to show where an armed bureaucracy is forbidden by the Constitution. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Broccoli is not unconstitutional.


You don't like Broccoli? I love the stuff.


And I don't like the Department of Homeland Security, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. If you just go around saying that things you don't like are unconstitutional, even when they are, you are not making a case for their elimination; you are only flaunting your ignorance!



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

DJW001

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.





You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



Well by all means demonstrate how the constitution supports a "bureaucracy" to arm itself against ostensibly domestic enemies. Where armed bodies separate from state militias and federal armies have the power to be armed to this level?


No, you're the one who claimed it was unconstitutional. You need to show where an armed bureaucracy is forbidden by the Constitution. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Broccoli is not unconstitutional.


You don't like Broccoli? I love the stuff.


And I don't like the Department of Homeland Security, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. If you just go around saying that things you don't like are unconstitutional, even when they are, you are not making a case for their elimination; you are only flaunting your ignorance!



Ignorance of the ways of tyranny perhaps.

Some things are just flat unconstitutional....like them or not. This really has nothing to do with likes of dislikes.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

DJW001

Logarock

nugget1
That seems like a fairly small amount for training/retaining sharpshooter skills.

Given the unrest in our country, the stockpiling of ammo by government agencies isn't really a conspiracy....it's proactive measures by those in power, to retain that power.




Yes indeed and a separate arbitrary power. HLS should be dismantled as soon as possible. It should be part of any good american, running for president, campaign platform. HLS is not even constitutional, not a constitutional assembly of possible force against the citizens. It is certainly the sort of thing the founders had in mind when the added the second amendment to the rights.





You have no idea what the Constitution actually says, do you?



Well by all means demonstrate how the constitution supports a "bureaucracy" to arm itself against ostensibly domestic enemies. Where armed bodies separate from state militias and federal armies have the power to be armed to this level?


No, you're the one who claimed it was unconstitutional. You need to show where an armed bureaucracy is forbidden by the Constitution. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Broccoli is not unconstitutional.


You don't like Broccoli? I love the stuff.


And I don't like the Department of Homeland Security, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. If you just go around saying that things you don't like are unconstitutional, even when they are, you are not making a case for their elimination; you are only flaunting your ignorance!



Ignorance of the ways of tyranny perhaps.

Some things are just flat unconstitutional....like them or not. This really has nothing to do with likes of dislikes.





Unconstitutional. I don't think this word means what you think it means. fromMerriam-Webster un·con·sti·tu·tion·al adjective ˌən-ˌkän(t)-stə-ˈtü-shnəl, -ˈtyü-, -shə-nəl
: not allowed by the constitution of a country or government : not constitutional

Full Definition of UNCONSTITUTIONAL

: not according or consistent with the constitution of a body politic (as a nation)
— un·con·sti·tu·tion·al·i·ty noun
— un·con·sti·tu·tion·al·ly adverb
See unconstitutional defined for English-language learners »
See unconstitutional defined for kids »
Examples of UNCONSTITUTIONAL

an unconstitutional infringement of rights
The law may be unconstitutional.
edit on 2/14/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: typo



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Applying the Second Amendment only to the federal government, and not to the states, persisted for much of the nation's early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen in Louisiana. The Supreme Court held, citizens must "look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens from the state, rather than the national, government." [n]


Link


The justification for HLS falls to the states. The states have abdicated their rights and powers to the degree that HLS can arm local police in any given state, override state and local laws regarding a great many things and be the enforcement wing for the policies of the current administration.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Logarock
reply to post by DJW001
 



Applying the Second Amendment only to the federal government, and not to the states, persisted for much of the nation's early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen in Louisiana. The Supreme Court held, citizens must "look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens from the state, rather than the national, government." [n]


Link


The justification for HLS falls to the states. The states have abdicated their rights and powers to the degree that HLS can arm local police in any given state, override state and local laws regarding a great many things and be the enforcement wing for the policies of the current administration.


Your quotation actually shows that DHL is supported by legal precedent! Now, where in the Constitution is the Executive Branch prohibited from enforcing the law?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesOpenMouthShut
 



The way the constitution is written any powers not expresses fall back to the people not up to the government. Martial powers here are expressly granted to states. HLS seems to be arming itself, not for any sort of enforcement duties as those that may fall to the FBI or ATF, but against the people at large and on a scale on par with what would constitute an armed force or embryonic federal armed wing not subject to the same restrains that sate and federal armies are constitutional subject to.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

DJW001

Logarock
reply to post by DJW001
 



Applying the Second Amendment only to the federal government, and not to the states, persisted for much of the nation's early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen in Louisiana. The Supreme Court held, citizens must "look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens from the state, rather than the national, government." [n]


Link


The justification for HLS falls to the states. The states have abdicated their rights and powers to the degree that HLS can arm local police in any given state, override state and local laws regarding a great many things and be the enforcement wing for the policies of the current administration.


Your quotation actually shows that DHL is supported by legal precedent! Now, where in the Constitution is the Executive Branch prohibited from enforcing the law?



It certainly does not. Read it a bit more carefully. It said an attempt was made to disarm the court kicked it out to the sates at least at this level of action.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Laws are open to interpretation to those who are in charge at the time of the dispute. This is simple fact and has been through the ages.

IN the late 20th century is was decided by judicial review that it applied to the states and not the individual. However, there are those who state that it is the individuals right and not bound by the state. Which is it? That is the question. It is not just for a regulated militia.

The original idea came from the fact that the people of this new nation needed the ability to defend themselves, defend from foreign invaders, defend from an tyrannical government and for law enforcement. This is based on laws from the 1600's in England.

DHS has the right to purchase whatever they want. The issue is WHY they want it and why the government wants to take guns from citizens when THAT is CLEARLY against the second amendment.

Again, not only do those who are in control and win the wars write the history books they are also entitled to interpret laws so it fits the mind pattern of the current state of the country that they want to portray and enforce.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



The way the constitution is written any powers not expresses fall back to the people not up to the government. Martial powers here are expressly granted to states.


Oh dear. Please read Section 8 of the Constitution:


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To...

...To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...


www.archives.gov...

Congress created the DHL, in effect, as a ' Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' It is completely constitutional, whether you like it or not. The ruling you quoted was expressly made to disarm free blacks in the South. Prior to that, it was understood that the Federal government was responsible for arming (or disarming) the populace.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

matafuchs
No, what I am implying that that very soon a lot of people could be put into some serious situations that they did not sign up for.

Here is a scenario - There is a NK satellite that everyone said was going to fall out of orbit but for some reason keeps flying over the US. China also has satellites as well as Russia. I would think the latter were for monitoring where as I still have a suspicion that the NK one is weaponized. So, let's say they decide to 'bring it down' and it unleashes an EMP on the west coast or the east coast.

West Coast - Opens the door for Mexico, China and Russia to attempt land based action. If there is chaos in the US after the EMP( I mean, an inch of snow in Atlanta clears store shelves) it would then make the East Coast vulnerable. It is really a perfect storm if you think about it simply. While we are trying to recover our infrastructure and our economy tanks we are very at risk.

East Coast - Essentially this would wipe out CENTCOM/USSOCCOM and open a # storm in the middle east. Iran could then attack ISrael and there would not be much we could do about it. We would be retreating.

IN both cases, the US would be retreating militarily. Domesitically people would start to starve in weeks and meds would not be delivered. WW3 will be conventional and not nuclear...I hope.

So, all those stockpiles would be used against enemies foreign AND domestic. It would just be that way if the SHTF.

Do I want that, no, but the easiest way to reboot and thin the herd is war. A good book to read on this is One Second After. gives a good view of the normal things we take for granted that would be gone....


Wow! You are so right on the money about what may take place soon.
The bunny is cool too...
There are other books you may enjoy as well.
Matt Braken's "Enemies foreign and domestic" and "Lights Out".
The invader may not enjoy their stay in Idaho high country as the hills are alive with the sound of 50BMG rounds with some very well trained folks.
Thanks for sharing your insight...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I just do not get how you people do not understand what DHS is. It is simply an umbrella for several agencies none of which could stop doing what they do to go start taking over the country. The Border Parol can not leave the border, Customs agents can not stop doing there job, the Secret Service can not stop protecting the President and chasing counrefiters, the Federal Protective service can stop protecting federal buildings, TSA is not going to pull its air marshals from its planes and the Coast Guard is not going get off its boats to form some fantasy domestic army that you people seem to wish existed. Even if you armed the entire Coast Guard your talking about 117 thousand armed agents. None of them trained to work together. Anyone who knows DHS knows how completely silly these ideas are.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join