Jump to content

Why Does DHS Need 1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo?


Nanker

Recommended Posts

 

 

Well, as I stated earlier; they must be planning to make us all kneel in the street and shoot us each in the head. ...five times each.

 

This is your best contribution to this board ever. It should make you proud. One little batting of the eye explains 1.6 billion rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They're not stocking up on 1.6 billion rounds, you idiots...

 

1) It's roughly 1.6 million rounds, in thousand unit lots. "1.6 billion" is a mistake made by people who can't read.

2) It's a five year IDIQ..."1.6 million" is the maximum purchase over that period, not a committed amount.

 

Jesus, people are retards.

 

Mark the calendar. We agree on something.

 

This is your best contribution to this board ever. It should make you proud. One little batting of the eye explains 1.6 billion rounds.

 

Why don't you take some time and research what the actual numbers really are rather than take Alex Jones' word for it. You guys are all working yourselves into a panic over the fact the the editors at Infowars can't read. Relax. Obama isn't coming for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Mark the calendar. We agree on something.

 

 

 

Why don't you take some time and research what the actual numbers really are rather than take Alex Jones' word for it. You guys are all working yourselves into a panic over the fact the the editors at Infowars can't read. Relax. Obama isn't coming for you.

 

I wasn't taking Alex Jone's word on it:

 

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130215-dhs-to-buy-1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammunition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark the calendar. We agree on something.

 

 

 

Why don't you take some time and research what the actual numbers really are rather than take Alex Jones' word for it. You guys are all working yourselves into a panic over the fact the the editors at Infowars can't read. Relax. Obama isn't coming for you.

 

Nobody's in a white knuckled panic except perhaps yourself. You seem all in a lather over the asking of a simple question: Why does the government need that kind of ammunition and in such great numbers? It's illegal to use that stuff in international warfare. Why is is legal to use domestically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are they buying hollow points? Those are outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899. Not fair for international war - but okay to use on your own citizenry? They can't use them on Mexicans - that would be illegal.

 

1) Yes, they're okay to use on your own citizens. The Hague Convention doesn't address internal conflict. According to the Hague Convention, it's okay to use nuclear weapons on your own citizenry.

2) Law enforcement uses hollow-points probably because they have high stopping power but low penetrating power, meaning you're going to put the bad guy down quickly and not risk having a bullet go through him and hit someone else.

 

 

I wasn't taking Alex Jone's word on it:

 

http://www.homelands...s-of-ammunition

 

A story source only on a Fox News story that was originally sourced on Alex Jones' story. Can't anyone read?

 

Try looking first-hand at the DHS solicitations. They're really easy to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Yes, they're okay to use on your own citizens. The Hague Convention doesn't address internal conflict. According to the Hague Convention, it's okay to use nuclear weapons on your own citizenry.

2) Law enforcement uses hollow-points probably because they have high stopping power but low penetrating power, meaning you're going to put the bad guy down quickly and not risk having a bullet go through him and hit someone else.

 

 

 

A story source only on a Fox News story that was originally sourced on Alex Jones' story. Can't anyone read?

 

Try looking first-hand at the DHS solicitations. They're really easy to find.

 

From the article:

 

DHS is looking to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. This comes to about five bullets for every person in the United States.

Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are called strategic sourcing contracts, and Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, said they help the government get a low price for a big purchase.

Fox News reports that the training center and others facilities run by DHS use as many as fifteen million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow DHS to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition during the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies supervised by DHS. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

 

DHS is looking to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. This comes to about five bullets for every person in the United States.

Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are called strategic sourcing contracts, and Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, said they help the government get a low price for a big purchase.

Fox News reports that the training center and others facilities run by DHS use as many as fifteen million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow DHS to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition during the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies supervised by DHS. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers.

 

Yes, from the article: a story sourced only on a Fox News story sourced only on Alex Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, from the article: a story sourced only on a Fox News story sourced only on Alex Jones.

 

I suggest you reread my linked article and you'll find out that Fox questioned the government for their article and even made fun of Infowar's explanation. Are you ok? It didn't used to be so easy to refute you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't taking Alex Jone's word on it:

 

http://www.homelands...s-of-ammunition

 

Let me tell you about a little trick called sourcing. That's where you look at an article or blog and you trace back the source to see where they got their information. And if need be you can source back and further and see where that article or study got their information. This is a very valuable skill that you should learn how to use.

 

The article you linked to here, when sourced, turns out to have come from the Infowars article. See how it works?

 

I suggest you reread my linked article and you'll find out that Fox questioned the government for their article and even made fun of Infowar's explanation. Are you ok? It didn't used to be so easy to refute you.

 

Oh dear God... :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you about a little trick called sourcing. That's where you look at an article or blog and you trace back the source to see where they got their information. And if need be you can source back and further and see where that article or study got their information. This is a very valuable skill that you should learn how to use.

 

The article you linked to here, when sourced, turns out to have come from the Infowars article. See how it works?

 

 

 

Oh dear God... :doh:

 

Fox interviewed a government source for the article. Google some of the specifics from the article and you'll find out how many different stories on this are not sourced from Infowars. I'll not get sarcastic with you and act all superior like you tried to do to me. You shame yourself.

Edited by 3rdnlng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox interviewed a government source for the article. Google some of the specifics from the article and you'll find out how many different stories on this are not sourced from Infowars. I'll not get sarcastic with you and act all superior like you tried to do to me. You shame yourself.

 

I hope you never have to write a scientific paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox interviewed a government source for the article. Google some of the specifics from the article and you'll find out how many different stories on this are not sourced from Infowars. I'll not get sarcastic with you and act all superior like you tried to do to me. You shame yourself.

 

Why the !@#$ would you even think of confirming the story by googling for other stories that say the same thing, when you can google for the RFQs and verify directly that it's bull ****?

 

Christ...you can't even successfully use the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why the !@#$ would you even think of confirming the story by googling for other stories that say the same thing, when you can google for the RFQs and verify directly that it's bull ****?

 

Christ...you can't even successfully use the internet.

 

Just post them already

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic threatens to debunk the natural order of this place. Topic made about current issue. Someone says Obama did it. B-man and other post editorials from right wing Internet spheres. Conclusion reached.

 

Many a time I've linked to court decisions, CRS/CBO studies themselves (as opposed to reporting on them), studies from reputable universities..rarely a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the !@#$ would you even think of confirming the story by googling for other stories that say the same thing, when you can google for the RFQs and verify directly that it's bull ****?

 

Christ...you can't even successfully use the internet.

 

Tom, this experiment of them letting you out once in awhile obviously isn't working. Did Infowars interview Peggy Dixon, spokeperson for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center? You argue against the OP on the basis that the root source was Infowars, and then when proven that many sources posted this story, you change your argument. You need to take a step back and reevalute things. When your groupies consist of BFBF not only may you be attracting the wrong kinds, but your message might be a little skewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, this experiment of them letting you out once in awhile obviously isn't working. Did Infowars interview Peggy Dixon, spokeperson for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center? You argue against the OP on the basis that the root source was Infowars, and then when proven that many sources posted this story, you change your argument. You need to take a step back and reevalute things. When your groupies consist of BFBF not only may you be attracting the wrong kinds, but your message might be a little skewed.

 

This whole thing seems to be going way over your head. Let me see if I can break it down to kindergarten level for you.

 

Googling does not equal tracking back source. What you want to do is try to find where Infowars got it's information. And if so needed, where the sight that infowars used for it's piece got it's information.

 

The argument isn't that the root source is infowars. It's the fact that infowars was way out in left field and all you have to do is look back a few levels to find that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, this experiment of them letting you out once in awhile obviously isn't working. Did Infowars interview Peggy Dixon, spokeperson for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center? You argue against the OP on the basis that the root source was Infowars, and then when proven that many sources posted this story, you change your argument. You need to take a step back and reevalute things. When your groupies consist of BFBF not only may you be attracting the wrong kinds, but your message might be a little skewed.

 

Check. The. RFQs. You. Total. !@#$ing. Dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...