Conspiricy explanation - govt ammo

[armedandsafe]

This came in today. A very clear explanation of some of the accusations flying about. (Emphasis added)

"The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"

The last few months have seen troubling news of massive government purchases of ammunition. Agencies from the Social Security Administration to the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security have purchased millions of rounds. But is the whole thing more hype than substance?

Ever since Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, he has been selling guns and ammunition at a faster clip than any gun salesman could hope for. And since his re-election, citizens have been faced with severe shortages of both. This can only be exacerbated by large government purchases. The Social Security Administration (SSA), for example, purchased 174,000 rounds and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) bought 320,000 rounds. More understandable in purpose but also perhaps more staggering in scale, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put in a request for 450 million rounds, while the FBI intends to purchase 100 million.

The headlines are ominous, but some of the hype can be put in perspective by doing a little math. National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke does just that. The SSA's request for 174,000 rounds amounts to just 590 rounds for each of its 295 inspector general agents "who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes." Some of us might go through 590 rounds in an afternoon at the range. As for the USDA, 320,000 is enough to provide the same number of rounds for 542 agents, and, through the Forest Service, those agents have an area the size of Pakistan to cover.

When it comes to the bigger orders, Cooke writes, "The FBI and DHS's apparently vast orders are deceptively presented by the conspiracy theorists. It is true that in 2011, the FBI ordered up to 100 million bullets for its 13,913 special agents (which works out to 7,187 per agent). And, yes, the Department of Homeland Security -- a composite department that oversees USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, ICE, the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the National Protection Directorate -- placed a request for up to 450 million rounds for its 65,000 armed personnel (which works out to 6,923 per agent). But in the real world, ammunition is not divided up and handed out on such a basis. What is bought is stockpiled and then allocated on the basis of need. The DHS's order is expected to last for at least five years, and it was placed up front primarily as a cost-saving measure." Indeed, DHS is not even bound to buy that much; they merely have a tab on which to order more rounds as needed.

That certainly doesn't mean there aren't questions or that we should simply shrug and look the other way. For starters, the Department of Education recently placed an order for "27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns." This might lead any reasonable person to ask, as Cooke does, "Whether it is in possession of one bullet or 1 million bullets, should the federal Department of Education be armed in the first place? If so, why?" We would add, should there even be a Department of Education? But that's a topic for another day. The DoE has been known to botch raids when it was the wrong enforcement vehicle from the start.

The same questions could be asked of any number of bureaucracies. Does the Social Security Administration really need an armed enforcement division? We've known some unruly seniors in our day, but that seems to be overkill.

Then there's the information that's just plain false. Reports have been circulating that DHS has procured 2,717 Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The truth is, DHS has had retrofitted MRAPs since 2008, and now has 16 of them for serving "high-risk warrants." The figure of 2,717 comes from a delivery to the Marine Corps, not DHS. None of that, however, takes away from the problem that these are more properly military vehicles for war zones, not law enforcement tools. The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome. Furthermore, DHS is the same bureaucracy that claims right-wing extremists pose a threat, and it's run by an administration that thinks that "weapons of war" shouldn't be on our streets. Unless they're the ones driving them, apparently.

There are certainly troubling trends here and very real threats to our Liberty, but we must be careful not to exaggerate. While readers know that we never minimize the outrageous growth of government beyond its constitutional bounds, it also doesn't seem to us that the government is, as some have put it, "stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest." Questions about procurements and functions? Absolutely. Apocalypse? Not yet.

Pops

 

[wild cat mccane]

In a word, this stuff is...crazy.

People who cheer soldiers know they would be the very people they are fearful of in govt "take overs"?


Also, the whole article is a strawman.

 

[barnbwt]

I've said all along this whole deal was simply the govt. cashing in on their guaranteed contracts for a bidded-up commodity (Bidened-up?). If you had a contract with some guy who two years ago promised to sell you a bunch of gold at 500$ an ounce, would you take him up on it today? Heck yeah you would. You'd even borrow money to do so. So are these government agencies.

Now, if DHS buys another 5 years of ammo after only six months, I'll consider buying one of those fancy RF blocking headband thingies (not tinfoil--that's for crazies!)

The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Copy that. Sounds like the ACLU is finally raising a fuss about it as well (now that every big city's cops have select-fire SBRs, signals-intelligence operations, black uniforms (and helicopters ), and para-military training grounds)

TCB

 

[Solo]

But tinfoil scatters radiowaves so well...

 

[alsaqr]

Someone partially debunked "the government is buying ammo to fight us" conspiracy theory.

These are IDIQ contracts. It means Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity.

http://www.fedmarket.com/contractors/Acronym:-IDIQ-Contract


One Federal contract is for a maximum of 450 million rounds to be delivered over a period of up to five years.

http://www.atk.com/news-releases/at...t-of-justice-federal-bureau-of-investigation/

i have had US government IDIQ contracts. Sometimes i got of years of work, sometimes no work.

 

[ACP]

"Patriot Post"??

Hint: anything with the word "patriot" in it usually means "traitor."

 

[Deus Machina]

Nope, anything with the word 'Post' in it usually means 'traitor.'
That can be cancelled out, and 'Patriot' usually means 'nutjob'.

 

[Donut Destroyer]

In the OP, the DHS order was broken down only by number of rounds per DHS agent. It failed to take something else into account that would make the number of rounds ordered even more understandable....DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center program and has centers in Glynco, GA, Artesia, NM and Marana, AZ. DEA, FBI and Border Patrol go through academies elsewhere, but with few other exceptions, ALL of the other Federal agencies send their armed personnel through on of the three locations, mainly Glynco. DHS provides the ammunition for all of this training as well as some of the state and local training done at one of the centers that involves firearms.

 

[Donut Destroyer]

The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Just out of curiosity....why is some degree of this a problem?

 

[AlbertH]

Live off the grid

Years ago, I had a co-worker who refused to get cable tv for he was positive that if he had cable tv hooked up in his house, the government could see everything that was going on in his living room via the cable and his tv.

It really amazes me how some can seem to fear the government with hand, and use the other hand to provide that very same government a complete insight into their life, where they live, which weapons they own, how much ammo they have, and their political views simply by using the internet.

Each computer, tablet, phone, etc has a Unique Identifying Device of some sort in it. That's how one computer is able to talk to another, thus a direct path to the user.

The only real way to keep others in the dark is to "GO COMPLETELY OFF THE NET" i.e. become self sustained, back to living life before the industrial revolution.

So are you ready to live off the net or is the loss of some privacy allowable in order to enjoy the comforts that the industrial revolution has provided us with?

Just my thoughts,

Al

 

[SCPigpen]

Part of me says the current admin is not as smart as some make them out to be. The other part says they make up for smarts with evil. I guess time will tell.

 

[kgpcr]

I am not the least big worried about the Military. As one who spent 6 years in the Corps i can tell you that there is no way they would turn on the people of the US to the degree they would use those bullets on us

 

[Bubbles]

In the OP, the DHS order was broken down only by number of rounds per DHS agent. It failed to take something else into account that would make the number of rounds ordered even more understandable....DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center program and has centers in Glynco, GA, Artesia, NM and Marana, AZ. DEA, FBI and Border Patrol go through academies elsewhere, but with few other exceptions, ALL of the other Federal agencies send their armed personnel through on of the three locations, mainly Glynco. DHS provides the ammunition for all of this training as well as some of the state and local training done at one of the centers that involves firearms.

Excellent point! FLETC trains 80,000 students per year. In some advanced handgun classes I've taken I used over 1000 rounds per day. Do the math.

Secret Service, Coast Guard, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement also fall under DHS.

 

[soloban]

Another point to consider is that from a contract administration point of view it makes sense to have one agency administer one big contract vs each one having their own small one. Saves a lot of money and overhead doing that. Other examples would be how the Army is the procuring agency for MREs.

 

[chris in va]

I need to keep that article handy every time I read these stupid conspiracy theory posts on Facebook.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Donut Destroyer

Quote:
The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Just out of curiosity....why is some degree of this a problem?

Some degree? No, not a problem, especially when some of the gangs have fairly substantial firepower, but most departments reached that "some degree" level within 5 years after 9/11. The police is not the armed forces and they shouldn't be. However, that line is being blurred as the result of their weaponry and training.

What is questionable are the Urban Assault Vehicles, Black Hawk Helicopters, SBR's, Drones...etc.. Why does the local LE agencies need them? To maintain order?

This is why the ACLU launched an investigation, and there are numerous news stories on this subject. A 2 second Google search will show this.

 

[Donut Destroyer]

Some degree? No, not a problem, especially when some of the gangs have fairly substantial firepower, but most departments reached that "some degree" level within 5 years after 9/11. The police is not the armed forces and they shouldn't be. However, that line is being blurred as the result of their weaponry and training.

What is questionable are the Urban Assault Vehicles, Black Hawk Helicopters, SBR's, Drones...etc.. Why does the local LE agencies need them? To maintain order?

I'm still not sure what this line is you refer too. Police training, and tactics are constantly evolving. It has to because the situations LEO's are put into are changing also. The training is meant to give the officer the best knowledge of situations he may encounter and what actions to use to stay alive in those situations. Frequently, tactics are taken from the military because urban warfare is the type of battle soldiers are facing more and more, so why not take what they have learned and adapt it to the type of urban warfare LEO's face, and yes, it is warfare. Obviously, there must be changes and restrictions, but the tactics are still sound.

So now, equipment:

Urban Assault Vehicles - The Bearcat is one of the most popular armored vehicles in use by law enforcement today. Its design is to protect officers, usually SWAT or other special service units, as they approach high risk incidents. It's nature is one of ballistic protection, officers going in and officers and civilians coming out. Occasionally, a department will get a surplus military vehicle for a good price and use it for the same thing. LEO's are not bullet proof, so why shouldn't they have vehicles that are?

Black Hawk Helicopters - Or, more appropriately, "Black Helicopters" as most think. Black Hawks are incredibly expensive to buy, fly and maintain, so they are rare in civilian use and then usually only by large, well funded agencies. The ones mostly in use today are Bell JetRanger variants, Robinson R22 or R44, Hughes 500 variants, A-Stars or the occasional UH1 Huey variant. They make great aerial observation platforms to cover LEO ground operations, traffic enforcement, disaster support, felony apprehension (FLIR is a wonderful tool for finding and following people and vehicles - many times reducing the hazards of a vehicle pursuit by allowing ground units to drop back and set up perimeters to box suspects in), NightSun equipment and plain old rapid transportation. Aircraft are tools.

SBRs - Another tool. Most LEOs don't carry rifles, but the concept of the patrol carbine is evolving also. You wouldn't take a baseball bat to a gunfight would you? Why should LEO's have to be stuck with a handgun or shotgun in a situation where a rifle would be the better tool. SBRs are just short rifles, they are easier to maneuver in close quarters, store in and get out of police vehicles. The actual select fire ones are largely restricted to special operations units. Most patrol carbines are semi-auto.

Drones - A technology that is just coming into the realm of civilian law enforcement. Again, an aerial observation platform that can get in closer and quieter than conventional aircraft. Great for covering undercover operations or for providing real time video feeds of fluid situations, be it natural disaster or man made. All the benefits of air support at a fraction of the cost.

These are all tools. Would you want a plumber to come to your house and not have the tools he needs to fix your problem? How about a surgeon? By bringing up situations where someone has misused a tool or the situation just went bad because sometimes they do, and then say that those tools shouldn't be available, well isn't that the same thing as saying that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have assault weapons because sometimes they get abused? Look around at just this site and see the responses that are coming about because of the proposed assault weapons bans. Are you saying that it's OK for Joe Critter Redneck (just a name I heard on Blue Collar Radio, don't get upset) to have an assault rifle, but it isn't OK for the police to have them?

When the shooting starts, cops run TOWARD the sound of gunfire, so why shouldn't they have every advantage at their disposal that they can get?

 

[Old Dog]

Donut Destroyer, injecting reason into one of these threads destroys all the fun ...

Let's just accept that everyone loves technological advances, unless they're given to law enforcement, too ...

We should just just go back to an ol' six-inch Colt Police Positive six-shooter in a crappy swivel holster;
- an extra twelve rounds of lead round nose 130-grainers in loops on the belt;
- a sap in a side pocket;
- and five-cell MagLites;
- 870 or 500 in the cruiser, sans extended mag tube.
Oh, and no radios -- let's go back to those old phones in boxes every few blocks on the street, and if you're a rural deputy, yep, yer just SOL with no comms ...

 

[Donut Destroyer]

Donut Destroyer, injecting reason into one of these threads destroys all the fun ...

Let's just accept that everyone loves technological advances, unless they're given to law enforcement, too ...

LOL...I'm sorry Will, I didn't mean to stir up trouble....

You certainly did stir up some memories though....I still have my original S&W M19, and yes, I carried it in a swivel holster, until the swivel broke while I was chasing someone and didn't realize it until I caught the guy...man, what a deflating feeling that was. I've also got my original KEL light (before the MagLite). I worked for about 5 years before I got my first portable radio assigned to me. The pool radios we had weighed about 5 pounds and a transmit range measured in inches (VHF Low Band, 39.16 if I recall). When my old chief wanted to start up a small "SWAT" team, he even outfitted us with .357 magnum lever action rifles, because we could interchange our revolver ammo if needed...I always wondered about that though, because he wouldn't let us carry .357 ammo in our revolvers, only .38+P at the most.....Ah yes, the good old days-Air support was a Bell 47 helicopter that the Sheriff's Office had that would occasionally start. Armored vehicles meant you borrowed one from Wells Fargo for an emergency...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Quote:
The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Just out of curiosity....why is some degree of this a problem?

Col Thomas Lujan was legal advisor for the Special Forces at the time of Waco and later wrote this article for the US Army War College. It is hard to read it withput getting the impression that using the military in law enforcement or military tactics, heavy hardware and training in civilian law enforcement has the potential of being a very bad thing.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm
Thomas R. Lujan, "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.

 

[Donut Destroyer]

Col Thomas Lujan was legal advisor for the Special Forces at the time of Waco and later wrote this article for the US Army War College. It is hard to read it withput getting the impression that using the military in law enforcement or military tactics, heavy hardware and training in civilian law enforcement has the potential of being a very bad thing.

A guy I know who was at Waco made the comment to me before hand that the operation had the propensity to come off very well, or to go to Hell very quickly. Obviously, every situation isn't the same and obviously Waco was a unique situation. The government forces had lost the element of surprise and knew it. The operation should have been cancelled and wasn't. That isn't a fault of equipment or training, that was a fault of supervision. The ground agents had 9mm MP5's against AKs, M4s and at least one .50 cal. Their weaponry was inferior. In hindsight, Waco was a LE disaster but it was not because the LEOs had the wrong training or too much firepower.

 

[barnbwt]

Let's just accept that everyone loves technological advances, unless they're given to law enforcement, too ...

I think the sentiment is that "everyone loves technological advances, unless they're withheld from the public while massively promoted by authorities" . It's long been my belief (maybe I'm wrong) that police are intended to have force parity with civilians/criminals, but unlike them, are authorized to use that force to maintain order. The military is permitted far more powerful means, but they are generally prohibited from excercizing their authority on American soil during peacetime. The military is so centralized that its authority is inherently limited; it can't be everywhere at once no matter how strong it is*. However, the police are nearly everywhere, so giving them massively unbalanced means of force over the population is just begging for trouble (or is it a coincidence that the most disarmed big cities have the most militarized cops, highest crime rates, and most corrupt leaders? )

*autonomous drones are a new force multiplyer that could threaten this age-old check on the military's power if their use is not strictly limited within our borders

"And for everyone's safety and security, and to preserve our way of life, I'm taking a drastic step and putting up a security camera. Just one... for safety, security, and omniscient, unblinking information gathering of everyone's activities."
"I have my own army with the NYPD...the seventh largest in the world"
-Bloomberg

TCB

 

[Old Dog]

It's long been my belief (maybe I'm wrong) that police are intended to have force parity with civilians/criminals,

Am I to understand that you do not desire police to have access to better tools than the criminals? "Force parity?"

However, the police are nearly everywhere, so giving them massively unbalanced means of force over the population is just begging for trouble

Huh? "Nearly everywhere?" Are you aware of the ratio of police to citizens in most jurisdictions? And that would certainly belie the old saw, "When trouble happens, the police are ___ minutes away." And "massively unbalanced means of force over the population?" Feel free to expound on that one, if you desire (for the edification of those of us who know just how underfunded and underequipped most law enforcement agencies in this country really are).

I've got no problem with my law-abiding next-door neighbor keeping an MP5 on his nightstand (though frankly, I got no use for that platform, I'd rather use a base model M4) or a Ma Deuce on his deck (I wouldn't mind having one myself) but to suggest law enforcement agencies have massively out-geared the populace (well, outside of NYC, Chicago, SoCal and NJ) is sorta amusing to me.

 

[kgpcr]

Put yer tinfoil hat on!

 

[Donut Destroyer]

(maybe I'm wrong) that police are intended to have force parity with civilians/criminals,

I won't say you are wrong because that is your opinion, but I will disagree with you. There is nothing that says that police have to on a par with criminals. Most use of force continuums allow for +1 force response. That is the level of force used can be one level greater than the force encountered. If a criminal is trying to fight with his fists or feet, the officer can escalate one level and use an intermediate weapon (TASER, baton, OC, etc.) The Marquis de Queensbery rules do not apply on the streets. The only way we can ask law enforcement to do their jobs effectively is to make sure they have the best equipment and training they can get. The basic tactics and equipment that the military uses can easily be adapted for civilian law enforcement as long as the adaptation fits the situation. Obviously the military has a different way of looking at encounters, because it is different, but then in civilian law enforcement there is no such thing as acceptable losses or acceptable collateral damage, so yes, changes must be made, but the concepts are sound. And I'm not advocating the use of autonomous, armed drones, but there are many different types of drones of varying capabilities. The right ones with the right equipment in the right situation can make a big difference, as with any tool. Don't hamper the LEO on the street because city bigwigs are corrupt, take care of that problem independently.