David, no 'big boy pants' comments? Come on, if you are going to insult someone for not agreeing with you, you can do better than the old 'took his ball and went home' comments.

When I'm at the range I shoot the cheap stuff too. I keep hollow points for home defense. Again, there is only one purpose for hollow points.

Likewise, if you won't listen to me, listen to the GAO (Government Accountability Office) who is investigating why the feds need to purchase so much ammo...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ammo-purchases

At least somebody in Washington is questioning it.

I'm not worked up about it. But I am being reaslitic why government agencies like the Department of Education, NOAA and the US Post Office need to purchase any ammo, let alone hollow points.

I didn't ask you to agree with me, Scott. I asked you for your opinion, just like you asked me for mine. I gave you my opinion, but when you were asked for yours, all of a sudden it was time to end the converstation. I understand, Scott. I wouldn't expect anything less of you.

.

2.5 Billion bullets???

Ummm, how many bullets do they need?

Between the entire DHS, DOJ and the other mentioned agencies; the amount of bullets purchased is underwhelming. Especially taking into account most of the agencies are purchasing bullets for the next four years (anticipating the rise in cost of ammunition) and the fact that most agencies are seeing a decline in per officer ammunition/year. It's more like business as usual.

You said earlier that the reason why they're target shooting with hollow points instead of the cheap stuff was "federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I." Now you're saying that they want to eliminate their wasteful ways and stockpile ammo anticipating a rise in cost? So before they weren't concerned with cost, but now they are? Well, since you've explained it all to me, I guess there's no more need to carry on the conversation. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

.

Yes, sir, you did and I appreciate that. Thank you for doing what Scott wouldn't. I disagree with your opinion (after all, when has the government ever been conscientiousness about spending tax-payer dollars?), but I do respect it. I'm about to step into a meeting, but I'll give you my opinion later.

.

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.

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:

.

Clearly you haven't been shopping for ammo in a while. I did just Wednesday. I found bare shelves.

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.

David, you have won all the discussions - congratulations.

You mean to tell me that the government had the nerve to buy ammo and train the employees that handle firearms?!?!?

How dare you use logic IOnlySmoke4theCards?? There is no room for logic when it comes to the internet.

Instead of snide comments, how about an intellectual one? If large ammo purchases are just "business as usual" for the government, why would the GOA launch an investigation on the matter?

http://rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investiga...apolitano-645/

From the article: "DHS claims that it is buying ammo in bulk to save money, but experts have pointed out that hollow point bullets cost nearly twice as much as full metal jacket rounds. They also explode on impact for maximum damage, which has caused some Americans to wonder what purpose they would serve the DHS domestically. Purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would also give DHS the means to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War. Members of Congress say the DHS has repeatedly refused to tell them the purpose of procuring such large amounts of ammo."

Furthermore, why would lawmakers introduce a Bill, HR 1764 Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act of 2013 (the AMMO Act), that would limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain Federal agencies (with the exception of the DOD) for a 6-month period?

.

I think it comes down to the government bought a lot of ammo. They bought four years worth according to the article. I don't think they are stockpiling to "invade" churches or anything like that. I think they bought ammo in case they need to kill people. Seems pretty simple.

That's not an NRA report. That is some article written by a guy named Rich Smith who, from my knowledge, has no affiliation with the NRA. If the NRA Report was linked somewhere in the article, then I missed it, but what you linked is definitely not written by the NRA.

That is one reason why the GOA is investigating it. The quantity purchased is another. I was really concenred with the quantity part, that's why I mentioned HR 1764.

Thanks!

.

Our filters at work block out the article you linked. I'll check it out once I get home. Regarding your question I quoted above, couldn't the opposite argument be made as well?

If the government was buying in bulk just to save money, why would they propese a bill to limit their ability to purchase in bulk?

IMO, the reason for the investigation is because enough people questioned it so they had to launch an investigation.

And the reason they train with the same ammo they have when working is the same reason you won't see MLB teams practice with whiffleballs or softballs. Each sort reacts differently, and if you might ever need to be precise, (Longer range, partially screened, through various things like glass or wood. ) You need to practice with the exact same round.

An acquaintance in LE a few years ago said they always finished with the hearing protection off. The noise is substantially louder, and many people drop the gun the first time they hear it without hearing protection.

Steve B

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

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.

.

.

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. :D

.

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?

.

[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

.

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

.

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

You keep saying things like "kill us all off" and "kill us all" like I said that. Still putting words in my mouth. Now you bring Obama into it........geez, that was predictable.

Before you hit me with your barrage of sarcastic questions- try answering one of mine- why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

I don't think the government bought ammo to create a shortage. My father is a huge NRA supporter but even he agrees.

If the government wanted to do that there are other ways to do it. My first thought would be to do inspections of manufacturing plants and temporarily all shut down all of the ones with violations. By doing this they would create a temporary shortage.

Clayton,

Homeland Security does guard the border. Customs and Border Patrol falls under that agency.

Nevermind. Mis-read the post.

I think when Clayton asks, "why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?" he means why aren't they doing their job. In other words, why are their so many illegal border crossings?

There have been illegal crossings for years. I know that the number of prosecutions and people being caught has increased over the years. However I am unsure if this is because more people are crossing or if law enforcement is just catching a higher percentage.

Some would say they're doing their job just fine. "CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/politi...k-immigration/

Tell me, how do they estimate fewer border crossings? Do they have a meter or turnstile that measures incoming illegal immigrants? Seriouly though, they only compare the number of apprehensions from previous years (which is definitely lower - no argument there) and assume that equates to fewer crossings. There is truly no way to measure illegal border crossings, they can only measure apprehensions.

Besides, that article was written last year with data up to 2011. Sure there were few border crossings in 2011, there were fewer jobs to cross over for. In fact, many illegal immigrants were going back home at that time because they couldn't find work over here.

This thread is hilarious....

So true. It almost makes me want to shoot myself;)

If only the government hadn't bought all that ammo that they are going to destroy. LOL

Yup, going to destroy over a BILLION dollars worth of ammo. Kind of kills the whole "buying in bulk to save money" argument.

I don't understand why people piss and moan about gun ownership? It's not going anywhere so get over it. I don't understand why people complain about how much ammo the gov't buys. Get over it. Just because an agent only needs 100 rounds to qualify in "your" mind, doesn't mean that the agent doesn't wanna practice beyond that. People complain about the dumbest shit