The great ammunition myth.


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

The great ammunition myth.

As much as I and many others feel it is important to question, challenge, and be suspicious of government power, we mustn’t let those fears cloud our judgement. This article outlines some truths about the government’s purchase of ammo that will dissipate some of those fears.

Share

11 comments

  • BSJ

    Yeah, but I still can’t find any 9mm bullets for myself…

  • JGL

    This article represents a sane explanation of numbers in the 1000’s and 100 thousands round range’s, agents within these agencies certainly have to train at the shooting range, but what has people taking notice are numbers in the millions and up to 1.6 BILLION rounds purchased. Enough rounds, as I understand it to fight a war a year for 20 years.

    I have no problem believing that the government for a relatively small amount of money (which they have plenty of and its all free) can disrupt the market for such items and drive up the costs. I would see this as a stealth device for the government to attack the second amendment without running into Constitutional problems.

    Another good question to ask would be: What were the purchasing habits of the Federal Government in previous years and administrations?

    What ever the reason we will all find out over time what the truth is.

  • wodun

    I am less concerned about the government buying bullets than I am the government trying to legislate away the right for us to buy bullets.

  • JGL

    Legislation is so time consuming and publicly confrontable, why not just spend your own money against you to unbalance the market and infringe the right. If the goal is to dry up supply it appears that it is being successful, screw legislation.

  • jwing

    I agree this is not the issue to let your emotions dull your reason. What should truly alarm everyone, left and right, is what the Attorney General Eric Holder said just this morning testifying in a congressional oversite hearing on the DOJ. He stated that the Federal government can legally use, therefore mostl likely will use, predator drones to monitor, ID, search for weapons, follow and intentionally kill American citizens on US soil. Now that is something everyone should be screaming about.

  • jwing

    Please let me reclarify what Holder said and didn’t say upon questioning by Cruz as to whether it was constitutional for the Federal Gov. to use drones to target and kill American citizens who do not pose an iminent threat to the country. Holder never actually stated he considered it constitutional explicitly. He said “no” without parsing thereby leaving it open as to exacly what his “no” response addressed. That’s very Clintonian and very chilling to me.

  • wodun

    I hope congress keeps up the questions and if a Republican is on office in four years, sticks with the issue. With all of these new uses for technology, we need to have a system of check and balances in place.

  • The checks have bounced and the balances are all in the red.

    Government is consolidating its power. Expect more surprises in the future. It’s not done.

    As far as ammo, the numbers indicate a government out of control. I do not care if they have an excuse for some of it. They do not have an excuse for all of it. Even when spread out over five years.

    We used to have clear boundaries. Investigations foreign and domestic had different rules. Now they will not even answer questions about it. Our ‘representatives’ do not and are not.

    Will Rand Paul’s filibuster matter?

  • Jim

    Well said, Wodun. Exactly right. There was a moment on the floor of the Senate yesterday that Rand Paul said very directly, that he had no doubt this President would act judiciously….that in fact he was sure that President Obama would NOT be killing innocent Americans. But that was never the point. The point is that we are a nation of laws, and we as citizens have every right to know what those laws are, and if they are missing to enact those laws. Just because there is a War on Terrorism, it does not mean this President, or the next, or the previous, get to do whatever they want. Its all about enacting laws that insure no President, now or in the future. gets to infringe on our rights. It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. He even said it really had nothing to do with the nomination of John Brennan.

    There is a simple fact here, that I think Rand Paul understands. Executive power is an envelope that is pushed to its limits by each and every President. And it is the role of Congress to push back. This President has drones and their use, the previous President had the imprisonment of American citizen Padilla for years without any due process, and each has done so because of the War on Terrorism. We have every right to know what the limits are in this war.

  • jwing

    If this is out situation with a so-called asymetrial “war on terror”, what kind of power will the Executive Branch weild with a full out conventional war against North Korea, Iran, or China. I think Obama wants just this kind of “crisis” to further enact his agenda, plus it will take him off the hook for the bad economy and deficit spending. In his way of thinking…we need a war just about now.

  • wodun

    “This President has drones and their use, the previous President had the imprisonment of American citizen Padilla for years without any due process, and each has done so because of the War on Terrorism. We have every right to know what the limits are in this war.”

    I don’t necessarily disagree with either president when it comes to these two examples but like you said we have every right to know what the limits are. This whole affair is rather messy and we need our leaders to put the same thoughtful attention to how it is handled now and in the future as our founding father did in writing the constitution and the bill of rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *