This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What thoughts do TEDster's have regarding plausible reasons why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is purchasing major firepower?
Here are two recent procurements made by Secretary Napolitano (my former governor) presumably to meet her department's strategic needs: 1.6-BILLION cartridges for .40 caliber and 9mm firearms; 2,717 MRAP's (Mine Resistant Armor Protected motorized vehicles) retrofitted for DOMESTIC (aka Homeland) use. Advances in taxpayer funded Technolgy and Design are meant to enhance our society, right?. . . right?
Closing Statement from edward long
18 possibilities mentioned by respondents:
For use in Syria (1). To protect and serve citizens (1). A pre-sequester spending spree (1). No problem at all (2). To stimulate the economy (1). To match forces with armed citizens (4). A conspiracy against citizens (1). Just good purchasing policy (2). Preparing for chaos after economic collapse (2). Marshall Law (2). To drive-up metals markets (1).
Bernard White 10+
Which I would agree with to a certain extent, I mean we hire our leaders to protect us not to protect other nations interests, even if this does ensure war. That is the sad reality (in my opinion!)
So yes I think it "might" be okay if I were american.
I am not, however I feel mixed about this statement.
edward long 100+
Bernard White 10+
I would say it might be necessary if there is war coming up.
I mean for us to " enhance our society" we must eliminate the threats to "our society". So in that sense I agree with the fact that many may be buying much military equipment.
When you say society do you mean all "society's" (e.g the world) or just a few (e.g America).
Because it all comes down to which is more important to you : National interest (America's interests over other nations interests) or Global interest (which could outweigh America's interests)!
Hope this is related to the question you asked and I haven't got "too" side tracked. :p
Mike Colera 10+
You may be confused about the creation of a national civilian police force in the USA.
first of all you have to know that the USA use the old English Law for civilian police. We elect our sheriffs for our local law. States have police forces that enforce state laws and the Federal government has marshals to enforce federal laws and some police authority has been given to the FBI and to some Treasury offices for the enforcement of specific laws.
In the beginning of the republic of the USA, The original constitution was amended with a bill of rights that would ensure Americans that their "federal Government" would never gain dominance of power and be able to establish control over the constitution. American have a number of individual rights including the right to have guns to defend the Constitution.
This aspect of our constitution is rather unique in the world and is not clearly understood by non Americans. But it is us. and we prefer it that way.
By laws the Federal Armed forces can not be used to police inside the USA. Most Federal Military Officers understand that law and would probably respect it .However, a new national police force of the scope that could be contemplated and with the availability of tens of thousand federal employees of the Department of Home Land Security that are currently employed as transportation security officers could be converted into a national police force with little political effect. It could be as simple as a change in mission directive by the Federal Administration. So, as a non American, you may wonder, why a powerful national police force is a concern. Many countries have them. That is true and not a problem for most. But, it the life time of some Americans and its recent memory is the great global wars with other nation's who became belligerent after their national central government started a strong central policing activity. American want no part of a central government with a strong central police.
Mike Colera 10+
Military members take oaths to obey lawful orders and to defend the constitution. Most are trained to know the legal interpretation of those commitments.
Now we have 10's of thousands TSA agents, they also take the oath of office, I am not sure of the "lawful orders' phrase. Further, the military addresses the "I have a gun and I am in control" attitude, again not so sure about weapons training for TSA agents. Have began seeing TSA agents providing augmentation security at large sporting events, where no transportation is an issue, well parking maybe.
TSA has supposedly bought or ordered enormous quantities of ammunition for "training" allegedly stored all over the country, as well as a large number of weapons capable of suppressive fire. More then sufficient to defend an airport terminal from a major terrorist attack.
Concern? Why should I be concerned?
edward long 100+
Mike Colera 10+
edward long 100+
Mike Colera 10+
I listed a number of grave incidents, actions, and attitudes and I asked why should I be concerned...that was my irony. The question really is "Why shouldn't I"?
edward long 100+
Allan Macdougall 30+
If it's impossible to reverse domestic possession of firearms, then homeland security would have to appear to be able to cope with any eventuality involving their use. That might include political unrest involving ordinary people armed with weapons as powerful as assault rifles.
Is there any reason why Homeland Security should fear political unrest?
edward long 100+
Mike Colera 10+
-- big quantity purchases at great discounts... properly stored have a very long shelf life.
-- Arming a new national civilian police force, but that would mean new national laws concerning police powers
I don't see anything like that happening.
Do I?
edward long 100+
John Gianino
edward long 100+
John Gianino
edward long 100+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
"Big Corporate Politics" "corporate capitalism" "banking wars" "Rothchild Legacies"
Recently I saw a picture... It was provocative enough to note: First woman's face wore a veil - only showing her eyes, and the other woman's face had a blind fold on. The first was labelled 'the east' and the other 'the west'.
What I take from this picture is a reminder of the difference between contemporary China and America.
While in China it is clear there is a socialism-communism type republic in practice http:s//www.businessinsider.com/chinese-communist-party-one-chart-2012-9c (Note: the top 6 CCP are also some of the largest corporation owners of China.)
In America we are capitalism-democracy type republic in practice. However, who directly profits from our major corporations, which run America (which is a dozen or so), in food, entertainment, clothing, and other basic necessities. Are not lapped onto pop-politics. However, we can notice the rapid growth of lobbyist over the past half century... Laws and policies designed to help corporate interest, with no regard for the everyday American, at this point is normative.
Comparably, it's to the point where America is a Brave New World and China is 1984.
While we are able to be controlled by distractions of enjoyment... The majority of China is pushed around by government directly. We are entertained into ignorance, while they are feared into acceptance.
___
The blindfold is beginning to get scratched off in this country at a more collective rate, and the government is aware of that, because I am aware of that, and I am no one special.
Perhaps the policy of entertaining us into ignorance, has a contingency plan when people realize all of the political deceptions. That plan involves protecting their interest, at all cost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
edward long 100+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
We have become a culture of 'Me' and by becoming such, we ignore those who actually make policies which effect our living standards. Therefore, while you ask why they are buying ammo, I dictate to you why wouldn't they if people are starting to realize the truth.
We are in a police state. While for the past half century the policing was done with propaganda and mindless entertaining. Now will become militant in action.
We're going to see more protest and activism, whether or not our biased news outlets show the occupations and the riots... Is not going to stop people from realizing what anyone else can realize if they really get to the bottom of the situation.
edward long 100+
John Gianino
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
John Gianino
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Comment deleted
edward long 100+
christopher wipperman
I know the number of rounds purchased sounds big but I bet Walmart sells 10x that many rounds in a year. I know if I go shooting, I personally could go through several hundred rounds. The Us Army probably buys that quantity in a month.
So.... I say..... big deal...... I hope they got a good discount.
edward long 100+
Random Chance 30+
and this kind of action, to me, means they know exactly what is coming.
All that stuff,
is to be used on You! And against You!
When 9/11 happened, I thought there is probably about 1,000 terrorists in the U.S., if that.
So why were 299,999,000 Americans all suspect?
Then I thought, well how about 10,000 terrorists?
That's a much higher number and maybe more realistic, accurate and 'real'.
So, why were and are, 299,990,000 Americans suspect?
Now that list of potential terrorist suspects, as many know, grew to over one million!
Really? One million terrorists are roaming America? Yet, they can catch those who have puny methods of coming into the country, ridiculous plans that unravel and in the next breath tell Americans they can protect them and they can't protect them, as a next attack, the next attack, is inevitable. And people believe this bull!
You have a government admittance of using the military to spy on us/US citizens, despite this being prohibited and banned by Federal law.
You have police, SWAT teams, the ATF, even the IRS, outfitted with arms, a la the military. All look like Stormtroopers and they are not to be used against terrorists. They are to be used against the citizens of us/US.
But keep on coming up with those soothing lies you tell yourself in order to not look at and see, admit and do something about all the arms they have, and all the weapons they want dearly to remove from the hands of the citizens who will then have nothing, absolutely nothing, to protect themselves with.
They twisted and manipulated the laws so that they can enter your homes, without warning, without reason, removing you and retaining you, where no one can find you, help you and they can do so indefinitely, without explanation or due process of law. They continually spew the idea of being a country "ruled by law".
And you fall for it.
By law, they can watch you, spy on you and you can't even film them!
Not even from public property!
edward long 100+
ZX Style 10+
So it's easier to build reserves while there is still money.
I'm just guessing!
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
We have only been talking number of rounds here, not dollars. DHS recently topped-off their order with 200,000 additional rounds for $45,000. That is 22-1/2 cents per round. So, at that price, 1.6 billion rounds would cost $360 million which is about .05% of the budget number you quote. But so what? It's the number of rounds that is staggering.
Robert Winner 50+
I would love to find the bottom of the drain that the government throws our money down.
edward long 100+
Robert Winner 50+
One of those good fodder sites.
Bob.
ZX Style 10+
HAHA,
And Edward, sorry i did not red properly i thought you were talking about dollars, sorry.
Don Anderson 20+
With the green energy bubble popping, it is likely they have switched to owning copper mining and ammo manufacture stock.
And thus they are buying ammo to drive up stock prices, along with saying that they are going to ban high capacity cartridges. To them costing us tax payers billions so they can make millions, is a reasonable thing to do.
money and power is all they care about.
edward long 100+
Barry Palmer 50+
edward long 100+
Barry Palmer 50+
That figure of 1.6 billion seems enormous. Is there a way to put that into perspective?
Does someone perhaps know how many rounds are being used in Afghanistan or Iraq, daily, weekly or monthly?
And you are right, it is hard to imagine a reason for these purchases that is in any way positive.
ZX Style 10+
so it's not nearly 1% of the annual budget to buy firepower.
Does that put this news into perspective?
Gail . 50+
edward long 100+
Barry Palmer 50+
If they actually think they might need to use all that stuff, this country is in big trouble.
edward long 100+
Gregory Pipkins
You amass those kinds of weapons when you're preparing for something. Big. You don't just spend money like that for "insurance". Trust, there's plenty of insurance cavalry and ammunition already out there. You do that kind of roundup when you're expecting something. Domestic. Please excuse my one-word sentences. Apparently I find they bring home points.
Bless us all :)
edward long 100+
Robert Winner 50+
There has long been a rumor that Obama had authorized a "special" force to enforce order if civil insurrection were to occur.
In light of the efforts of the administration to legalize citizenship for all of the illegals currently here (11.5 million) it is hard to believe the purchase was for border enforcement, or for the defense of americans from foreign forces or terrorests actions. The simple answer would be civil disturbance.
The administration has moved forward with the rural development program which is essentially UN Article 21 and has dedicated 25 US agencies to support this action. Part of the action would require the acquisation of private property and the enforcement of government decisions contrary to present practice. It is entirely possible that this could be a part of that enforcement.
All of these are WAGs (wild guesses). The truth is that there has not been and continues to not be any transparency in the administration. The first letter from Eric Holder said that it is theoritacally possible that drones could be used against Americans in America. The second letter in response to Ron Paul's filabuster was .. no .. drones would not be used. Do you get the feeling that Eric Holder was called to the principals office and given new guidance. Why would you ever want to tell the truth ... this is politics ... so the answer is NO.
Ed, some people can still think and question while most of the voting public remains sitting by the pool sun bathing and drinking coolade with free refills.
I wish you well. Bob.
edward long 100+
Robert Winner 50+
A thinking person could add up all sorts of numbers and arrive at 4 every time.
The problem IMO is that there is no transparency and without that I cannot give trust thus lends to all sorts of theories.
Thanks for the reply. Bob.
edward long 100+
Gregory Pipkins
The gov't is preparing for Marshall Law.
edward long 100+
pat gilbert 50+
Are they preparing in Europe as well?
edward long 100+