TED Conversations

edward long

Association of Old Crows

TEDCRED 100+

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?

+2
Share:

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).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: A visible manifestation of arms escalation on a domestic scale?

    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?
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: An excellent corollary question sir. Assuming the administration is outfitting itself to engage and defeat significant civilian opposition to its policies. In this case if you are going to take away a citizen's assault rifle you had better have equipment not easily defeated by that assault rifle. Makes sense.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.