Topic: DHS buying more hollow points...

[charlesoakwood]

I find it unlikely to the point of unthinkable that these bureaucracies would spend money on guns, ammo, and armored vehicles, for the sole purpose of destroying it to thwart the citizenry's access to guns and ammo in the free market.

No, they won't destroy it. It would be illogical, given their aspirations and the resistance they will surely face in achieving them.

Buying up hollow points a pro-active, forward looking move to a congressional compromise that solid bullets are OK but hollow points are against the Geneva Convention and will be universally banned.
There would be no run at the market because the market had already ceased.

[IronDioPriest]

They are being purchased for an eventuality. The way I see it, applying Occam's Razor could not make it more clear.

[Glock32]

I think it is clear that they know the economy is going to implode, and they are readying themselves for the crisis opportunity that follows. They would have to know it is going to implode because they are doing everything possible to make it.

[Weisshaupt]

I find it unlikely to the point of unthinkable that these bureaucracies would spend money on guns, ammo, and armored vehicles, for the sole purpose of destroying it to thwart the citizenry's access to guns and ammo in the free market.

No, they won't destroy it. It would be illogical, given their aspirations and the resistance they will surely face in achieving them.

This is the same govt that ordered the slaughter of millions of pigs and chickens when people were starving in the Great Depression - you know to keep the value of the meat at "sustainable levels"  Incompetence is a possible answer.   I  just don't think its the likely one this in  case for the reasons you point out.  I think the reason the anti-gunners are near hysterical is because they know, in  their heart of hearts, that they are the  bullies and that they DESERVE to be shot for what they have done and what they wish to do.

[Libertas]

I agree Weisshaupt.  Wouldn't be surprised though to see a token warehouse used for a false-flag event for a patsy of suitable non-libiot background to take the blame in order to usher in the second to last series of directives that establish the coming dictatorship.  I put nothing past the statists.

[benb61]

Would be nice if there was an "accident" at one of these ammo warehouses.  Maybe the sheeple would be scared if one of those places inexplicably caught fire or blew up, then they would scream for the gov to protect them and get rid of the warehouses.  Just a thought.

[charlesoakwood]

Attention, NRA members:

[blockquote]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/27/an_initiative_to_seize_on_gun_control_117665.html

Requiring background checks for nearly all gun purchases is a change that is simultaneously more effective than banning assault weapons and more politically achievable.

Which is why the real worry of gun control advocates shouldn't be Reid's supposed perfidy in jettisoning assault weapons -- it's whether the background check measure passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee is too strong even to make it to the Senate floor.

It pains me to write those words, but this is the legislative reality. The behind-the-scenes Senate negotiating over background checks is being conducted by Democrats Charles Schumer and Joe Manchin and Republican Tom Coburn.

They largely agree that the requirement for background checks should be expanded to cover most private sales -- at gun shows, over the Internet, in other, non-family transactions. This would close a gaping loophole -- some estimates put the number as high as 40 percent of gun transfers -- in the existing system.
...
...
...
I'm reliably told that despite its continuing fulminating, the NRA may not actively oppose expanded checks without recordkeeping.[/blockquote]

[benb61]

Don't gang up on me but I have no problem with expanded background checks, I have a problem with the record keeping. 

Record keeping = registry 

People with a history (criminal records) of violence should not be able to get guns, or at least should have to justify it to the background check.  There are people that should not have access to guns (liberals, career criminals, etc).  But any law abiding citizen has the right to defend themselves and if a check shows that we are law abiding we should be able to own a weapon, any weapon.

Thoughts?

[Glock32]

The problem I have with it is that any legitimate power given to the state invariably becomes an illegitimate power. You have to allow power to the state only on the assumption that the absolute worst of humanity will be the ones exercising it, so if you're not willing to empower the dregs of humanity with something then you shouldn't empower the best of humanity with it either.

It may sound reasonable to say that one stranger buying a firearm from another stranger should have to go through the same background check as they would buying it from a dealer, but who will it really affect? Will criminals trading and selling guns amongst themselves be affected? Of course not. It's just something else that only affects people who aren't a problem, it's just something else to serve as a framework for future more onerous restrictions.

[IronDioPriest]

Every single aspect of government control over exercising our 2nd Amendment rights affects only one segment of firearm users: the law abiding.

Checking the background of private individuals transferring fireams will yield no change in gun violence. The guns that will be used in crimes will be used in crimes regardless of whether their owners had a background check. Criminals who want a gun without a background check will get one, easily.

Criminals, by definition, are either exempt from the background check due to their willingness to go outside the law to get a gun, or they will commit their crime in spite of having had the background check.

This is a simple case of the federal government stealing whatever they can of our liberty using the bodies of dead children as their demagogic tool.

[Pandora]

What they ^^ said, so, NO.

[charlesoakwood]

It's like "a little bit pregnant", can't have that.

As said in the amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Any impingement is an infringement.

[charlesoakwood]

Yello Hammer

When a citizen sent a pro-2nd amendment email to the publicly available addresses of almost every member of the legislature, Rep. Joseph Mitchell (D-Mobile) decided it was time to get a few things off his chest. A Senator forwarded me the ensuing email thread, as both Mitchell and the citizen continued to CC pretty much everyone in the legislature. The unedited text of the emails is below. The only thing I’ve removed is a portion of the initial email from the citizen that was simply copy and pasted text from the State’s constitution and from a Supreme Court ruling. The citizen included these excerpts in his email to support the point he was making.

   

[Alphabet Soup]

What do you wanna bet Mitchell just made himself a hero to his constituents?

[IronDioPriest]

Clearly it's time for Lord Obama to engage in a national conversation on Race.

If Barack Obama had a father who wasn't Frank Marshall Davis, he would look like Joseph Marshall.

[Weisshaupt]

Yes, we took up arms and had this little thing called the civil war, or are you too ignorant to know that Nigger?
The only reason you, a black man, holds the office you do is because a white man like me took up arms to accomplish it on the orders of a White president, and if that hadn't happened, you, nigger, would still be in chains.   You owe White men your freedom, and how do you repay them?

Given the amount of crime and violence perpetrated by guns in BLACK hands usually by other niggers like yourself,  you should be proposing the White people keep their guns and that Black people shouldn't be allowed to own them.

[charlesoakwood]

Speaking about gun confiscation Vice President Joeseph Biden said:

“Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.”

“We believe that weapons of war have no place on our streets. That’s the message that retired admirals and generals have spoken to us about. The comment one of them used was if you want to learn how to use a semiautomatic weapon, join the United States Military. But these are weapons of war,”
...
“We believe there’s no rational reason why someone would need a clip that can hold 15, 20, 30, 100 bullets, 100 rounds,” ...“We have to do more, and we will do more.”

One must read between the lines a bit.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/27/biden-latest-gun-limit-bill-just-beginning/#ixzz2On7H5zLC

[Glock32]

Then of course, there's these guys:


[SHORT VERSION] Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

[benb61]

Yes, we took up arms and had this little thing called the civil war, or are you too ignorant to know that Nigger?
The only reason you, a black man, holds the office you do is because a white man like me took up arms to accomplish it on the orders of a White president, and if that hadn't happened, you, nigger, would still be in chains.   You owe White men your freedom, and how do you repay them?

Given the amount of crime and violence perpetrated by guns in BLACK hands usually by other niggers like yourself,  you should be proposing the White people keep their guns and that Black people shouldn't be allowed to own them.

I like that, mind if I use it?

[Pandora]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I hereby submit the proposal that it is the *many* public officials whom we insist must be disarmed.