|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nor*Cal
Ladies Man
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 9479
City: Sac
|
 Posted: Mar 22, 2013 9:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| brew wrote: | | Is this another ploy to lull us back into being comfortable? I'm confused at this point about what I should be outraged about and what I should be okay with. |
Not a ploy... Despite the coverage and rhetoric, there is not a broad based desire to pursue an ban that will not actually prevent these incidents. Too many Senators know that the first ban did not work, they remember colleagues who were voted out because of this one issue and understand that while the polls indicate one thing their elections will indicate another.
_________________
If I agreed with you we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Mar 25, 2013 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting letter from a former Army officer to his senator.
| Quote: | Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired (Examiner)
On Saturday March 23, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired Army officer with nearly 30 years of service under his belt, posted this letter he sent to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) this week. Hestilow wants DHS to hand over their war weapons to the Department of Defense.
The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America
Dear Senator Cornyn,
It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.
Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
The Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.
This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.
The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!
Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.
I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.
We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!
Resolved,
Captain Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
March 23, 2013 |
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: Apr 05, 2013 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Despite the Department of Homeland Security recently putting in orders to purchase billions of rounds of hollow point ammunition for a purpose of what officials say is target practice, training and quarterly qualifications, Border Patrol agents were told yesterday afternoon that they will not be issued any new proficiency ammunition for next quarter.
Townhall has obtained an email that was sent to Border Patrol agents stationed in the El Centro border sector by a supervisor.
| Quote: | Enforcement Personnel,
Due to budget concerns and ammunition availability, we will not be getting issued any proficiency ammunition for next quarter. In addition to these reductions, we are also being limited to qualification ammo only. What this means to you is that you will not receive the normal 150 rounds for practice and we will not have any extra ammunition for a combat course following normal qualifications.
If you have the ammunition available and would like extra practice during your qualification day, the firearms instructors will have a training course available for Indio Station Personnel, keeping in mind basic marksmanship skills as well as tactical training with a limited amount of ammunition. You are not required to bring your own ammunition.
If you do not have extra ammo to bring, you will be given extra time to clean and maintain your issued handgun as well as station long arms.
If you have any questions about this quarters quals please feel free to send me your concerns.
Thanks. |
According to information obtained and published by Senator Tom Coburn, Customs and Border Protection [CBP] purchased 36,475,000 rounds of ammunition at a cost of $12,255,040 for fiscal year 2012. CBP plans to purchase more for fiscal year 2013 at a cost of $12,528,146. In total, DHS plans to spend $37,263,698 on ammunition for all sub-agencies this year. As of November, 20, 2012, CBP had 94,404,329 rounds of ammunition in its inventory. DHS had 263,733,362 rounds available.
The information released by Coburn also states, "Approximately 70 percent of CBP ammunition is used for quarterly qualifications, mandated firearms training, advanced firearms training, as well as testing and evaluation. Twenty percent of CBP ammunition is allocated to maintaining CBP’s operational posture. This includes rounds for duty use, as well as for maintaining CBP’s special response teams. The remaining 10 percent is dedicated to maintaining ammunition reserves at both the national and local levels."
Local chapter 2554 of the National Border Patrol Council asks on its website, "We get a 32% pay cut, even though Congress gave CBP enough money to cover salaries, and now we can’t even maintain proficiency with our service weapons to defend ourselves in the field.....Why is there an ammunition shortage? Why can’t Border Patrol agents get enough ammunition to maintain proficiency, especially at a time of increased cross-border smuggling and illegal activity? Where is all this ammunition going?" |
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/05/border-patrol-now-experiencing-an-ammunition-shortage-n1558916 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 05, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: Apr 27, 2013 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reps challenge DHS ammo buys, say agency using 1,000 more rounds per person than Army
Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Thursday that the Department of Homeland Security is using roughly 1,000 rounds of ammunition more per person than the U.S. Army, as he and other lawmakers sharply questioned DHS officials on their "massive" bullet buys.
"It is entirely ... inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition," Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a hearing.
The hearing itself was unusual, as questions about the department's ammunition purchases until recently had bubbled largely under the radar -- on blogs and in the occasional news article. But as the Department of Homeland Security found itself publicly defending the purchases, lawmakers gradually showed more interest in the issue.
Democratic Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., at the opening of the hearing, ridiculed the concerns as "conspiracy theories" which have "no place" in the committee room.
But Republicans said the purchases raise "serious" questions about waste and accountability.
Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees holding the hearing Thursday, revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock. He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents.
Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier.
He noted that is "roughly 1,000 rounds more per person."
"Their officers use what seems to be an exorbitant amount of ammunition," he said.
Nick Nayak, chief procurement officer for the Department of Homeland Security, did not challenge Chaffetz's numbers.
However, Nayak sought to counter what he described as several misconceptions about the bullet buys.
Despite reports that the department was trying to buy up to 1.6 billion rounds over five years, he said that is not true. He later clarified that the number is closer to 750 million.
He said the department, on average, buys roughly 100 million rounds per year.
He also said claims that the department is stockpiling ammo are "simply not true." Further, he countered claims that the purchases are helping create broader ammunition shortages in the U.S.
The department has long said it needs the bullets for agents in training and on duty, and buys in bulk to save money.
While Democrats likened concerns about the purchases to conspiracy theories, Republicans raised concern about the sheer cost of the ammunition.
"This is not about conspiracy theories, this is about good government," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chairs the full Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he suspects rounds are being stockpiled, and then either "disposed of," passed to non-federal agencies, or shot "indiscriminately."
If that is the case, he said, "then shame on you."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/reps-challenge-dhs-ammo-buys-say-agency-using-1000-more-rounds-per-person-than/?test=latestnews#ixzz2RimFq6nU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2013 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a little sad to me that the reaction of this thing is about cost and denouncing conspiracy theories, rather than trying to understand why this is necessary, and whether it is Constitutional for this organization to be doing what they are doing.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: Nov 27, 2013 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | SPOILS OF WAR: POLICE GETTING LEFTOVER IRAQ TRUCKS
QUEENSBURY, N.Y. (AP) -- Coming soon to your local sheriff: 18-ton, armor-protected military fighting vehicles with gun turrets and bulletproof glass that were once the U.S. answer to roadside bombs during the Iraq war.
The hulking vehicles, built for about $500,000 each at the height of the war, are among the biggest pieces of equipment that the Defense Department is giving to law enforcement agencies under a national military surplus program.
For police and sheriff's departments, which have scooped up 165 of the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPS, since they became available this summer, the price and the ability to deliver shock and awe while serving warrants or dealing with hostage standoffs was just too good to pass up.
"It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free," said Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple, among five county sheriff's departments and three other police agencies in New York that have taken delivery of an MRAP.
But the trucks have limits. They are too big to travel on some bridges and roads and have a tendency to be tippy on uneven ground. And then there's some cost of retrofitting them for civilian use and fueling the 36,000-pound behemoths that get about 5 miles to the gallon.
The American Civil Liberties Union is criticizing what it sees as the increasing militarization of the nation's police. ACLU affiliates have been collecting 2012 records to determine the extent of military hardware and tactics acquired by police, planning to issue a report early next year.
"One of our concerns with this is it has a tendency to escalate violence," said ACLU Center for Justice senior counsel Kara Dansky.
An Associated Press investigation of the Defense Department military surplus program this year found that a disproportionate share of the $4.2 billion worth of property distributed since 1990 - everything from blankets to bayonets and Humvees - has been obtained by police and sheriff's departments in rural areas with few officers and little crime.
After the initial 165 of the MRAP trucks were distributed this year, military officials say police have requests in for 731 more, but none are available.
Ohio State University campus police got one, saying they would use it in large-scale emergencies and to provide a police presence on football game days. Others went to police in High Springs, Fla., and the sheriff's office in Dallas County, Texas.
In Boise, Idaho, police reported using their MRAP two weeks ago to serve a warrant, saying they had evidence the suspect might be heavily armed and have explosives. Authorities said they found 100 pounds of bomb-making material and two guns. A second MRAP from nearby Nampa's police department was used to shield officers and neighbors from a possible explosion.
In New York, the Albany County sheriff's department already had four smaller military-surplus Humvees, which have been used for storm evacuations and to pull trees out of roadways. The new MRAP truck will go into service after technicians remove the gun turret and change the paint from military sand to civilian black.
Sheriff Apple rejected the idea that the nation's police forces are becoming too militaristic.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said. "Our problem is we have to make sure we are prepared to respond to every type of crisis."
For example, he said, if SWAT teams need to get close to a shooter or get bystanders safely away from one, the MRAP would be the vehicle of choice.
In Warren County, at the southern edge of the Adirondack Mountains, Undersheriff Shawn Lamouree said its MRAP, which can hold six people and reach 65 mph, will have its turret closed up except for a small slot, the only place to fire a gun. Its bulletproof windows don't open. The proposed retrofit, including new seating, loudspeakers and emergency lights, would cost an estimated $70,000. The department has applied for grants.
"We have no plans of mounting a machine gun," he said. "The whole idea is to protect the occupants."
While Warren County's Lamouree acknowledged the MRAP will likely spend most of its time in a heated garage, with "minimal" maintenance costs, it could be used occasionally by the emergency response team, which has used armored vehicles to serve drug warrants.
"We live in the North Country," he said. "It's very common for people to have high-powered hunting rifles."
In one recent incident, a team used its armored military-surplus Humvee to approach a barricaded suspect, similar to a circumstance in which it might use the MRAP.
"We rolled the Humvee in the front yard, gave a couple of commands and he said, `OK, I'm coming out," said investigator Jeff Gildersleeve. "That's the way we like them to end."
Others in New York that got big armored trucks included sheriff's departments in Jefferson County, Steuben County and Sullivan County, and police in Nassau County, Plattsburgh and Hamburg Village. Police departments statewide have also acquired almost 150 other trucks and Humvees, a dozen of them armored, over the past two years. |
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/spoils-war-police-leftover-iraq-trucks-20994749 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wakeboarderdave1
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3161
City: St. Thomas, MO
|
| Posted: Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was hoping that big truck would have been brought out Monday/Tuesday night when tOSU tried to prevent students from jumping into Mirror Lake.
_________________
RIP DLS.
"When you've got that many stars on your hat, you're pretty good." - Keith Jackson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: Nov 30, 2013 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The continual militarization of our police.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: May 16, 2014 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/usda-releases-request-for-40-cal-sub-machine-guns/#
| Quote: | | The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, located in Washington, DC, pursuant to the authority of FAR Part 13, has a requirement for the commerical [sic] acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burts [sic] trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe [sic] or folding, magazine – 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jason_ssr
Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4054
City: Dallas, Tx
|
| Posted: May 16, 2014 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crazy! JT, better hit up McBrides and get squared away.
_________________
TONA
My avatar is NOT a pic of me! HAHA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: May 16, 2014 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They gotta keep the raw milkers and urban farmers under control. Not to mention, the anti-GMO'ers. If the government doesn't arm themselves, pretty soon we'll all be eating natural foods again and there will be no way for them to stop us.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: May 16, 2014 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
USDA covers forest service. Uhh.... if you were the Rangers patrolling some spots up here in NorCal, you'd want a fuggin M1A1 or an MRAP at your disposal before rolling up on some hidden grow op run by Mexican cartel.
Also, raw milkers gotta die.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder
Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 10056
City: Edmond
|
| Posted: May 16, 2014 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like that should be more specific in the request, if that is the purpose. I find it interesting to see how things relate in cases like this. For example, would there be this same need if marijuana was legalized and there weren't illegal growing operations run by cartels? The variety of "boogey men" that exist allow us to think we are being protected against grave danger by a benevolent government, but most of them have been created by that very same government. It's hard to control a populace that thinks they can be safe without a protector of some sort.
_________________
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jt09
Ladies Man
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 22083
City: Austin
|
| Posted: May 16, 2014 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chavez wrote: | | USDA covers forest service. Uhh.... if you were the Rangers patrolling some spots up here in NorCal, you'd want a fuggin M1A1 or an MRAP at your disposal before rolling up on some hidden grow op run by Mexican cartel. |
they aren't that all that hidden, and they aren't defended like that. i've got some very good stories about this - one of my best friends spends 6 months of the year growing in the mountains of marin, and he's been chased off the land by a joint task force. the more legal it gets, the less the cartels are involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 27375
City: Roseville
|
| Posted: May 19, 2014 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the more legal it gets, the less the cartels are involved. |
Agreed.
_________________
| Quote: | | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Add To Favorites
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Stats
Favorites
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
