1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Why Does Obama Need 1.6 Billion Bullets?

Jugjock Wrote: Mar 16, 2013 1:43 AM
With respect to Chilidog and BigDog_137 - Why does DHS or law enforcement need heavy armored combat vehicles? I should think the vehicles would be transferred to the National Guard and distributed around the country to state military units if for no other reason than training. If a situation gets so intense that armor is required its time to call in the national guard.
In response to:

Why Does Obama Need 1.6 Billion Bullets?

Jugjock Wrote: Mar 16, 2013 1:37 AM
Dividing the government contract dollar amount by those numbers yields an additional 8.5 to 30.0 million rounds. Adding it all up: DHS has purchased 330 to 350 million rounds of ammo. Most of the ammo is Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP). This is anti-personnel ammunition. The solicitations state that the ammo is for training. Most shooters would not use this type of ammo for target or training purposes. DHS serves 90 agencies, operates 14 shooting ranges, serving 15,000 students per year. Found this in one of the posted synopsis. Dividing 15,000 students per year into 350 million rounds of ammo is 23,333 rounds of ammo per student. Dividing by five years yields 4,667 rounds per student per year. That’s a LOT of target practice.
In response to:

Why Does Obama Need 1.6 Billion Bullets?

Jugjock Wrote: Mar 16, 2013 1:37 AM
Go to Fed Biz Ops – www.fbo.gov ; sort for “ammunition, 365 days, Department of Homeland Security.” Open the posted contract solicitation files; add up the listed amounts of ammo. You’ll find at least 321 million acquired rounds of a variety of rifle and pistol ammunition over next 5 years. There are two large contracts where only the dollar amounts and type of ammo (.223 – 62/64grain) are listed. These two contracts total $9.5 million dollars. Good quality .223 ammo retails at around $26.50 for a box of 20 rounds; the target practice stuff retails at $6.50 for a box of 20 rounds. The government should get a substantial discount for this large an order, but let’s use the retail prices for this discussion.
In response to:

Why Does Obama Need 1.6 Billion Bullets?

Jugjock Wrote: Mar 16, 2013 1:37 AM
I’m a retired federal government contracting officer and a M1 – M1A service rifle competition shooter. I’ve trained tactically for years with a variety of model 1911 semi-automatic pistols. For those of you who went through military of law enforcement basic training, think back on how many rounds of practice fire you used. Here’s what I’ve found from a few hours of surfing around the government websites this evening --
- the highest level, that of the citizenry having in their possession sufficient and comparable weaponry to discourage politicians and their agents from unilateral confiscation of personal property (plunder) under the rule of law. It is not burglars and muggers that I fear now, it's my government. This is a sad situation, and one that I fear will not end well.
This is the same progressive explanation that I had to listen to for nearly eight hours in the Colorado State Capitol Bldg on Monday during the legislative hearings on HB-1229 which proposes to require background checks by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the private sale or transfer of firearms. In those hearings, Representative Daniel Kagan explained pedantically to us simple citizens that, "There are no absolute rights in the Constitution. There are only reasonable rights." Obviously, Rep. Kagan, and his constituents, are far more able than us simple folk to best determine what the definition of reasonableness is. From my own readings and research, I prefer a definition of the 2nd amendment on only one level -
In response to:

The Perils of Pushing Pot Prohibition

Jugjock Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 1:38 AM
If marijuana is effective in relieving some of the symptoms related to chemo-therapy, then why haven't the major medical companies and drug store chains made any move to produce and distribute it? I'd think that physicians, therapists, pharmacists and others in the medical field would want to have more difinitive and controlled information and consistent products for perscription usage. Along the same lines, the Feds got 1/'3rd of their funding from alcohol related taxes prior to prohibition and needed to institute the income tax to make up for the revenue loss caused by prohibition. Why aren't the Feds now looking at potential tax revenue in med or rec marijuana? Is no one worried about quality control... cause its organic...?
RL - I'd like to think you're right about what you say in your first sentence above, but here are two recent examples that are upsetting and demonstrate a different view; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyZgaanPCg and Emily Miller's series of editorials on 1st Sergeant Matthew Corrigan - http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/may/23/miller-iraq-vet-brutalized-over-guns-dc/
In response to:

What's an Assault Weapon?

Jugjock Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:52 PM
The Congressional and MSM gun ban/assault weapon hoopla is just to distract you from the actual gun control work that is being quietly promoted in the background - the financial pressures that state and local governments will bring to bear on gun and ammo manufacturers thru withdrawal or retraction of pension fund investments; pressure on banks to withdraw or withhold loans or financing to those companies; and pressure on various other aspects of their business such as forcing papers and magazines to stop accepting advertisements. Start learning to ask yourself the basic question, "What is seen and what is not seen." Otherwise you're being herded and led around by emotions like a bunch of ignorant sheep!
My cousin calmly looked him in the eye, pulled her .38 caliber revolver out from under her sweatshirt, pointed it down the road, and said, ”It’s that way.” If only more young women were well trained and carried handguns.
1 - 10 Next