Homeland adds 2,700 armored vehicles to ammo purchases

[Row6]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

Like the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction.

But to the point, lets focus in on DHS. They have zero responsibility/jurisdiction OCONUS. Their entire mission objective is within the "walls" of the USA. For the military types on here, their AO is USA. Having said that, lets look at facts and determine if what they are doing makes sense to the layman. DHS has purchased nearly 1B rounds of ammunition in the last year and a half. This without question is an enormous amount of ammo. If their mission set and AO is USA, why the need for so much ammunition? Second, they have purchased thousands of assault rifles. Third, they have purchased nearly 3000 MRAPs. Why does a domestic agency need that many MRAPs? Does everyone understand the mission set for a MRAP? They are Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. Like the man said in the video, they are not only secured to the border. His particular unit can travel anywhere in America.

Now, on top of all this, we have heard the POTUS declare that he wants a civilian force that rivals the military. How could any sane human take all these facts and not at least question the motives?

There is a difference between questioning motives and paranoia, which is by definition irrational fear. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests a realistic attempt at a coup, unless one thinks an army of social workers with rifles and 2700 armored vehicles might take over the US and even less likely that Obama would announce his intentions in public speeches. The way coups typically work is that Obama would have a pledge from high-up military commanders to back him in seizing power, at which point - also highly unlikely and you and I would not know anything about it - the loyalty of those under their command would become critical.

Forget about it.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Context is important, but doesn't change the meaning in this case. He was talking about a lot of different organizations, among them a civilian security force.

He was kind of in a rhythm of coupling sentences. He would tie a challenge or need and to an organization that could help in that arena.

I'm going to post your quotation one more time, breaking each of distinct thought into a separate paragraph.



Make sense?

Fact check is blatantly dishonest in their explanation, failing to mention the key words and quotation. Don't be guilty of their dissembling.

What words did Factcheck fail to mention?
Meanwhile, the entire segment of the speech is about Peace Corps, Americorps, helping veterans, etc. Are you just ignoring that?

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by Row6

There is a difference between questioning motives and paranoia, which is by definition irrational fear. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests a realistic attempt at a coup, unless one thinks an army of social workers with rifles and 2700 armored vehicles might take over the US and even less likely that Obama would announce his intentions in public speeches. The way coups typically work is that Obama would have a pledge from high-up military commanders to back him in seizing power, at which point - also highly unlikely and you and I would know anything about it - the loyalty of those under their command would become critical.

Forget about it.

This to me isn't setting the stage for a government coup but for a government preparing to stop a coup.

Did that person explaining the MRAP look like a social worker to you? He is a highly paid overhyped police officer with green fatigues.

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

This to me isn't setting the stage for a government coup but for a government preparing to stop a coup.

Did that person explaining the MRAP look like a social worker to you? He is a highly paid overhyped police officer with green fatigues.

Oh and let me add.....He is also a person who dreams of being an actual "operator".

[Row6]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

This to me isn't setting the stage for a government coup but for a government preparing to stop a coup.

Did that person explaining the MRAP look like a social worker to you? He is a highly paid overhyped police officer with green fatigues.

Stopping what coup? That would be a good thing, right.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by rivergator

What words did Factcheck fail to mention?
Meanwhile, the entire segment of the speech is about Peace Corps, Americorps, helping veterans, etc. Are you just ignoring that?

If Dick Cheney was making that speech, using fact check, would you still form the same opinion?

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by Row6

Stopping what coup? That would be a good thing, right.

Under your premise of there being a possible "coup", I just said that its not a government preparing to start a coup. To me, it looks like a government preparing to stop a coup.

To me is easy to look at the progression of DHS and see historically what follows. I don't like the fact that all these agencies are being militarized and put in place on American streets. If the government sees it as acceptable to buy bulk ammo and weapons, I see no reason why the public can't do the same.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

What words did Factcheck fail to mention?
Meanwhile, the entire segment of the speech is about Peace Corps, Americorps, helping veterans, etc. Are you just ignoring that?

I'm ignoring nothing.

Factcheck, in their explanation as you posted it, failed to mention ANY of these words:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

For anyone who didn't read or hear the actual speech, their explanation leaves the impression that anyone questioning what a "civilian national security force" is just made up the phrase out of whole cloth.

If you can't see that he is describing an organization separate and distinct from the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, I can't help you any further.

The security force might be able to help veterans with employment!!

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wygator

I'm ignoring nothing.

Factcheck, in their explanation as you posted it, failed to mention ANY of these words:



For anyone who didn't read or hear the actual speech, their explanation leaves the impression that anyone questioning what a "civilian national security force" is just made up the phrase out of whole cloth.

If you can't see that he is describing an organization separate and distinct from the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, I can't help you any further.

The security force might be able to help veterans with employment!!

I'd suggest you actually look at the Factcheck site I linked to. Not only are those sentences there, they're in bold.

[jimgata]

Is this what we really want? Disarm the citizens and arm the government. 2700 armed vehicles and buying huge amounts of ammo?

[wygator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'd suggest you actually look at the Factcheck site I linked to. Not only are those sentences there, they're in bold.

Sorry...I didn't look at the Factcheck link. I assumed that you had posted their explanation.

I've read it now and my earlier explanation stands. Obama's description of the civilian national security force is a separate statement from his mention and description of the mission of the other organizations. The statement is in conjunction with mention that the military can't meet all of our national security objectives.

I tend to be a simple fellow and take words at their simplest and plainest meanings. Liberals, on the other hand, see shades of gray and emanations and penumbras in everything.

You have to suspend disbelief to think that statement has anything to do with the Peace Corps.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Is this what we really want? Disarm the citizens and arm the government. 2700 armed vehicles and buying huge amounts of ammo?

Apparently so. Fact check says everything is OK.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Sorry...I didn't look at the Factcheck link. I assumed that you had posted their explanation.

So you went off on Factcheck without actually reading it?

You have to suspend disbelief to think that statement has anything to do with the Peace Corps.

Or actually read what Obama said.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

Under your premise of there being a possible "coup", I just said that its not a government preparing to start a coup. To me, it looks like a government preparing to stop a coup.

To me is easy to look at the progression of DHS and see historically what follows. I don't like the fact that all these agencies are being militarized and put in place on American streets. If the government sees it as acceptable to buy bulk ammo and weapons, I see no reason why the public can't do the same.

The government see it as acceptable to buy drones and nuclear weapons. I see a reason why we don't want the public doing the same.

[DSRrg]

Originally Posted by Row6

The government see it as acceptable to buy drones and nuclear weapons. I see a reason why we don't want the public doing the same.

Some people buy million dollar sports cars but I can't because I don't have the means to do so. The comparison of buying guns and ammo to that of buying nuclear weapons is a ridiculous one. However it's the only argument most libs use. Lets stay in the realm of reality shall we.

[Lawdog88]

So let's see. The last time the government bought ammunition for these agencies in such quantities was what, five years ago - because they always do it that way - and because they are running out now ?

Or is this "securing ammunition for five years in advance," suddenly a new thing ?

I don't know and can't find out, but would like to know.

And the idea of shooting HP on the range as wad cutters "because agents typically practice with their carry ammunition" is some real B.S., or one heck of a waste of money.

[rivergator]

By the way, the original claim that the 2,700 armored vehicles were headed for the DHS: False. They're for the Marines.

link

link

[Lawdog88]

Since we're coming home from A'stan, I guess the Marines might need them in the next invasion ?

I wonder.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Since we're coming home from A'stan, I guess the Marines might need them in the next invasion ?

I wonder.

so now equipping our military is an indication of something nefarious?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

Some people buy million dollar sports cars but I can't because I don't have the means to do so. The comparison of buying guns and ammo to that of buying nuclear weapons is a ridiculous one. However it's the only argument most libs use. Lets stay in the realm of reality shall we.

Warren Buffet can't buy drones or nuclear weapons either - not even a machine gun. money isn't the issue.