Why is DHS and other Federal Agencies Buying so much ammo?

[dorminWS]

I'm sure you can go through 1,000-2,000 rounds fairly easily in 2 hours.

Sure you can - if you've got enough pre-loaded mags stacked up in front of you, I guess.

But WHO does it every day? and what fraction of one percent of the DHS trainees do it at all?

Any way you slice it, DHS appears to be doing exactly what Gunderwood has said - buying 50 years worth of ammo.

[gunderwood]

I'm sure you can go through 1,000-2,000 rounds fairly easily in 2 hours.

Sure you can - if you've got enough pre-loaded mags stacked up in front of you, I guess.

But WHO does it every day? and what fraction of one percent of the DHS trainees do it at all?

Any way you slice it, DHS appears to be doing exactly what Gunderwood has said - buying 50 years worth of ammo.

Exactly.

Even if MarcSpaz is 100% correct in his "friend" as an example, DHS itself is claiming they are using only 15M TOTAL a year. Regardless of whatever anecdotal evidence people throw out about how much a few people shoot, the TOTAL is only 15M/year.

DHS is getting 750M rounds of ammo from the 1.6B order. IT IS VERY SIMPLE MATH.... 750,000,000rnds / 15,000,000rnd/year = 50 years! That's not me saying they use 15M a year, DHS said it. In fact, if we are being accurate, they said "up to 15M a year." Thus, they are buying AT LEAST 50 years of ammo by their own admission. Make up whatever fairy tale you want that allows you to sleep at night, but that's reality.

The more interesting question is, why are multiple government agencies buying ~50 years of ammo supply so suddenly and large quantities of it HPs?


Edit: It's always possible that DHS incorrectly stated 15M rounds a year, but that seems unlikely since their answer was an official response, not a SWAG. They also could have lied, but why do that and even if they did you'd expect it to be more than their actual use to hide the stockpiling. No, the most likely answer is that 15M/year is correct.

[GeneFrenkle]

How mny barrels are they going through? LOL Are they buying those in bulk, too?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

I am not denying what they are buying or what they have. DHS is not disputing it either. In fact, they are being transparent about it.

The question was placed as to "why" they are buying so much. I just gave an example of the things I see first hand. It's not a fairy tale, nor do I have trouble sleeping at night. A question was posted... to help account for and explain possible reasons, I answered with what I know from first hand knowledge; not what I read online or in a press release. That's all.

[gunderwood]

I am not denying what they are buying or what they have. DHS is not disputing it either. In fact, they are being transparent about it.

The question was placed as to "why" they are buying so much. I just gave an example of the things I see first hand. It's not a fairy tale, nor do I have trouble sleeping at night. A question was posted... to help account for and explain possible reasons, I answered with what I know from first hand knowledge; not what I read online or in a press release. That's all.

OK, I can't leave such a misleading post alone...

Your anecdotal evidence was claiming your "friend" who's a cop shoots 300k rounds per year, which is highly suspect in the first place. I mostly let it slide though, but I find it hard to believe that a department is spending >$100k on an agent in ammo cost alone (even at LEA prices), let alone the numerous firearms that would be shot out (a forged steel 1911 frame is good for on the order of 100k rounds, most pistols are less, but it depends on your definition of worn out). Even if this is 100% true...

No one is saying that the official answer of 15M rounds a year is abnormal for an organization as large as DHS (~90 agencies and 70k agents). Those 15M rounds a year includes your buddies 300k a year practising (I seriously hope they are splurging on lead-less ammo, because I know a bunch of guys who are exposed to ~100k rounds a year as trainers on outdoor ranges and they all have higher than expected lead levels, so green ammo was partially mandated). The 15M isn't the question...

The question is why are they buying 150M a year (for 5 years), or 10x their annual needs including your buddies 300k?
Your anecdotal evidence isn't relevant to the question at all.

[VACoastie]

MS... It's okay bro. I know at least where you're coming from. Some people just can't be pleased with any answer they receive. I've tried several times in this thread and bailed out. I've tried other times in other topics. Some people just won't leave well enough alone unless you answer down to the comma of the sentence. You could be the dude shooting 400k a year and then they'd deviate and wonder why YOU shoot so much...

The answer: No one friggin knows. No one is gonna know. FOIA it if you really care that much. Janet N, head of DHS, should have that answer for ya. I doubt you'll get it though because as much as you think the gov't SHOULD to ya everything, it isn't. Sometimes for your own good. Most people here as Republicans I would hope understand that philosephy.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

MS... It's okay bro. I know at least where you're coming from. Some people just can't be pleased with any answer they receive. I've tried several times in this thread and bailed out. I've tried other times in other topics. Some people just won't leave well enough alone unless you answer down to the comma of the sentence. You could be the dude shooting 400k a year and then they'd deviate and wonder why YOU shoot so much...

The answer: No one friggin knows. No one is gonna know. FOIA it if you really care that much. Janet N, head of DHS, should have that answer for ya. I doubt you'll get it though because as much as you think the gov't SHOULD to ya everything, it isn't. Sometimes for your own good. Most people here as Republicans I would hope understand that philosephy.

What about anecdotal do you not understand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

The total from DHS's own mouth is 15M. I don't care if one guy shoots all 15M in a year, the total is still 15M and it's still 135M short of a singles years ammo purchase. 675M rounds less than DHS's portion of the contract alone. Make all the excuses you want, but it wouldn't be a secret unless the government feared the peoples response/inquirers for the real reason they are buying it.

[MarcSpaz]

...
Your anecdotal evidence isn't relevant to the question at all.

Fair enough. I'm almost done.

MS... It's okay bro. I know at least where you're coming from. Some people just can't be pleased with any answer they receive. I've tried several times in this thread and bailed out. I've tried other times in other topics. Some people just won't leave well enough alone unless you answer down to the comma of the sentence. You could be the dude shooting 400k a year and then they'd deviate and wonder why YOU shoot so much...

I appreciate it bro. I tried. That's all I can do.

What about anecdotal do you not understand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

The total from DHS's own mouth is 15M. I don't care if one guy shoots all 15M in a year, the total is still 15M and it's still 135M short of a singles years ammo purchase. 675M rounds less than DHS's portion of the contract alone. Make all the excuses you want, but it wouldn't be a secret unless the government feared the peoples response/inquirers for the real reason they are buying it.

You know what, I am really starting to like you. You make me think, can debate without being an ass, and have strong conviction. That's pretty cool.

If you want more info about it, I would recommend you (or the OP) call the DHS Secretary for Public Affairs, Matt Chandler @ 202-282-8010. He may provide a better answer for anyone who has not found what they are looking for in the current publications.

[Reverenddel]

I trust JannyNap as much as I trust a blind rabbi to perform a bris...

Ain't anyone THAT trustworthy! Period!

[MarcSpaz]

Honestly, I can't stand this President or his administration. I can't believe he was re-elected. He's dream to "fundamentally change America" is my nightmare as I watch him destroy the country. I don't want to see our country changed, but rather restored to it former glory that our founding fathers and framers had created.

The two biggest problems I see is Obama is not the source, but a broad sword in the hands of the democratic party and just about half of the people (according to stats I read) actually want this type of government. We need to do what we can to complain to our reps to voice our opinions and make an effort to elect others that are conservative or the healing will never begin.

So, even with my opinions, he is still my President and regardless of my feeling, I will execute and enforce his orders to uphold the Constitution without prejudice. I can promise you this... regardless of my dedication to support my government, my loyalty is to country. I will never turn against the citizens, my brothers and sisters. I hope and pray that many of the people who are in this organization and sub agencies feel the same.

[GeneFrenkle]

>> So, even with my opinions, he is still my President and regardless of my feeling, I will execute and enforce his orders to uphold the Constitution without prejudice. I can promise you this... regardless of my dedication to support my government, my loyalty is to country.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _of_Office

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

The oath is for the Constitution, not the country, the president, or anything else. The Constitution is supreme, the highest law, and _defines_ our country.

[MarcSpaz]

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

Your statement may be true to a degree of structure, but the constitution is a document used to create a government for the people, by the people. The people are what's really important. I will uphold the Constitution because it is the people's will and the people's rights. The Constitution is a piece of paper not worth dying for, but the people it was meant to protect are.

Am I crazy or does that make sense?

[GeneFrenkle]

I kind of suspect we're violently agreeing. I'm just pointing out that the oath only relates to the Constitution. Yes, it's just an old piece of paper with ink, but the ideas in it and what it brings into existence are what we hold dear,support and find worth defending. When we took the oath, we swore to protect the Constitution - what makes us... well... us - it's more than just a few nifty words.

[MarcSpaz]

I agree for sure.

[dorminWS]

Seems to me that what you two are grasping at with this talk of "constitution vs. country" is really this:

The government of this country is established by the will of the people as described and prescribed by the Constitution. Therefore, if the government exceeds, violates or ignores the strictures upon it imposed by that Constitution, the government is acting ultra vires; which is to say "beyond it's powers" and therefore without authority or legitimacy. It is therefore not the people that you must answer and be loyal to under the oath in question; but the Constitution. If the will of the people changes, it is incumbent upon them to change the Constitution. This idea is precisely why we say the USA is a government of laws and not of men.

[GeneFrenkle]

Correct-amundo. This is why we swore to protect and defend it.

[MarcSpaz]

Well said. I wish I could have been as articulate.

[Purdune]

I agree for sure.

no, No, NO!!! We can't have this kind of non sense. We can't debate instead of argue. We must all troll around and make snarky remarks and, and, and, you are all poopy heads! Fight! wait, what? Squirrel!

[MarcSpaz]

LOL! That's awesome!

[2k05gt]

First of all the Constitution is written on parchment, not paper.

What the Constitution Does Do

The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:

Establish a federal government for the United States of America
Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.

The Constitution was written by the thirteen original states. The federal government created by the states, via the Constitution, exists to serve the states. Until the states delegated some powers to the new federal government, those powers belonged to the states. The states, of course, delegated only some of their powers to the federal government while retaining most of their powers for themselves.

It is important to recognize that the states are the "boss" of the federal government! The states "hired" the federal government and set forth the rules as to how it should operate. The Constitution is a list of those rules. Just as a manager is expected to enforce company rules to manage employees, it is the responsibility of the states to enforce the Constitution to manage the federal government. The Supreme Court, being itself part of the federal government, has an obvious conflict of interest. Yes, it pretends to enforce the Constitution against the Executive and Legislative branches, but who will "manage" the Supreme Court? Who will watch the watchers? The states are the rightful and logical enforcers of the Constitution. It helps to keep this in mind in the discussion which follows.

What the Constitution Does Not Do

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.
The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).

So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.

Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

I contend that it's more than just a document, without it and the oaths we take to "defend and protect it", the United States would cease to exist as we know it.

Anyway; just saying... Mr. Constitutionalist here...

Hey Marc, whats up my brother.. MarcSpaz is the Man Thanks for all your help..