How long can America keep going before it defaults

Post Reply New Topic

I read a breakdown of how that ammo will be distributed, and it actually comes out to around 500-700 rounds per agent. The total amount sounds excessive, but when you factor in the fact that it is meant to cover training, practice and on duty usage for an entire year it really isn't that much. I usually go through 300-500 rounds in an afternoon of target shooting. I'll post a link to the source as soon as I can find it.

Do you practice with .40 hollow points?
A type of ammunition that doesn't shoot through walls or body armor?
A type of ammunition designed specifically for killing an unarmored person in one shot?

When I had a .40 cal I did every once and a while. My statement spoke to the quantity, not the type of ammo. Also, as I stated in my original post, the claim is not that they are only for practice, but for on duty use as well.

I am sure that those bullets also cost a lot more then the standard type.

Don't the Geneeva Conventions prohibit the use of hollow-point bullets?

Well ok mister richy rich.
Best case they just wasted tax payer money.
I do know that you can easily go through 300+ rounds in an afternoon.
I'm concerned with the types of ammo though, they are ordering NATO rounds now for rifles.

Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Buy Ammunition
Posted on August 17, 2012


You may recently have seen some in the Internet rumor mill feverishly repeating the
obvious truth above, in an effort to stir up fear about recent acquisitions of
ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security and a number of smaller
agencies. The mildest writers have questioned why seemingly mundane agencies
would need ammunition at all; more incendiary authors suggest that these
government agencies are preparing for a war with the American people.

Much of the concern stems from a lack of understanding of the law enforcement
functions carried about by officers in small federal agencies. These agents have the
power to make arrests and execute warrants, just like their better-known
counterparts at agencies like the FBI.

For instance, the Social Security Administration solicited offers for 174,000
rounds of pistol ammunition. But the agency has 295 special agents who combat
Social Security fraud that costs tax payers billions each year, so the order works out
to roughly 590 rounds of ammunition per agent for training, mandatory quarterly
qualification shooting and duty use. More than a few NRA members would use
that much ammunition in a weekend shooting class or plinking session.

Another recent rumor questioned a request for 46,000 rounds of.40-caliber ammo
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA inadvertently
fueled that speculation through a clerical error that suggested the ammunition was
destined for the National Weather Service. NOAA later clarified that the
ammunition was actually for the little known Fisheries Office of Law
Enforcement, which enforces laws against illegal fishing and marine life
importation. The ammunition is for 63 personnel, amounting to about 730 rounds
per officer.

The most widespread of the recent rumors involves a Department of Homeland
Security contract for a maximum of 450 million rounds of .40-caliber jacketed
hollow-points, to be supplied over the next five years.

After receiving numerous questions from his constituents regarding the contract,
pro-Second Amendment U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and his staff set out
in search of the truth. In a press release, Rep. Westmoreland's office explains:

If you take the number of agencies that will be using this ammunition – CBP,
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), ICE, the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, the
DHS police force, and all the guards that protect the various buildings these
agencies are housed in, and spread that out over 5 years, you start to see that 450
million rounds really isn't that large of an order. Especially considering it is used
for training purposes like firing range and live fire exercises, on-the-job use
(though that is very limited), and to shore up their supplies. In fact, there are
65,000 – 70,000 law enforcement personnel at DHS who would be covered under
this … ammunition contract. If DHS were to purchase all 450 million rounds over
5 years, then that would equate to only about 1,384 rounds of ammo per year per
law enforcement [officer] … assuming the lower estimate of only 65,000 law
enforcement personnel at DHS. Considering those agents go through training
exercises several times per year, that is not a lot of ammunition.

Perhaps most strangely, some have cited the purchase of hollow-point ammunition
as evidence of the federal government's evil motives. Hollow-points are the
defensive ammunition of choice for federal, state and local law enforcement
officers across the country, just as they are for private citizens. These attacks are
eerily similar to statements made by gun prohibitionists, who spent the much of the
'70s, '80s and '90s complaining about "dum dum" bullets. (In fact, the Violence
Policy Center's website still exhibits a publication lamenting that federal
ammunition law "has no effect on today's generation of high-tech hollow-point
ammunition.") The attacks also ignore the fact that federal agents, unlike average
taxpayers on more limited budgets, normally train and qualify with their duty
ammunition.

As most gun owners will agree, skepticism of government is healthy. But today,
there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun
owners busy. With two key Supreme Court decisions hanging by a one-vote
margin, the Justice Department deeply involved in a cover-up of a disastrous
Mexican gun smuggling operation, and President Obama touting a ban on popular
semi-automatic firearms, there is no need to invent additional threats to our rights.

Don't the Geneeva Conventions prohibit the use of hollow-point bullets?

If we re-elect Obama it won't be long before we default. If we don't re-elect him, the first thing the new president needs to do is to stop all of the massive spending we have done in the past twelve years. We will never get back to having no debt, but we will could at least cut our losses. * again this all depends on Obama's re-election *

If we cut 1.2 trillion immediately from the budget the nation would immediately go into a deep recession if not a depression. Collapsing tax revenues further. Even Romney says he won't do that. The relatively modest "fiscal cliff" cuts that are set to happen next year may do that alone according to economists.

The Republicans are working very hard to make this a spending problem only. It's not. It's a revenue collapse and tax cut problem as well. Everyone thinks their pony wasnt the expensive one and that daddy shouldnt return it.

That's the thing that bothers me, but remember this massive spending problem has been going on since Bush was elected. If we had a better tax code that wasn't as complicated. Perhaps we can take care of the tax cut problem as well of revenue. When I was talking about massive spending, the biggest two I was refering to was the 768 trillion *or so * dollar stimulus. The national health care program that Obama has pushed for is another to cut out.

Simplifying the tax code is usually an argument put forward by people who are hoping to come out on the other side paying less. Others might repeat it for them but it has little do with the actual deficit. Like tax cuts Republicans will put it forward as the solution for what ails ya, rain or shine. Got cancer? Well, simplifying the tax code should fix it. Both Romney and Ryan want to *reduce taxes*, not increase them and "reform" is their mantra too.

As for PPACA (Obamacare), it's going to reduce the deficit according to the CBO because it raises revenue (has taxes). Opinion on the law aside, it's a good thing that it has taxes and penalties. That's how government programs are supposed to be paid for. So it's not just tossed on the deficit. If the projections are eventually found to be incorrect then more revenue should be raised to pay for it. That's good policy. Compare that to the BUsh medicare expansion that costs 60 billion / year and is entirely unpaid for. Just borrowing from China. That's a bad funding mechanism.

The stimulus is almost entirely spent so there is nothing to do about it. That was a one time expense that isnt factored into our ongoing deficit problem. Some economists think we should be spending more right now seeing as money is cheap to borrow and the economy is fragile and would benefit. Something everyone basically agrees with in principle as they are afraid to either raise taxes or deeply slash spending and even Republicans are crying about the damage it would cause if the automatic budget cuts kick in.