Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?



Is the U.S. government getting ready for a ...

Is the U.S. government getting ready for a
war we don’t know about?
And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling
massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points,
by the way), why is Homeland Security doing
the buying instead of the Defense Department?



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo? Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo? Document Transcript

  • Why is government stockpiling guns,ammo?by Joseph Farah02-03-13Is the U.S. government getting ready for awar we don’t know about?And, if that’s why Washington is stockpilingmassive amounts of ammunition (hollow points,by the way), why is Homeland Security doingthe buying instead of the Defense Department?I have some theories.Many of you will remember a story I broke along time ago – about presidential candidateBarack Obama’s little-noticed announcementthat, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a“civilian national security force” as big, asstrong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to relyon our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have acivilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”Want to make sure you and your family are fully protected? Check out our self-defense section inWND’s Superstore.Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning ofObama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review: • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign. That was strange – and ominous. • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before. But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight. • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008,2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland
  • Security – firearms and ammo that Obama would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army. Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too. In a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.” I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – soserious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matterof self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we wouldnever see another free and fair election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) Isuggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would moveto shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics wouldeventually be rounded up in the name of national security.Think about it.Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.So why does Homeland Securityneed so many weapons andenough hollow-point rounds toplug every American six times?Maybe this is the “civiliannational security force that’s justas powerful, just as strong, just aswell-funded” as the DefenseDepartment.These words – “civilian nationalsecurity force” – have haunted meever since I first read them.Obama has never explained whathe meant.He’s never been called to account
  • for that remark.Doesn’t this sound likepolice-state talk to you?The U.S. Army alonehas nearly 500,000troops. That doesn’tcount reserves orNational Guard. In2007, the U.S. defensebudget was $439billion. No one knowswhat the budget is todaybecause Congressstopped passing budgetswhen Obama tookoffice.Is Obama serious aboutcreating some kind ofdomestic security forcebigger and moreexpensive than that? Isthis part of his second-term agenda?He has also set up, as Ihave reported, a newhomeland securitybureaucracy to operateunder his own direction.I think it’s worthrecalling here that justover a year ago bothhouses of Congressunwisely passed thedefense reauthorizationbill that killed theconcept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrestand indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government– constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rightsactivist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second termunder this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy theopposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.
  • Anti-Gunners’ Wish List: Ban Private GunSales, Ban Gun, Ban Magazineammoland.comFebruary 2, 2013While banning guns and magazines is being actively promoted by the anti-gunners (as evidencedby introduction of Sen. Feinstein’s S. 150), the criminalization of private firearm transfers is thecenterpiece of their anti-Second Amendment efforts.This is part of a strategy to chip away at our Second Amendment rights under the guise of being“reasonable.”But if you understand exactly what the anti-gunners are really talking about, you’ll understand that therestrictions they’re proposing are anything but reasonable.While we don’t know the final form this legislation will take, these checks no doubt would requirebackground checks for firearm transfers between lifelong friends, and maybe even between familymembers. It would also be a step toward national gun registration. As we mentioned in an article lastweek, “universal” background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade,gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals, minus whatever exceptions ouropponents will stand for. Does anyone really think that these checks will be conducted between drug dealers on a Chicago street corner or gang members in an L.A. alley? Of course not. You know that’s ridiculous and so do the anti-gun politicians, but they don’t care.And where and how would these personal checks be done? Would you and your friend, or grandson, ormother have to drive to some government office at the state capital? Or travel several hours to thegovernment-approved, federally licensed dealer in another part of your state? What happens when theinstant check system isn’t functioning? How will the government monitor and enforce these checks?
  • Obviously, this proposal raises more questionsthan it answers.Furthermore, “universal” background checksare unnecessary.It is already a federal felony to be engaged inthe business of buying and selling firearmswithout having a federal dealer’s license. It isalready a crime for a federally licensed dealerto sell a gun without doing a backgroundcheck–that’s all dealers, everywhere, whetherat retail stores or gun shows. Further, it isalready a federal felony to sell, trade, give,lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person youknow or should know is not legally allowed toown, purchase or possess a firearm.It is even a federal felony to submit falseinformation on a background check form forthe purpose of purchasing a firearm, thoughVice President Biden does not think it’s worththe government’s time to prosecute thesecriminal acts.NRA does NOT support “universal”background checks and will continue tooppose, “universal” background checks and registration schemes. We do believe that records of thosewho are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history putsthem in this category) ought to be included in the federal instant check system. Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose “universal” background check legislation AND S. 150, Sen. Feinstein’s gun and magazine ban. To identify and contact your elected officials in Washington, D.C., use the “Write Your Reps” feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202- 224-3121. 5 Guns to buy before a potential ban VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch? feature=player_embedded&v=Y88VNIeNSZo
  • Poll: 53% Say Govt Threatens FreedomsBen Shapirobreitbart.comFebruary 2, 2013According to a new Pew Research poll,Americans are increasingly worried aboutthe federal government violating theirrights. The survey, conducted January 9-13, showed that 53 percent of Americansbelieve that the federal government“threatens their own personal rights andfreedoms,” with 43 percent disagreeing.That is a significant uptick from March2010, when just 47 percent said that thegovernment threatened their freedom,with 50 percent disagreeing.Republicans are largely responsible for thatincrease; 76 percent of Republicans say thatthe federal government threatens freedoms,and 54 percent said the federal government was a “major” threat. That was up from 62 percent and 47percent, respectively.Independents agree with Republicans; 55 percent say the government represents a threat, and 33percent say it represents a major threat.Amazingly, minorities trust the government more than whites do; just 20 percent of whites trust thegovernment to do the right thing always or most of the time, but 38 percent of blacks and 44 percent ofHispanics do.Just 26 percent of those polled say that Washington will do the right thing always or the majority of thetime.But while President Obama continues to complain about the governmental system, stating that it makesfor gridlock, the American people think that the problem lies with their legislators. A full 56 percent ofthose polled say that the governmental system can work; just 32 percent say that lawmakers are tryingto do the right thing, but are hamstrung by the system.Overall, Americans know that the Constitution still works. And they still believe that government is thegreatest threat to their rights. As the Obama administration expands the size and scope of government,so too do they expand the threat to those rights.Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book “Bullies: How the Left’sCulture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).http://www.infowars.com/