General Categories > Information Arsenal
Info on Government Stockpile of Ammo
ILoveCats:
--- Quote from: GreyGeek on March 29, 2013, 06:55:15 PM ---THere are just TOO MANY agencies with armed policing capabilities. Just a thought ... IF you wanted to create a "civilian security defense force" how would you do it? One agency at a time...
--- End quote ---
You're still very "close" to the point, but missing it slightly, GreyGeek. The real enemy is simply a FISCAL one. You go one step too far, beyond the real issue, when you get into the civilian defense force stuff.
Agencies will always get into "turf wars" to try and wrestle over who has jurisdiction over a certain area of enforcement. It's all about securing budget and expanding the scope of mission. In a bizarre Darwinian sense it's actually a healthy phenomenon within the Executive Branch of government, but only if the Legislative Branch does their job and takes the hatchet to the budget to cull out the least effective / efficient parts whenever possible.
ILoveCats:
--- Quote from: SS_N_NE on March 29, 2013, 03:59:44 PM ---A chunk of S. 649 in it's current state: ....
--- End quote ---
I read this all and honestly can't quite figure out the relevance to the broader thread. Sorry. Maybe my Friday afternoon cocktail is affecting my judgement. (That's entirely possible!)
JimP:
I am of the opinion that the whole reason that True Progressives (as opposed their "useful idiots", who just want to "do some good") are growing the .gov in every manner possible IS to make the system so bloated and expensive that it collapses under it's own weight- then they can remake it/ transform it into a system they like better.
No intelligent person could come to any conclusion in which continuing on the presesent path is sustainable, yet they want to double down on spending? Either they are really stupid, insane, or Evil. Maybe all three.
SS_N_NE:
--- Quote from: feralcatkillr on March 29, 2013, 07:17:33 PM ---I read this all and honestly can't quite figure out the relevance to the broader thread. Sorry. Maybe my Friday afternoon cocktail is affecting my judgement. (That's entirely possible!)
--- End quote ---
S. 649 is the current gun trafficking bill that is essentially the basis of a gun control bill. It will be where everyone tries to plant an agenda in the near future. Hopefully the Republican filibuster threat will shut down the works.
The part I posted is a single part where it empowers the Attorney General to establish and operate the "Center". Likely to be another entity with it's own police capacity.
The whole thing taps back into the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Noticed one section that jacks $30 million to $40 million for each of 10 years. Lots of grants (many more tens of millions) and control powers. Registration (universal background checks) would be another entity. Trafficking would be another. Covered up with school safety (how dare anyone deny school safety).
Gun/magazine bans are just smoke to cover the money and power they are really looking to take.
GreyGeek:
--- Quote from: feralcatkillr on March 29, 2013, 07:15:09 PM ---Agencies will always get into "turf wars" to try and wrestle over who has jurisdiction over a certain area of enforcement. It's all about securing budget and expanding the scope of mission.
--- End quote ---
Having worked at a state agency for over a decade I understand turf wars, mission creep and testosterone/progesterone battles. But redundancies are just that, and our government is way to redundant (mission overlap) in way to many areas, and it costs us too much in treasure and liberty. NOAA does NOT need an armed contingent when it could simply get a warrant and/or make a call to the Coast Guard or local police. What usually happens is that they end up calling local law enforcement anyway, and you have half a dozen or more armed individuals pointing firearms at what are usually unarmed and helpless folk ignorant of the particular law they are accused of breaking.
This stuff even happens at the local level, usually forced by unions. We have a 911 ambulance service. We also have a fire department with a strong union. Call 911 here and you always get a race between the ambulance and a fire truck. While the firemen have "some" EMT training and Oxygen equipment, they are NOT equipped to administer IV or drugs, take EKGs, and they do not have a radio link to doctors in the ER. And, the fire truck does not have room on it for a patient on a stretcher. So, we can't reduce the number of firemen nor can we forbid firetrucks from answering 911 calls, but it would save us a ton of money if we could and it wouldn't affect 911 service at all.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version