I agree 100%. Unless SCOTUS acts to incorporate the 2A the states can do more to infringe than the feds can.opaww said:From what it feels like right now we got more to worry about from state and local governing bodies trying to restrict our rights then we have fears of the feds doing a lot of things. But this is not out of the question with the feds and I would not put it past them to do just this.
I can tell you without doubt that there has never in history been a military like the U.S. military.Maybe I misunderstood the purpose of your quote but I can tell you for damn sure the military is not and has never been ,in the entire history of mankind, the best defense against a tyrannical government.
DHS has around 200,000 employees and I'm fairly certain a large percentage of those people are office employees, both men and women, secretaries, management etc. That would leave a substantially lesser amount of their work force that are "field agents", most likely a third at best. This chart is sort of interesting on the structure of the DHS and it's child agencies.And whadda ya think they'll do with it??
Does homeland security have enough "troops" to take on the public and the military???
I agree with the first three words of your last paragraph. You, locutus, 70cuda383, and nitestalker are naive.someone said that the new buying spree by the government was because the previous ammo contracts had run out and it was time to renew said contracts and buy more ammo.
anyone know any real insight to this?
do we have any members who ARE law enforcement officers at local, state, or federal levels?
I had heard that the military was increasing it's periodic qualifications and eating up more ammo stateside. If this is true on the USAF side, I can tell you that it's about damn time, becuase for the last 10 years, they've had a "just in time" training mentality, where you could have some career fields that would go 2 or 3 years without deploying to an actual hot zone especially when you consider that the support structure for a lot of the heavy cargo aircraft, long range bomber aircraft etc. would be stationed in locations that were outside of combat zones.
I know too many dead people because of this idiotic and retarded practice of "saving time by eliminating wasteful training until just before it's needed" and we send people into war zones having only fired 30 practice rounds in 5 years, and then expect them to drive around in convoys and work side by side with Afghans and Iraqi's who are known to turn their US Issues weapons against the advisors that gave them the guns.
so on that token, If the military IS suddenly eating more ammo to train our men and women going into harms way, I'm all for it, even if it means that I have to wait a few months before I can buy ammo at wal-mart again. (I don't know if that's the case because I'm out now, but I can say that in my last few years in, they were pushing for more and more "just in time" training, where you don't get any of the combat skills refreshers while stateside, until a month before you deploy, and we're sending IT techs, Finance personnel, Supply troops, etc. into combat zones with minimal training)
Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't buy into the whole "evil government, out to get you, turn us into a 3rd world country with military rule" conspiracies I keep hearing and reading about on the 'net.
I agree with the first three words of your last paragraph. You, locutus, and nitestalker are naive.
Most of the necessary implements to sunder the rights of the Citizens of the US are already in place.
All it needs is one event to set it in motion.
That event is when the 'progressive liberals' take over control of the congress from the republicans in less than two years while maintaining control of the senate and white house.Good thing you have your tin foil hat then, huh!