DHS BUYS Another 360,000 rounds of ammo!! Trucks on the move

[NMRMN]

----
Keep calm, and carry on.

Yes, yes...

Again: Why can't the DHS issue an official statement and respond directly to the congressional inquiry to clarify this themselves?

..if there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

[JohnGageMN]

----
Keep calm, and carry on.

Yes, yes...

Again: Why can't the DHS clarify this themselves? I have heard these sorts of explanations too, about the contracts and procurement process... Why can't the the DHS say it?

..if there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

DUDE, READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE!

Then feel free to remove your head from your posterior.

[User4k]

Would the Millitarytimes.com ever publish anything that questions the motives of the Federal Government? I doubt it.

[NMRMN]

DUDE, READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE!

Then feel free to remove your head from your posterior.

Yes, yes...

Again: Why can't the DHS issue an official statement and respond directly to the congressional inquiry to clarify this themselves?

..if there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

[JohnGageMN]

Would the Millitarytimes.com ever publish anything that questions the motives of the Federal Government? I doubt it.

Really? Military Times is a privately held company, it has no zero affiliation with the US government.

Even if you fail to believe that, there is no doubt that people who have dealt with government procurement contracts (I have) have added a bunch of insight in that article that isn't present anywhere else. Of course, it isn't as fashionable to deal with actual facts when one can just spout off any bull-honkey they want about a subject they know not one iota about.

[JohnGageMN]

DUDE, READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE!

Then feel free to remove your head from your posterior.

Yes, yes...

Again: Why can't the DHS issue an official statement and respond directly to the congressional inquiry to clarify this themselves?

..if there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

And now I realize I'm in a battle of wits against an unarmed man. Enjoy parroting your bull, since clearly you don't have the ability to read anything longer than three sentences that isn't had fed to you.

[NMRMN]

DUDE, READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE!

Then feel free to remove your head from your posterior.

Yes, yes...

Again: Why can't the DHS issue an official statement and respond directly to the congressional inquiry to clarify this themselves?

..if there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

And now I realize I'm in a battle of wits against an unarmed man. Enjoy parroting your bull, since clearly you don't have the ability to read anything longer than three sentences that isn't had fed to you.

I'm afraid you are confused. YOU are the one parroting the Military times, which however great and even possibly correct a source, IS NOT THE DHS.

[JohnGageMN]

I'm afraid you are confused. YOU are the one parroting the Military times, which however great and even possibly correct a source, IS NOT THE DHS.

As I said before: Oh and wait, it DOES look like DHS has responded. I guess they didn't say what fed into your conspiracy theories though, so that doesn't count then?

Again, maybe you should try actually reading the article. In it, you'll find out that an official DHS spokesperson has issued statements about this. If you have difficulty understanding the big words just ask for help.

[NMRMN]

Here’s what a DHS spokesperson had to say about that:

“One solicitation under Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) has a contract ceiling of UP TO 750 million rounds of training ammunition, a maximum quantity allowing FLETC flexibility over the next 5 years for training of over 90 federal agencies. A separate 5-year department-wide contract allows the purchase of UP TO 450 million rounds of duty ammunition for our law enforcement officers and agents. This contract is intended to be used by all DHS components, except the U.S. Coast Guard, who uses U.S. Department of Defense ammo contracts. This contract is part of the Department’s strategic sourcing efforts to combine multiple previous contracts in order to leverage the purchasing power of the entire Department to efficiently procure equipment and supplies at significantly lower costs.”

vs.

They aren't happy with explanations provided so far in the press by lower-level officials, answers meant to debunk "unfounded" concerns.

Again, JohnGageMN, you are confused. An "Unnamed lower level official 'press response'" is not the same thing as an official statement or response directly to the congressional inquiry. Your absolute unwillingness to accommodate any level of skepticism about what the government tells you is more than a little disturbing... No drones that we know of, remember?

[JohnGageMN]

Again, JohnGageMN, you are confused. An "Unnamed lower level official 'press response'" is not the same thing as an official statement or response directly to the congressional inquiry. Your absolute unwillingness to accommodate any level of skepticism about what the government tells you is more than a little disturbing... No drones that we know of, remember?

Oh and wait, it DOES look like DHS has responded. I guess they didn't say what fed into your conspiracy theories though, so that doesn't count then.

[NMRMN]

Again, JohnGageMN, you are confused. An "Unnamed lower level official 'press response'" is not the same thing as an official statement or response directly to the congressional inquiry.

Oh and wait, it DOES look like DHS has responded.

Link please.

[JohnGageMN]

Link please.

Oh and wait, it DOES look like DHS has responded. I guess they didn't say what fed into your conspiracy theories though, so that doesn't count then.

http://nation.foxnews.com/dhs-ammunitio ... n-purchase
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... n-purchase
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... sing-many/
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscou ... worry-you/
http://westmoreland.house.gov/index.php ... Itemid=372
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... ition.aspx
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 ... y-bullets/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 ... purchases/

[NMRMN]

This is the sort of response I am looking for:

A letter, directed to a congressmen that had previously inquired of the DHS--
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//in ... 65bd69fecb

...numbers and explanations--
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//in ... 45c21519c2

I look forward to more inquiry and transparency from the DHS on the subject.

Questions remain about the terms of the contracts that the DHS has been thus unwilling to answer: Under what circumstances do they foresee the need to aquire up to 2 billion rounds of ammunition? Have their contracts always allowed for such large purchases? Indeed, it is possible to legally secure a source of huge amounts of ammunition without actually purchasing for immediate delivery. In the end, it is the same thing.

Being skeptical of government and demanding transparency is not conspiratorial -- it is a good thing. On the other hand, mindlessly swallowing whatever is told to you demonstrates extreme naiveté. "No drones here", remember?

[damian_mb]

john prob works for the feds.

I guess all of the sudden the gov't wants our guns banned, but yet they have contracts for 2 billion rounds.....I guess 2+2 doesn't really equal 4 anymore.

BTW looking at your lovely links they never responded, they denied it, basically calling everyone "crazy". Again 2+2 = 5


move along folks.....nothing to see here!

[Heffay]

john prob works for the feds.

I guess all of the sudden the gov't wants our guns banned, but yet they have contracts for 2 billion rounds.....I guess 2+2 doesn't really equal 4 anymore.

BTW looking at your lovely links they never responded, they denied it, basically calling everyone "crazy". Again 2+2 = 5


move along folks.....nothing to see here!