So, Obama's Dept of Homeland Security wants our Police Departments to be without ammo? - Granite Grok

So, Obama’s Dept of Homeland Security wants our Police Departments to be without ammo?

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

– President Obama, Colorado, July 2, 2008

When he first uttered those words, it seemed that only a few of us on the Right read those words and went “WHAT?”.  After all, we were starting to learn about his connections to the New Left and other people holding Progressive to Marxist philosophies (what, like there’s much of a difference?).  At the time, many on the Left, trying to be Obama apologists, went on and on about the intent was to increase programs like Vista and Americorps….and then it went dead.  Then Gabby Gifford, Aurora, and Sandy Hook hit.

For quite some time, civilian shooters were finding ammo and guns hard to get – first, thinking that an incipient gun ban was going to be pushed through during Obama’s first term and then again near and right after November’s election, with people truly believing that NOW he would start his ban.  After all, Progressives have this visceral hatred of both guns – and people who believe they have the right to defend themselves.  After all, their reasoning goes, we all give up certain Rights to Government to have a government and they believe that one of them is our fundamental Right to defend ourselves, families, and property.   As debra Saunders at Real Clear Politics puts it:

There’s a culture clash at play here between people who want to take control of their self-protection and those who want to leave it to the government. “We are our own first responders,” NRA instructor Bill Hodges announced as he drilled participants on gun safety. Never put your finger on the trigger unless you’re ready to fire. Then he brandished an old photo of Feinstein at a press event holding an AK-47 and ignoring that rule.

Most of us would be OK with those that wish to turn over their Right to the Government but the Progressives wish to TAKE that right away – a big difference.  Certainly since Sandy Hook, Progressives might as well have been riding a solid rocket booster, so high and so quickly they have been convinced that this will be their time to start the disarming of the population.  After all, they will LOVE (once they get over their petty notion of natural rights) the fact that they won’t have to worry their pretty little heads about being protected.

However, they have been successful only at the State level where Democrats controlled government; at the national level, they seem to be sputtering.  Of all of the measures that “piped up” and got ink space, the most famous one by Diane Feinstein that severely restrictive modern sporting rifles, is going now where.  The so called Universal Background Check (more on that in another post) seems to be more likely to pass, along with enhancing the process of including criminal and mental health records into the NICS background system.  No, not everything is being done in public, on C-Span, or in the committee rooms – there are plenty of backroom handshakes going on, I’m sure.  But at least it would be done in a Legislative manner (sorta, even if that “sorta” is kinda sideways).

It seems, however, that there is a growing concern that Obama’s Administration is implementing a de facto gun ban?  Certainly there is panic buying by shooters to get the firearms that they believe would be forced off the market by Progressives believing that the Proper Role of Government is to provide Security and Safety OVER Constitutional Freedoms.  But what good is a razor blade holder without razor blades?  Or guns without ammo?

Shelves are bare, online sites are out of stock – and stories keep swirling that DHS keeps buying more and more ammo – a billion plus rounds.  Progressives must be laughing like fools in seeing we bitter clingers leaving gun stores empty handed as the Government is (and continues in)  buying up all the ammo stocks – with our tax monies.  Keep it all off the shelf and those millions of buck spent on new firearms are as useful as new cars with without gas.  They have, by one accounting, enough to fight our current wars for 25 years – this in a Department that is supposed to be strictly internal to the US (er, that’s what Homeland Defense means, right?).  Sure, some “explanations” have been given but none have really been acceptable or, at times, even make sense (really, hollow point for training purposes?  Even Congress can’t even get answers:

Fifteen members of Congress have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition. We’d like to know too.

Freshman California Republican Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House colleagues, who signed on to his March 5 letter, are asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain why it is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition of various calibers. They aren’t happy with explanations provided so far in the press by lower-level officials, answers meant to debunk “unfounded” concerns.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” LaMalfa wrote in the letter.

While lower-level officials talk to the press, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano apparently doesn’t want to tell Congress herself the reasons for these purchases.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse answer that,” Congressman Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kan.) told reporters recently, adding, “They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions.”

But is Obama all THAT willing to push his ideological bent for disarmament for the population to make local Police departments suffer as well?  I guess the answer is (to continue in a conspiracy tone here), if he is creating his own civilian security force, yes, he is (otherwise he’d be tell Big Sis to take away all the PO forms fro the DHS buyers.  In the mean time, there’s this from The Blaze:

 Okla. Police Chief: Ammo Shortage So Bad Some Departments Are Cutting Amount of Bullets in Guns, Even Bartering

An Oklahoma police department is saying it is taking donations and coming up with other innovative ways to get their hands on necessary supplies that it can’t seem to afford or that it cannot find in stock at this time.

KJRH reported Jenks Police Department Chief Cameron Arthur saying some departments are bartering for supplies and even cutting down on the number of bullets loaded in firearms to stretch stocks.

“Most police departments are having a very difficult time even getting the necessary ammunition for handguns, shotguns and especially rifles,” Arthur said. “With the delay in ammunition, some departments are limiting the number of rounds they carry in their handgun because of the shortage of ammunition. We get to the point where it is difficult to have enough ammo to train and also equip the officers.”

I was talking with a Police Chief today  and he said the same thing.  I guess that there is an outfit down in NJ that has all or part of the NH State ammo purchase contract and he calls them when he needs to re-order (mostly for training).  He related that most of the time he gets a “sure, it’ll arrive in a coupla few weeks”.  This last time, a week or so ago, he got an entirely different answer when he went to re-stock:

“Er, I have no idea when I can fill that order.”

This is what Obama has wrought(with a supporting  Academy awards to NY Gov. Andrew “oopsies-no 7 round mags??” Cuomo, US Senators Diane Feinstein and Chucky Schumer and an honorable mentions to the Colorado and Washington State legislatures).  Do they really want this as an outcome, or is this merely their version of political collateral damage in achieving their political end game (staying with the conspiracy vein)?  After all, for the guy that called the murdered Benghazi Ambassador Stevens , the State Dept IT guy, and the two formal SEALs “a bump in the road”, would this be all that much of a stretch?

You know, I do not support the ongoing militarization of local police forces, but I do want them to have the material to do their jobs.  With progressives at the elm of this misguided path of “We know what is best for you – no rounds for ANY of you!”, I cannot wait for hordes of them to rue their ways when the real criminals (who do have access to what they want) decide to go and , as Progressives are wont to say, make their brand of politics up close and personal.

Occam’s Razor says to eliminate all the reasons that don’t make sense – and what remains should be the real one.  All I can say to that in this case is “Yikes”!

>