Robert, I see all the time that there are alarmists in every group. Some of it may be attributable to insufficient education and ability to understand what they're reading sufficiently, while it can also be attributed to an aggressive personality. Reading 'between the lines' is common with people on opposite sides of the fence, but one must be careful of what they perceive to be there that actually isn't.
Like you, I too trained in multiple scenarios, many dealing with civilians. In reading through this document, I too find that most, if not all of it, is not an impending methodology to deal with a perceived immediate threat against Americans. The fact that it exists is good to know so far as our military prepared to deal with many different scenarios.
I also came to the same conclusion as far as the government purchases of arms and ammo. On the surface of those 'reports', it was alarming, but if taken in context, it's basically the same as when I was active deputy sheriff. Regular 'qualifying' at the range was the norm, and often took 20 or more rounds per officer to meet the requirements of accuracy. Multiply that times an average of 60 officers, twice a year, times at least an average 100 LEO agencies in every state, and you get an average 1,200,000 rounds fired just in practice nation wide. And I'm sure the actual number is quite higher. Add to that, the average 3 10 round mags every LEO is required to have on their person and the number gets quite huge! Then you can add for the times justified fire is done. No, those actual purchase numbers are quite reasonable. The fact that they're HP rounds isn't that surprising either. HP's generally stop trajectory when they hit, lessening the risk of unintended damage or injuries to bystanders. I also remember that many other deputies regularly went to the ranges at least once a month for working on various types of quick response to confront shooting perps.
Robert, do you have links to substantiate the Chinese purchases of brass?
I agree with your comments and, I must admit that my remarks on what is and is not a reasonable quantity of practice ammunition is colored by my own experiences. There was a time in my misspent youth when I regularly fired between 300 and 500 practice rounds per day. Therefore, a lot of practice ammunition to me is different than the norm; one tends to forget. On a normal civilian basis, I still shoot probably an average of 500 to 600 per year minimum. At least I did as long as I could buy ammunition. Things are truly getting scarce around here. Where 500 rounds of 9 MM went for about a hundred bucks not too many months ago, the price now boggles the mind, assuming you can find them for sale. Ah well... One of the things I've been thinking would be a good idea would be for the NRA to offer to provide armed protection at schools. With the number of qualified (military or trained civilian) members available, one would only have to serve a couple of times in each school year. I think enough volunteers would be available to do it pro-bono. I know I would do it. Be nice if they would furnish practice ammunition to the volunteers -- and it would certainly provide a viable use for all those DHS bullets that are worrying folks.
Take care all, this is my last posting on this topic. Words on other, similar subjects available on (I'll get it right this time) http://veteransvent.wordpress.com
Robert, I looked at parts of this document (I am not a military person- so maybe I should not have seen it?) I saw where it says for military distribution only- so I will not pass this on.
I remember that there were ads asking for people who would work at facilities a few years ago.
Could the FEMA camps be real, and are they being readied for chaos to come- economic collapse of the dollar?
George Soros is buying a lot of gold. There was a post on Commieblaster about it.
I am scared! I have mentioned the buying of lots of bullets by DHS to a few congressmen and my concern.
We do have Communists in our government right now. This document talks about Geneva Convention, how detainees are to be treated - looks like they will let us take a shower! Don't like the strip searching.
I am reading a book called "They Fired the First Shot" and I highly recommend it. I am just getting to the part where they mention the power of the county sheriff, that we could use to help protect us. (Interestingly, the book points out that the power of the sheriff dates back to 800 AD in England, where they had groups of families, and by 1000, they had shires, and at that point they not only had a "Reeve" (chief) for each 100 families, but had a "Shire Reeve" for the group of villages that formed the shire.)
I have no doubts that FEMA camps are either real or planned in the future. Mostly, they are to be used for folks displaced by natural disasters (a pirmary FEMA mission, as I understand it). The thought, again as I understand it, is to have something readily available to avoid the situation like Katrina with the trailers that had to be moved in and set up or the pilgrimages to other cities who were equally unprepared to handle the crowds.
There is an honest need to be very worried about the US economy, IMHO. Whether or not Soros (an alfa-hotel, if there ever was one, joined by any number of our current leadership) is buying gold is interesting, but not particularly relevant. The fact that the Fed is printing money that is not backed by anything solid is what will really destroy us when coupled with a federal government that is spending 40% more than it has available. I won't argue nomenclature -- to me, progressive, socialist, etc. all mean basically the same thing. I am for the Constitutional Republic and firmly believe that, if we would simply abide by the Constitution (and force Congress to live within the constraints of Article I, Section 8, plus the first 10 Amendments) most of the problems would simply go away. Be difficult to implement -- my method would be to repeal the most recent laws that were not justified by the Constitution (and the agencies that were created to implement them) and work backward through the long list. Others probably would have a different approach, but I'm pretty sure mine would work.
i agree w/ both robert & bill... however, it's difficult not to be paranoid based no the current administration... i would never have thought the military would change as negatively as it has over the past several years... just look at what is & what isn't allowed (homosexuality, God, etc...). and now they're taking away promises to the military, under the guise of other things (e.g. TRICARE prime; tuition assistance)... what's next? 100% gutting? the chiefs of staff are falling all over themselves trying to outdo one another in order to please obama (they're starting to look like boehner, mccain & grahamnesty).
i remember back when bush was president; and the patriot act was passed... i had a couple of discussions w/ my son (a liberal), and an old friend (anti-war); that i didn't care if they (govt) listened in on my phone conversations... there was nothing to worry about as long as u kept your nose clean... what i didn't understand at the time was: elections have consequences... and, i didn't have a clue that socialism/marxism/communism was just around the corner; and it could all be turned against me (course, i also didn't know i was a conservative at the time either; that was all "post-obama").
i think we all need to be aware of what is out there; and although it might have not been a concern under other presidents; it should be of great concern under this imposter.
We are getting pretty far afield, but you are absolutely correct about the changes in the military. As I was taught, my job was to fly and fight -- it was not "social engineering" or "nation building". The current administration, based on their actions, detests the military. They don't understand it or what it takes to do the job the military is asked to accomplish. I wrote about this (using the Benghazi debacle) on this site as well as on the www.wordpress.veteransvent.com blog. You (and others) can find input from me and the gentleman who initiated this blog there. Hopefully, you would find it interesting and informative.
I do not believe any reduction in the "inalienable rights" is defensible. As I have said in earlier replies, I believe strongly in and have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Any attack on the core elements of that document by any elected official is, to me, at best malfeasance. It is, in my mind, an impeachable offense for any member of the Legislative or Executive Branch to pass or sign into law any proposed legislation that is not fully justified in Article 1, Section 8, as further limited by the Bill of Rights. Obviously, the majority of Americans do not agree with that point of view. Proof? The last election.
Sorry Twana, I wrote it backward. The correct cite is:
That one will work.
Robert, I must disagree about a majority not agreeing, as the astounding proof of voting fraud has shown that 'hussein' didn't win, it was stolen through multiple cases of fraud and violations of election rules.
There is no question that impeachment is far more than qualified at this point, and not just for 'hussein'.