The Goat Pen

Demon Hunter sounds better anyways

I've been seeing these ads on TV lately. Get a 10K loan in 24 hrs. How in the fuck are these things legal?

https://www.westernsky.com/LandingPages ... =ABWS12800.

You end up paying $64,453.16 for a 10K loan? Fuck that Geronimo.

Stupid taxes are always high.

That goes well beyond a stupid tax.

Why would IB slap a 5 month old baby like that?

remember when I posted the small firearms manufacturer that stopped selling to law enforcement because of the new push to ban weapons?

Well that has caught on - Cheaper than Dirt, York Arms, Magpul and at least 3 others all refuse to sell anything to Law Enforcement that the American public can't purchase themselves. Two of them are planning to leave the state of New York and relocate elsewhere.

Magpul ran this ad today in the Denver Post

meanwhile, this happened

"Federal, non-military agencies, noted radio host Mark Levin last week, have purchased enough ammunition recently to not only shoot every American five times, but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.

The numbers are based on recent reports that put the total federal ammunition buy in the last 10 months at approaching two billion rounds.

“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

What do federal agencies need with all that ammunition?

The government’s only official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans."

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans."

Is there another possible explanation?

10ac wrote:

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans."

Is there another possible explanation?

well, I don't really buy into the idea that they are arming themselves against a public revolt, but I would believe that they anticipated blowback from the election and a push for banning guns resulting in a buying frenzy from the public.

They were caught off guard by Obama's first election and ammo shelves were bare for months afterwards and demand never dropped off. Prices doubled in a 9 month period. You can't buy ammo now in bulk unless you want to pay 20% markup over 2011 prices.

Is there another possible explanation?

How about, typical government waste. How much would 2 billion rounds cost? Who owns stock in the ammo bizness?

THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING!!!!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING!!!!!!

Jungle Rat wrote:THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING!!!!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING!!!!!!

by command of corporate interests

Depends on what stock I own actually

Chicago's police chief is a piece of work

"Chicago’s chief of police can’t seem to avoid controversy over his statements related to gun control.

On a Sunday talk show, as reported by the Illinois State Rifle Association, police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy said that firearm owners who lobby their representatives, or who donate money to political campaigns, for pro-Second Amendment issues are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety.

SEE RELATED: Zero-tolerance policies in schools face backlash in wake of gun violence

The embattled police chief — who previously blamed “government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun-related violence, and who once said the Second Amendment itself was a threat to the nation’s security, according to a report by Red State — also said judges and lawmakers should focus more on public opinion polls when considering constitutional matters, the ISRA reported.

On Sunday, Superintendent McCarthy also said the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow for governments and police agencies to impose mandatory liability insurance requirements on gun owners, and that GPS tracking devices can be lawfully affixed to firearms sold to civilians, according to the ISRA.

ISRA spokespeople hit back.

“Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third-largest police department,” said ISRA executive director Richard Pearson. “What on earth would possess McCarthy to assert that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls?”

Mr. Pearson reminded, in the Red State report, that if public opinion polls were the deciding factors for constitutional law, women may never have received the right to vote.

“It has been said that our Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority,” he said in the Red State report. “McCarthy’s view of our Constitution is dangerous and unbecoming of a civil servant.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2LJCCdPwA
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
"

“What on earth would possess McCarthy to assert that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls?”

I understand what he is saying here, but at the end of the day, the constitution does reflect public opinion. If enough of the public changes their opinion about some part of the constitution, they can change the constitution....

“It has been said that our Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority,”

That sounds good, but see my above statement. The constitution more or less reflects the opinion of the majority, and the majority can always change it irregardless of what the minority thinks or wants...

I don't know - I'm firmly against changing the constitution in light of specific issues that are temporary.

This bigger issue here is not public opinion, but that this man can't do, what he sees as his job as police chief, without the idea that his police force is going to have to be less discriminant in who they shoot.

turns out DHS isn't buying as much ammo as first reported. The request for ammo wasn't read correctly. The number they are actually ordering is significantly lower than reported to the tune of hundred of thousands as opposed to millions.

While DHS carrying weapons at all and having hundreds of thousands of rounds in reserve is a cause for concern, its not at the same level as earlier reported.

Once again the foundations of tyranny tremble before statistics!

Yeah, eCat got to it before I did. Don't let the paranoia run wild...the government is not planning on some protracted (nor short-lived) domestic armed conflict.

It's kind of funny.

"I don't know - I'm firmly against changing the constitution in light of specific issues that are temporary."

Well, considering how few changes have been made to the constitution in the past 230-odd years, I'd say most people share your sentiment. But the fact remains that the constitution is changeable. Sometimes for the better (abolishing slavery), sometimes for the worse (prohibition, although later repealed). All I'm saying is that the 2nd amendment (or any amendment) could be repealed. That wouldn't mean you couldn't own a gun, it would just mean that you didn't have a federally guaranteed right to own a gun. Obviously plenty of states, probably all of them, would immediately put amendments in their state constitutions or at the very least enact laws at the state level that would ensure people in those states could own guns, but just as obviously, if there would be that much support for gun ownership at the state level, it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would ever be repealed...