Tuesday, February 5, 2013


I'll pose the question but I'm not going to spread sedition:

Why exactly does the DHS really need 1.6 billion rounds of handgun ammunition?

For the record, I am for the Rule of Law and I am directly against anyone calling for anything in contradiction to my Oath to defend & uphold the Constitution of the United States. I am not a revolutionary, and anyone calling for insurrection is a dangerous fool. I have seen what these sentiments brought forth in Ireland and in the former Yugoslavia and rest assured WE DO NOT WANT THIS. As bad as things are under the Loonocrats, things are not unrepairable; although granted it will take a long, long time and a lot of hard work to undo the damage. First start is to educate the people - especially the younger generation. - S.L.


. . . do the math. Assume (as an enveloping case) that the DHS consists of 15,000 agents who need yearly qualification. Divide 1.6 billion by 15,000, and you get more than 100,000 rounds of handgun ammunition per agent.

If each qualifying agent shot 1000 rounds per day, he could practice for 100 days at that rate before needing more ammunition. This shooting rate is something nearing equivalence with Marine Infantry and Army Special Forces doing pre-deployment workups for combat.

You do the math.


So why is the government buying all this ammo? Look to history for the answer: the actions at Lexington and Concord were in direct response to British gun control:

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution

Wake up people . . . it's not just a gun grab . . . it's an ammo grab too!

People are talking . . .

A reader recently asked me a situationally based question: How is it that men such as myself . . . being "government property" (reader's words not mine - S.L.) get orders to execute missions - for example Ruby Ridge, and Waco - and when confronted with the reality . . . why don't they walk away purely on moral beliefs?

Answer: First of all those officers engaged in the actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco were law enforcement - NOT military. The Posse Commitatus limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. After the situation developed at Waco, military assets were present - most visible in the final stages of the seige where we witnessed an M1A1 Abrahms Main Battle Tank crashing through the walls of the compound.

Secondly, from the initial stages of my military training we recieved classes on the Law of Land Warfare. It was specifically explained to us what an illegal order is - for example, the killing of noncombatants - and that we not only do not have to obey such orders; it is our duty to REPORT such incidents as we become aware of them.

For the most part I like to regard my Federal Law Enforcement colleagues as peers and offer them all due respect. Waco obviously featured incredibly bad planning and lack of OPSEC from the outset, which in turn alerted David Koresh and his followers that their feared Apocalypse was on the verge of happening. All I can say about Ruby Ridge is the thing must have snowballed out of control and the triggerman seems to have suffered the world's worst case of tunnel vision.

Reminder - these elements are Federal Law Enforcement under Democrat Justice Departments - the same outfit that had the brilliant brainstorm to provide hundreds of assault rifles to the Mexican drug cartels.

I do not trust the current administration one iota, but I have faith that our military would find no ethical dilemma in refusing to obey illegal orders.

What disturbs me are DHS organizations like the TSA - basically errand boys with uniforms, badges and cozy pensions. Those untrained hammerheads are likely to follow any and all orders. I fear the day when the current administration recruits heavily from unemployed union thugs, badges & arms them and sends them out to collect the weapons of the armed citizenry.



  1. I love your blog, Stormbringer, but I need to pick a nit. Best I can tell from the only photo I could find quickly the tanks used were NOT Abrams but M60s (almost certainly A3s by 1993).

    see here: http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

    Those surely do not look like M1 Abrams tanks to me. I don't claim that is important but the few articles I've read claim they are M1A1s.

    1. Thats really weird because I remember watching that final assault on the compound and it was an M1 Abrams. Both the Abrams & the M60 are distinctive, so why the confusion?

      Also - that photo you referenced looks suspiciously touched up - there were no American flags draped off the tank.

      Curiouser & curiouser - cannot find imagery of the final assault, on the web. Hmmm . . .

  2. Why would you fear the day that this administration arms the union thugs? This will push the fence sitters into having to make a decision, either be a sheep or a citizen.


  3. Have a look at the Blog The Drawn Cutless,4th artical down "Why Sheriffs can Defy
    the PRESIDENT" makes for intresting reading.

  4. Hate to pick nits too, but yer both mistaken.

    The vehicle prominently involved @ Waco was a M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. It's an M60 tank chassis with a short range demolition gun and an A-frame up top, along with a dozer blade on the front.

    They used the A-frame to punch holes in Koreshville, and pumped copious amounts of CS in through the holes.

    I don't recall what was tooling around out back out of media sight, possibly a Bradley IFV.

    The videos for the documentary "Rules Of Engagement" should still be kicking around on YouTube, or the 'Net, somewhere. It was w/in the last 6 months, anyway.

    And of course, there were also the yahoos pumping a prodigious number of rounds into the structure from the overflying military TNG Hueys during the initial assault, not to mention a number of officially non-existant short-haircutted NSW and SF guys hanging around at Waco, "advising" and "observing", once things turned into a siege.

    Getting back to the main point, insurrection is a poor choice, given what it will and what it may devolve into. It is absolutely a last resort.

    But as JFK once said, "When you make peaceful change impossible, you make violent change inevitable."

    Our would-be Uberlords are tightening the screws one by one, and if they don't either ease off, wise up, or get kicked out by normal due process in a free republic, the kettle is going to blow, and once it does, there'll be no getting the stew off the walls and back in the pot. Everyone's pressure gauge is running out of room as it is with the AWB nonsense, and only the saving grace that it's likely to die an unlamented legislative death is keeping things relatively calm at the moment.

    And 6 weeks later, the dearth of physical evidence and documentation behind the official line of what happened at Sandy Hook is beginning to push the credibility meter over to the BS side with every passing day.

  5. You need to dig deeper into the purchase by DHS. The first DHS contact was for the purchase of up to 450 million round over a 5 year period. The contract was updated to 650 to 750 million round over a 5 year period. Thus some have taken both numbers and combined them to create this 1 billion plus rounds. How these contracts work,any other federal .gov can also purchase under the terms of the contract at the agreed price. State and local agency can also purchase under the same term contract as well. The bottom line is they have the option to purchase up to that amount over 5 years,but it does not mean they will.

    From a Republican House member on the purchase of ammunition by DHS:

    Oh on a side note about the Sheriffs saying they will not enforce any federal gun ban. News alert local and state LEO do not currently enforce any federal laws. Their state have to pass laws that refelect federal laws such as the current drug laws and current gun laws. So if a state does not pass any new gun laws than there is nothing for the Sheriffs to enforce. It is really as simple as that. The Supreme Court has already rule on this where they have said congress can not compel a state to enforce federal law and regulations under Printz v. U.S.(1997).