Let the conversation begin.
I have two questions:
- First, if we can trust the LSM's Federal use of training ammo stats, they didn't just order 5 years worth of ammo in a "strategic purchase" for their Glynco training center, they just ordered over 100 years' worth. To be fair, Glynco isn't the only Federal training site, but I'm willing to bet that it DOES consume the lion's share of the purchases. Glynco is the Big Dog of Federal (non-military) training facilities. If I had the time or the inclination, I could probably find the Federal procedures manual that says how much ammo each Glynco basic trainee uses up. With me, when I changed from revolver to pistol back in the late 80's, it was 1,000 rounds allocated, then a yearly practice and qualifying amount of 200 rounds minimum. In any case, 1.6 billion rounds is probably well in excess of the 5 years' "strategic supply" for the entire Federal ammo usage.
- If we take the article at it's word, which means assuming that all Federal newbies go through Glynco, and they all require 1,000 rounds for basic familiarization, 15 million rounds per year means that they have somewhere under 150,000 Federal trainees. Let's assign a third of that ammo for proficiency maintenance for the trainers, and that's still 100,000 training slots to fill per year. You play with the stats any way you want, and the figure just jumps off the page at you: the Feds are training in the high tens of thousands of NEW officers a year at Glynco, or, they are supplying the ammo for a lot of local police forces. My connections tell me tha the locals still have to budget for and buy ammo, so it would appear that the Feds actually use up all that training ammo training their own people. So why, this Constitution-minded blogger wants to know, do the Feds think that they need a Standing Army of Federal Police (a concept unknown until about a generation ago), and that Standing Army has to be the size that this one seems to be.
Those two questions lead to an obvious, and for the AssPress' information, NOT paranoid conclusion. A pair of them, actually: The Feds have decided, without ANY "national discussion", to have a large Federal Police Force. The Founders didn't decide that, and in fact, preventing the formation of such a large armed Federal force was why they gave us the Second Amendment. The second is that the conservative talk show host referred to in the article has it right: with this ammo buy, the Feds are absolutely controlling the marketplace for ammunition. If you read this blog much, you know that I have previously said that Gun control would come from Ammo control, and now it has: there is no ammo on store shelves and none in the pipeline, either. The gun-o-sphere is just beginning to wake up to this fact. We snoozed and we lost.
Joe Huffman taught me to ask the One Big Question. In the case of this ammo fiasco, the One Big Question is: Since this sort of market manipulation is illegal in all other commodities, how did the Feds manage to assert a total right of priority in the ammo market? Put it this way, if that's NOT extra-Constitutional, what, pray tell, would be?
This question of market manipulation REQUIRES further investigation, and the House of Representatives is where that should happen. When Big Oil even suggests it might be manipulating the price of petroleum products, Congress jumps right in to have a look-see and strangely enough, the product prices usually start to drop. Would you bet that ammo would start to flow if the Congress found that the Feds ARE manipulating the ammo supply?
If you made that bet, the fool and his money would soon be parted.