On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:58:51 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way
things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

---------------------------------------

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all"
the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to
outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's
not all BS.


---------------------------------------------

I have no desire to get into a ****ing contest with Scott. He has a
habit of going into damage control mode following some post he makes
that people take exception to. In this case, the thread was about
the current ammunition shortage. He responds with, "Why do you
think DHS is buying up *all* the ammo, some 1.6 billion" .....
insinuating that *that* is the reason for the shortage. He then
provides a link to an article that doesn't support his statement at
all. Yes, the DHS is buying up to 1.6 billion rounds over the next 4
to 5 years, but that is *not* what has caused the current shortage, as
the article points out.

But now he's focusing on the 1.6 billion purchase as being the subject
of the thread. Whew.




OK. ok.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.