On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:27:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/29/13 8:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
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.


Salmonbait

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


Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their
lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the
facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is.

I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the
questioning and the time line for release of information to his
questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in
the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual
buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the
term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS
explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their
opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population
stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it....

But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this
stuff, you have to want to know.


Rachel Maddow has a Ph.D in political science from Oxford University.
*You* were socially promoted out of high school. Your lunatic fringe
sources of information are more than just questionable.

Yeah, but she's a lesbian, so that's the end of that.