Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?

							Why is government stockpiling guns,
ammo?
by Joseph Farah
02-03-13

Is the U.S. government getting ready for a
war we don’t know about?
And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling
massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points,
by the way), why is Homeland Security doing
the buying instead of the Defense Department?
I have some theories.
Many of you will remember a story I broke a
long time ago – about presidential candidate
Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement
that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a
“civilian national security force” as big, as
strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.
Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely
on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a
civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Want to make sure you and your family are fully protected? Check out our self-defense section in
WND’s Superstore.
Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of
Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?
We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review:
    • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to
      the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while
      others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign.
      That was strange – and ominous.
    • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before.
      But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then
      Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted
      that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when
      that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight.
    • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be
      something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”
We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.
But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland
                                                                                  Security – firearms and
                                                                                  ammo that Obama would
                                                                                  like to deny to ordinary
                                                                                  citizens who are not
                                                                                  members of his domestic
                                                                                  army.
                                                                                  Well, I hate to say it, but
                                                                                  I may have predicted
                                                                                  this, too.
                                                                                  In a Halloween column
                                                                                  last fall, I stated that, if
                                                                                  re-elected, Obama would
                                                                                  “declare a full-scale war
                                                                                  on his domestic
                                                                                  opposition.”
                                                                                 I wasn’t joking. I was
                                                                                 deadly serious – so
serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matter
of self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we would
never see another free and fair election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) I
suggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would move
to shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics would
eventually be rounded up in the name of national security.
Think about it.
Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?
This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.
This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.
So why does Homeland Security
need so many weapons and
enough hollow-point rounds to
plug every American six times?
Maybe this is the “civilian
national security force that’s just
as powerful, just as strong, just as
well-funded” as the Defense
Department.

These words – “civilian national
security force” – have haunted me
ever since I first read them.
Obama has never explained what
he meant.
He’s never been called to account
for that remark.
Doesn’t this sound like
police-state talk to you?
The U.S. Army alone
has nearly 500,000
troops. That doesn’t
count reserves or
National Guard. In
2007, the U.S. defense
budget was $439
billion. No one knows
what the budget is today
because Congress
stopped passing budgets
when Obama took
office.
Is Obama serious about
creating some kind of
domestic security force
bigger and more
expensive than that? Is
this part of his second-
term agenda?
He has also set up, as I
have reported, a new
homeland security
bureaucracy to operate
under his own direction.
I think it’s worth
recalling here that just
over a year ago both
houses of Congress
unwisely passed the
defense reauthorization
bill that killed the
concept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrest
and indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.
That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government
– constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.
If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights
activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term
under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.
The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy the
opposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.
Anti-Gunners’ Wish List: Ban Private Gun
Sales, Ban Gun, Ban Magazine
ammoland.com
February 2, 2013




While banning guns and magazines is being actively promoted by the anti-gunners (as evidenced
by introduction of Sen. Feinstein’s S. 150), the criminalization of private firearm transfers is the
centerpiece of their anti-Second Amendment efforts.
This is part of a strategy to chip away at our Second Amendment rights under the guise of being
“reasonable.”
But if you understand exactly what the anti-gunners are really talking about, you’ll understand that the
restrictions they’re proposing are anything but reasonable.
While we don’t know the final form this legislation will take, these checks no doubt would require
background checks for firearm transfers between lifelong friends, and maybe even between family
members. It would also be a step toward national gun registration. As we mentioned in an article last
week, “universal” background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade,
gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals, minus whatever exceptions our
opponents will stand for.
      Does anyone really think that these checks will be conducted between drug dealers on a
      Chicago street corner or gang members in an L.A. alley? Of course not. You know
      that’s ridiculous and so do the anti-gun politicians, but they don’t care.

And where and how would these personal checks be done? Would you and your friend, or grandson, or
mother have to drive to some government office at the state capital? Or travel several hours to the
government-approved, federally licensed dealer in another part of your state? What happens when the
instant check system isn’t functioning? How will the government monitor and enforce these checks?
Obviously, this proposal raises more questions
than it answers.
Furthermore, “universal” background checks
are unnecessary.
It is already a federal felony to be engaged in
the business of buying and selling firearms
without having a federal dealer’s license. It is
already a crime for a federally licensed dealer
to sell a gun without doing a background
check–that’s all dealers, everywhere, whether
at retail stores or gun shows. Further, it is
already a federal felony to sell, trade, give,
lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you
know or should know is not legally allowed to
own, purchase or possess a firearm.
It is even a federal felony to submit false
information on a background check form for
the purpose of purchasing a firearm, though
Vice President Biden does not think it’s worth
the government’s time to prosecute these
criminal acts.
NRA does NOT support “universal”
background checks and will continue to
oppose, “universal” background checks and registration schemes. We do believe that records of those
who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts
them in this category) ought to be included in the federal instant check system.

                                                   Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators and
                                                   tell them to oppose “universal” background check
                                                   legislation AND S. 150, Sen. Feinstein’s gun and
                                                   magazine ban. To identify and contact your elected
                                                   officials in Washington, D.C., use the “Write Your
                                                   Reps” feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can
                                                   reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-
                                                    224-3121.

                                                   5 Guns to buy before a potential ban VIDEO
                                                   BELOW
                                                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?
                                                   feature=player_embedded&v=Y88VNIeNSZo
Poll: 53% Say Govt Threatens Freedoms
Ben Shapiro
breitbart.com
February 2, 2013


According to a new Pew Research poll,
Americans are increasingly worried about
the federal government violating their
rights. The survey, conducted January 9-
13, showed that 53 percent of Americans
believe that the federal government
“threatens their own personal rights and
freedoms,” with 43 percent disagreeing.
That is a significant uptick from March
2010, when just 47 percent said that the
government threatened their freedom,
with 50 percent disagreeing.
Republicans are largely responsible for that
increase; 76 percent of Republicans say that
the federal government threatens freedoms,
and 54 percent said the federal government was a “major” threat. That was up from 62 percent and 47
percent, respectively.
Independents agree with Republicans; 55 percent say the government represents a threat, and 33
percent say it represents a major threat.
Amazingly, minorities trust the government more than whites do; just 20 percent of whites trust the
government to do the right thing always or most of the time, but 38 percent of blacks and 44 percent of
Hispanics do.
Just 26 percent of those polled say that Washington will do the right thing always or the majority of the
time.
But while President Obama continues to complain about the governmental system, stating that it makes
for gridlock, the American people think that the problem lies with their legislators. A full 56 percent of
those polled say that the governmental system can work; just 32 percent say that lawmakers are trying
to do the right thing, but are hamstrung by the system.
Overall, Americans know that the Constitution still works. And they still believe that government is the
greatest threat to their rights. As the Obama administration expands the size and scope of government,
so too do they expand the threat to those rights.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book “Bullies: How the Left’s
Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).



http://www.infowars.com/