Ammo For Sale

« « Mass shooting you didn’t hear about | Home | Separate but equal » »

Why are federal bureaucracies stockpiling ammo?

Because the everyone gets a SWAT team! And, you know, to save money.

Meanwhile, blogs pointing out that the SSA is buying ammo is somehow a conspiracy theory.

12 Responses to “Why are federal bureaucracies stockpiling ammo?”

  1. TIM Says:

    Getting ready for the shut down of Social Security?

  2. MAJ Mike Says:

    The close of the current Fiscal Year comes at the end of September. Could be that un-obligated funds are being expended for ammunition that could be transferred to Homeland Security, the IRS, FBI or the armed forces after 1 October.

    What say y’all?

  3. emdfl Says:

    Maybe,MAJ, but in the old days when I worked at Foggy Bottom, if there was $$ unspent at the end of the fiscal quarter, it got spent on things like upgrading computers or $600 desk chairs and such..

  4. Jerry Says:


  5. John A Says:

    The alterbative to SSA and others having a few armed people (work it out, looks like about four per State) is to have field workers submit requests to other Fed/State/Local agencies for armed support. And if I were sent out to investigate, or serve a warrant for something like SS fraud, I might well want armed backup or at least a firearm (and training). Response to such requests would probably be somewhat less than prompt, and a strain on smaller agencies such as local police.

    Yes, even the Post Office (USPS) has armed investigators.

    The first artivle I saw on this also mentioned Weather Bureau, I hace since heartd this was an error it was one of the Wildlife (or fisheries?) agencies.

  6. Crotalus Says:

    Can you say “WAR!” against American citizens? I knew you could!

  7. comatus Says:

    “Even” the post office? The Inspection Service is older than the revenue cutters FFS, and half the size it was a decade ago. Let’s try to keep our tinfoil on straight, shall we? We sure have a lot of different IG departments, all of a sudden. What up with that?

    If this issue does no more than publicize the plight of commercial fishermen, we win. Somebody’s pet agency needs the gaff-hook, judiciously and expeditiously applied. The same fish are being taken by the Canadians and Portuguese. Think it matters, to the fish?

  8. Ron W Says:

    SSA buying ammo would be a conspiracy fact, that is, if more than one person planned and carried out the action which is quite likely.

  9. Bubblehead Les Says:

    I really don’t know what would be worse. The current situation were there are over 200 Armed Federal LEO Agencies, or just ONE Big One.

    What am I thinking!? ONE Big Agency would be better!? Yeah, that’ll be more efficient, but that would also leave Law Enforcement in the hands of someone like Obama or Biden or Hillary…..

    Oh Wait. It is that way now. Never Mind.

  10. Jake Says:

    The alterbative to SSA and others having a few armed people (work it out, looks like about four per State) is to have field workers submit requests to other Fed/State/Local agencies for armed support.

    Or, maybe, if they have reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, they can contact the FBI, and let them do the investigating.

    Just like Joe Shopowner would be expected to call the local PoPo if he suspected that Employee Sumdood was skimming cash from the register, the Social Insecurity Administration or Dept. of Mis-Education should call in their local police (i.e., the FBI) rather than investigating on their own.

  11. Sigivald Says:

    John A: No error, quite. It was NOAA, and they, for historical/political reasons, do fishery enforcement, and on the high seas. Should they, in an ideal world? Probably not. But they do, now.

    Same top-level organization as the NWS, but different branch of the org chart.

    I want the guys boarding trespassing trawlers to have sidearms, myself, no matter whose org chart they’re on.

    Jake: Problem is, the FBI has no expertise with every part of the Federal law. Whereas, say, SSA investigators can know the relevant parts of the law that tehy actually have to enforce, backwards and forwards.

    Be better if there was less – and less stupid – law to require such enforcement, but with things as they stand, I really think that specialists are going to do better at it. And I’d rather have competence spread out than incompetence specialized.

    (The FBI isn’t especially incompetent now, doing their various jobs that they sub-specialize in. Make them responsible for every bit of Federal Law Enforcement and they’d either become a giant mess full of the same specialized shops, or become incompetent.)

  12. alan Says:

    The problem isn’t that federal agents can carry guns wherever they want, it’s that no one else can.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges