“Going postal” just took on a whole new meaning. Apparently, Postal Employees are no longer content to shoot each other and are therefore preparing to shoot the public.
We know this because the USPS has joined the list of federal agencies that are stockpiling ammunition and firearms.
For example, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point bullets. Do they fear that the retirees are about to grab their walkers and storm the SSA buildings?
The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds. Do they fear farmers and ranchers—or an attack by cows and pigs?
The Department of Homeland Security has requested 450 million rounds. That’s enough bullets to shoot every American about 1.5 times.
The FBI has sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds. Why does a weather service need ammunition?
To date, over two billion rounds of ammunition have been purchased or ordered by a variety of domestic federal agencies.
If only one agency purchased ammunition, we might write it off as an aberration. But when seemingly inexplicable purchases are made by a significant number of agencies, we can assume we are witnessing evidence of a general governmental policy. It’s not just the FBI, DHS or even the USPS that wants to stockpile ammo—it’s the government, itself.
As a result of this stockpiling, many wonder what government has planned for the American people. Confusion and conspiracy theories abound.
• Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said:
“We’re seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don’t understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but [purchasing all this ammunition] doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The amount of ammunition they’re buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they’ll use—they’ll never use it all.“
Well, let’s hope Gottlieb is right. Let’s hope the government will never use all of those bullets within The United States of America.
But Gottlieb can’t be right when he says that purchasing all this ammunition “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
In fact, major purchases of ammunition by a wide variety of domestic governmental agencies costs money. The government is largely broke. It won’t spend more money if it doesn’t have to. It seems extremely unlikely that government would spend so much money on ammo without a compelling reason to do so.
The government is generally distrusted and viewed with contempt. It’s on shaky political ground. The political implication of domestic governmental agencies stockpiling all that ammunition is that government is preparing for a major armed conflict within the USA. Thus, those purchases should cause a further loss of public confidence in government. “Confidence,” we are repeatedly told, is essential to not only maintaining law and order but even to sustaining the perceived value of the fiat dollar. It seems extremely unlikely that government would risk the political fallout of purchasing so much ammo without a compelling reason to do so.
Purchasing all that ammunition may seem incomprehensible to most Americans. However, given the financial and political costs associated with stockpiling two billion rounds of ammo, it’s apparent that those purchases must “make a whole lot of sense” to somebody in a very high position of power.
Gottlieb may be right to say that purchasing all of that ammunition doesn’t make sense under current, publicly-perceived economic and political conditions.
But maybe government isn’t looking at current conditions. Maybe government is instead looking forward towards a moment when future conditions could become conducive to widespread social disorder and even public violence against government.
To understand those possible future conditions, let’s consider reasons why government might stockpile two billion rounds of ammo. I can imagine three:
1) To subsidize the ammunition industry;
2) To reduce the supply of bullets so the public can’t buy them;
3) To stock up on bullets to be used to attack or defend against the American people.
Clearly, the anti-gun-rights Obama administration does not intend to subsidize the ammunition industry.
Reducing the public’s supply of ammunition presupposes that the government expects widespread violence and wants the public disarmed.
Stocking billions of bullets implies that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants to ensure that gov-co has enough ammo to deal with potentially millions of armed dissidents. I.e., gov-co doesn’t need billions of bullets to deal with a few “lone gunmen”. Gov-co needs billions of bullets to deal with, at least, tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, potentially several million armed Americans who are sufficiently furious to fire at government.
Billions of bullets implicitly anticipates a widespread public revolt.
Whatever the exact explanation for stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition may be, it seems certain that the government views the probability of a widespread and violent confrontation with the American people as growing.
OK—why might such confrontation take place?
1) Because Congressmen are corrupt?
2) Because Obama is black?
3) Because taxes are too high?
4) Because liberty is being lost? Or,
5) Because the economy has collapsed, people are starving and therefore rioting against government?
As Bill Clinton once observed, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Americans don’t much care about corruption, the President’s race (or even place of birth), taxes or liberty. They care about their incomes, standard of living and the economy. If there’s going to be a violent confrontation between government and the people, that confrontation will be based on some sort of sudden and significant economic decline or even collapse.
Government’s purchase of two billion bullets for the apparent purpose of shooting some of the people, indicates that government fears a near-term, economic decline that’s sufficiently sudden and deep to cause lots of people to shoot.
Therefore, I don’t view government’s purchase of two billion bullets as a political anomaly or irrational act. I see it as a reliable economic indicator that tells us that government recognizes the growing probability of an economic collapse that’s sufficient to trigger chaos and widespread violence.
• We can have a scholarly (or heated) debate on the economic significance of the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, and the price of gold. When our debate is over, we can go home, order a pizza and watch some TV.
But it’s hard to engage in a scholarly debate on the economic significance of domestic government agencies buying two billion bullets. Two billion bullets tells us that it’s not time for pizza—it’s time to stockpile whatever you can afford that you think you’ll need if the economy tanks: food, water, guns, ammo, silver and gold.
You needn’t believe me. But you should certainly consider the economic and political implications of multiple government agencies seeking to purchase over two billion rounds of ammo. Those purchases cause predictions of economic collapse to rise from the level of mere conspiracy theories to the level of a government-validated, growing probability.