Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

USDA needs bullets too


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1    Simbi Laveau

Simbi Laveau

    Overlord A. Snuffleupagus

  • Member
  • 8,266 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2012
  • Location:Rim of hell

  • ~So what's all this then ?!

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:59 PM

Dept of Agriculture,orders over 300,000 bullets.
Since when is agro armed ?

Yup...

http://theintelhub.c...on-round-order/

Miss me?

#2    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:09 PM

The United States Forest Service isnt just about the USDA.... You are forgetting the Ranger/Law Enforcement Division...

Quote

The Forest Service has more than 600 ranger districts. Each district has a staff of 10 to 100 people under the direction of a district ranger, a line officer who reports to a forest supervisor. The districts vary in size from 50,000 acres (200 km2) to more than 1 million acres (4,000 km2). Most on-the-ground activities occur on ranger districts, including trail construction and maintenance, operation of campgrounds, and management of vegetation and wildlife habitat.

And...

Quote

The U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigations unit (LEI), headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a federal law enforcement agency of the U.S. government. It is responsible for enforcement of federal laws and regulations governing national forest lands and resources. All Law Enforcement Officers and Special Agents Receive their training through Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).

As the Name implies this division's operations are divided into two major functional areas:

1.Law Enforcement: uniformed high visibility enforcement of laws and
2.Investigations: special agents who investigate crimes against property, visitors and employees.
Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) enforce Federal laws and regulations governing National Forest Lands and resources. As part of that mission LEO'S carry firearms, defensive equipment, make arrests, execute search warrants, complete reports and testify in court. They establish a regular and recurring presence on a vast amount of public lands, roads, and recreation sites. The primary focus of their jobs is the protection of natural resources, protection of Forest Service employees and the protection of visitors. To cover the vast and varied terrain under their jurisdiction, they use Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, special service SUVs, horses, K- units, helicopters, snowmobiles, dirt bikes and boats.

Special Agents are criminal investigators who plan and conduct investigations concerning possible violations of criminal and administrative provisions of the Forest Service and other statues under the United States Code. Special agents are normally plain clothes officers who carry concealed firearms, and other defensive equipment, make arrests, carry out complex criminal investigations, present cases for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys, and prepare investigative reports. All field agents are required to travel a great deal and usually maintain a case load of ten to fifteen ongoing criminal investigations at one time. Criminal investigators occasionally conduct internal and civil claim investigations.

Link

So, in light of how many officers they have to cover so much ground... 300k rounds is pretty miniscule.


#3    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:10 PM

Most government agencies have an enforcement arm as part of their mandate.

So we criticize them for not being efficient and wasting money and when they do something smart like "buy in bulk" we criticize them for that too.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#4    Simbi Laveau

Simbi Laveau

    Overlord A. Snuffleupagus

  • Member
  • 8,266 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2012
  • Location:Rim of hell

  • ~So what's all this then ?!

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:14 PM

Hmmmm,will take under advisement,but I dont think they ever ordered  this many at once before,that's why it sent up a red flag.

Miss me?

#5    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,614 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:17 PM

I would check on the forest service rangers, some of whom are armed. That is a good reason to have bullets.

But no...this be the big bad government takeover ya know man? For some undisclosed reason instead of milking us for taxes they want to enslave us and get nuffin!

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#6    Dredimus

Dredimus

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, Al

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:24 PM

View PostSimbi Laveau, on 05 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Hmmmm,will take under advisement,but I dont think they ever ordered  this many at once before,that's why it sent up a red flag.


   Anything to back that up?


#7    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:26 PM

View PostSimbi Laveau, on 05 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Hmmmm,will take under advisement,but I dont think they ever ordered  this many at once before,that's why it sent up a red flag.

They likely just got a good deal. Not like bullets go bad.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#8    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,024 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

How else are they going to fight those "cannibalistic mountain men grossly disfigured through generations of in-breeding." in Virginia?

:unsure2:


#9    wittyusernamefailed

wittyusernamefailed

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Still in frikkin kansas toto.

  • "Well, this is gonna be a wipe"

Posted 06 April 2012 - 02:34 PM

Also USDA is in charge of elimination and disposal of diseased livestock( such as from madcow disease and other fun stuff) add that to the fact that the wolf, grizzly, and other animal reintroduction initiatives have gone waaaay better than expected (resulting in overlap in human/animal territory); along with the fact that rangers have to now be prepared to respond to "terrorist activity (because national parks tend to have large crowds of soft targets). Honestly I;d be more worried if they were NOT seriously arming themselves. But I guess because it's government it must be some evil and nefarious plot of world domination. (thin mustache and top-hat optional)


Simbi, I don;t want to come across as rude, but you don;t live in the U.S., correct? I simply ask because most of your posts about the U.S. seem to come across as incredible 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. And if your info is coming from the internet, well.... honestly the majority of the info is crap, it's just what happens in an anonymous environment.

Edited by wittyusernamefailed, 06 April 2012 - 02:46 PM.


#10    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,862 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:28 PM

Quote

They likely just got a good deal. Not like bullets go bad.

You would think that...

Quote

along with the fact that rangers have to now be prepared to respond to "terrorist activity (because national parks tend to have large crowds of soft targets).

Now this is just pushing it. I don't want a forest ranger shooting off guns anywhere near me to protect me from "terrorist activities". This is just plain paranoia. Lets start arming janitors in malls now too, just in case there's "terrorist activity" there too then, right?

Forest rangers don't have any training in any sort of counter-terrorism related tactics, *especially* in the vicinity of large crowds of innocent bystanders. If they have time to train for this and keep their skills up to par, they're not doing their other jobs as forest rangers.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#11    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,771 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:40 PM

And while 300,000 seems like a dramatic number, if you have 1,000 park rangers, enforcement officers, etc. who carry a sidearm, that's 300 rounds each - or six 50 round boxes.  Consider that all of them have to practice and qualify at the range on a regular basis, that's not really a lot of ammo.

I can routinely blow through a couple of boxes of ammo on a Friday afternoon just plinking at targets.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#12    ohio_traveler

ohio_traveler

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • Joined:07 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:32 PM

View PostMichelle, on 05 April 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

How else are they going to fight those "cannibalistic mountain men grossly disfigured through generations of in-breeding." in Virginia?

:unsure2:

Not only that, but when you're walking through the woods it's just fun shooting at stuff.


#13    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:06 PM

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Now this is just pushing it. I don't want a forest ranger shooting off guns anywhere near me to protect me from "terrorist activities". This is just plain paranoia. Lets start arming janitors in malls now too, just in case there's "terrorist activity" there too then, right?

Forest rangers don't have any training in any sort of counter-terrorism related tactics, *especially* in the vicinity of large crowds of innocent bystanders. If they have time to train for this and keep their skills up to par, they're not doing their other jobs as forest rangers.



Not really. Sure the terrorist probably isn't that big of priority but drugs are. Moveable drug labs and growing fields--Both of which can be occupied by armed people. I've found a couple of Pot fields in National forests around my area while backpacking. I'd prefer those members of the Ranger service be armed when walking into such camps/areas.

Poachers can be another big problem and they are/can be armed to the tooth and bone. Moon-shining also often takes place in our national parks in certain areas of the country.

There are lots of special ranger services that get all kinds of advanced tactical and SWAT training for precisely these reasons. For example; Florida Fish and Wildlife has a special operations group because of the large and dangerous drug situations run into in their parks areas. They get lots of special training;



You were kind of talking out of your behind there Stellar  :lol:

Edit; some more about your Park Rangers in the US from Wikipedia;

Quote

Law enforcement: Law enforcement rangers have police powers and enforce national laws as well as park regulations. In some developing countries, the park rangers patrolling natural preserves may be heavily armed and function as paramilitary organizations against organized poachers or even guerrillas. In many other developing countries however, park rangers have no law enforcement authority, they don't carry firearms as they seek to achieve respect for nature by building good relationships with local communities and the visiting public. In units of the U.S. National Park System, law enforcement Rangers are the primary police agency; their services may be augmented by the US Park Police, particularly in the Washington, DC and San Francisco metropolitan areas. The U.S. National Park Service also has a section of "Special Agents" who conduct more complex criminal investigations. According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers suffer the most number of felonious assaults, and the highest number of homicides of all federal law enforcement officers.[8]

Link

Edited by Copasetic, 06 April 2012 - 06:10 PM.


#14    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,862 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:11 PM

Quote


Not really. Sure the terrorist probably isn't that big of priority but drugs are. Moveable drug labs and growing fields--Both of which can be occupied by armed people. I've found a couple of Pot fields in National forests around my area while backpacking. I'd prefer those members of the Ranger service be armed when walking into such camps/areas.


I dont. If the park rangers stumble upon that, then they should call the police.

Quote

There are lots of special ranger services that get all kinds of advanced tactical and SWAT training for precisely these reasons. For example; Florida Fish and Wildlife has a special operations group because of the large and dangerous drug situations run into in their parks areas. They get lots of special training;

At which point they're not being park rangers in the traditional sense, and instead are a sort of paramilitary organization which I do not classify as park rangers or anything of the sort. It is my opinion that type of group like that should belong to police forces. I disagree with forming these types of paramilitary groups within these departments. That's what the police is for.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#15    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 07 April 2012 - 01:39 AM

View PostStellar, on 06 April 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

I dont. If the park rangers stumble upon that, then they should call the police.
That's what the police is for.

Police don't have jurisdiction in federal lands.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users