Your federal government keeps buying lots — and lots — of gun ammunition. It previously said the purchases were part of the normal restocking process for government law-enforcement stuff. Now there's word that it's bought another 21.6 million rounds. And as Paul Watson, writing at Infowars.com, ciphers it, and calculating how many rounds have been used in recent U.S. wars, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “has now acquired enough bullets to wage 30 years of war.” And the feds really wonder why God-fearing and liberty-loving Americans have been buying guns in record numbers? ... Your federal government, courtesy of the same ammo-hoarding folks at DHS, has produced a training video that advises office workers to confront a workplace gunman with scissors in a worst-case scenario. Which is about the stupidest thing we've ever heard. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that office workers confronted by a workplace gunman should instead run to the breakout room refrigerator and grab any one of the number of biological weapons therein and throw it at the attacker. ... Seriously though, what do you get when you make God-fearing and liberty-loving Americans sitting ducks? Dead ducks, of course. ... By gosh, those brainiacs at the Center for Economic and Policy Research have discovered a remedy to stop “global warming” — working fewer hours and increasing vacation time. Yet another example of the sheer genius of the “progressive” mind, eh?
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.