Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo, Letter to Gov't.

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 6:08:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here I would like to make a letter, and have DDO help me edit it about the DHS and their recent order of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. Once finished, all participants and other DDO members may send the letter to their closest Senator and District Representitive. We will also E-mail it and I will personally mail it to the DHS (http://www.dhs.gov...). I will start an introduction paragraph here and have other DDO'ers build upon it.

Dear, (some sort of gov't representative) <---- Edit to whomever you are sending it to

I have recently heard of the DHS's decision to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. I would like to ask you this simplistic but perplexing question (apparently it's perplexing to the DHS, since they won't have a representative legitimately explain why they are purchasing it), why? Why, when we only use that much ammunition in a century for training is it that you decide to buy 100 years worth of ammunition for the DHS in such financially crunching times? Is there some sort of domestic terrorism going on that the government has not yet told us about? I would like to politely remind you that you are an elected official who is given your position by the people, it is your responsibility to answer to us, and if you fail to answer to us, you very well might have a reason to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.

Edit here, use my copy and edit it, make your own copy, we will vote on drafts in a week or two.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 6:39:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 6:08:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Here I would like to make a letter, and have DDO help me edit it about the DHS and their recent order of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. Once finished, all participants and other DDO members may send the letter to their closest Senator and District Representitive. We will also E-mail it and I will personally mail it to the DHS (http://www.dhs.gov...). I will start an introduction paragraph here and have other DDO'ers build upon it.

Dear, (some sort of gov't representative) <---- Edit to whomever you are sending it to

I have recently heard of the DHS's decision to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. I would like to ask you this simplistic but perplexing question (apparently it's perplexing to the DHS, since they won't have a representative legitimately explain why they are purchasing it), why? Why, when we only use that much ammunition in a century for training is it that you decide to buy 100 years worth of ammunition for the DHS in such financially crunching times? Is there some sort of domestic terrorism going on that the government has not yet told us about? I would like to politely remind you that you are an elected official who is given your position by the people, it is your responsibility to answer to us, and if you fail to answer to us, you very well might have a reason to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.

Edit here, use my copy and edit it, make your own copy, we will vote on drafts in a week or two.

Dear (Representative or Senator),

I, {INSERT NAME HERE} am concerned about the recent decision to purchase $1.6 Billion worth of ammunition.

Here are some of the highlights:

1) Historically, this would amount to a 100 years worth of ammo. When we have crushing debt/deficit, sequestration hitting, and unsure times a head of us, is this really a necessary purchase?
2) Why do you insist on disarming American citizens, demanding a "good and substantial reason" to purchase an "assault" weapon, yet gov't can freely purchase 1.6 billion worth of ammo.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 6:46:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 6:39:11 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 3/11/2013 6:08:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Here I would like to make a letter, and have DDO help me edit it about the DHS and their recent order of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. Once finished, all participants and other DDO members may send the letter to their closest Senator and District Representitive. We will also E-mail it and I will personally mail it to the DHS (http://www.dhs.gov...). I will start an introduction paragraph here and have other DDO'ers build upon it.

Dear, (some sort of gov't representative) <---- Edit to whomever you are sending it to

I have recently heard of the DHS's decision to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. I would like to ask you this simplistic but perplexing question (apparently it's perplexing to the DHS, since they won't have a representative legitimately explain why they are purchasing it), why? Why, when we only use that much ammunition in a century for training is it that you decide to buy 100 years worth of ammunition for the DHS in such financially crunching times? Is there some sort of domestic terrorism going on that the government has not yet told us about? I would like to politely remind you that you are an elected official who is given your position by the people, it is your responsibility to answer to us, and if you fail to answer to us, you very well might have a reason to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.

Edit here, use my copy and edit it, make your own copy, we will vote on drafts in a week or two.

Dear (Representative or Senator),

I, {INSERT NAME HERE} am concerned about the recent decision to purchase $1.6 Billion worth of ammunition.

Here are some of the highlights:

1) Historically, this would amount to a 100 years worth of ammo. When we have crushing debt/deficit, sequestration hitting, and unsure times a head of us, is this really a necessary purchase?
2) Why do you insist on disarming American citizens, demanding a "good and substantial reason" to purchase an "assault" weapon, yet gov't can freely purchase 1.6 billion worth of ammo.

I like that part a lot, I'll find a way to add it in to the draft.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:43:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"and if you fail to answer to us, you very well might have a reason to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition."

...Is that like a vague threat to the DHS?

Suddenly I can see why they might be purchasing ammunition. o-o!
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:43:05 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
"and if you fail to answer to us, you very well might have a reason to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition."


...Is that like a vague threat to the DHS?

Suddenly I can see why they might be purchasing ammunition. o-o!

Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:19:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.

No, it is a determination from evidence. What's so irrational? The government having to answer to the people? The government is sucking up our money? The government is using our money for selective individuals personnel gain? With Americans becoming armless and the government having 100 years worth of ammo, who is it that will get shot by these bullets?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:28:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.

Elaborate.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:28:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:19:10 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.

No, it is a determination from evidence. What's so irrational? The government having to answer to the people? The government is sucking up our money? The government is using our money for selective individuals personnel gain? With Americans becoming armless and the government having 100 years worth of ammo, who is it that will get shot by these bullets?

+1
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:40:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:19:10 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.

No, it is a determination from evidence.

No, it's jumping to conclusions. The DHS purchasing ammunition doesn't mean that they'll use said bullets to shoot people, no more so than the Pentagon purchasing tanks means they'll be rolling down our cities.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:40:16 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:19:10 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.

No, it is a determination from evidence.

No, it's jumping to conclusions. The DHS purchasing ammunition doesn't mean that they'll use said bullets to shoot people, no more so than the Pentagon purchasing tanks means they'll be rolling down our cities.

No, they buy the unnecessary tanks because General Dynamics lobbies for them.

'Yet Congress, at a cost of $8 million each, wants the army to build 280 more Abrams tanks " which Army chief of staff Ray Odierno (a combat-tested general) told Congress last year is "280 tanks that we simply do not need."'

Also the comparison is wrong because the DHS isn't actively fighting wars overseas, as the military is.

http://www.modbee.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:48:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:40:16 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:19:10 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:10:38 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:02:03 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Well, it is the governments job to answer to the people, by failing to do so they are just sucking up our money in an endless vacuum and using it for their own personal gain and not for the people, or in this case using it to buy bullets to shoot the people.

That's a very irrational train of thought.

No, it is a determination from evidence.

No, it's jumping to conclusions. The DHS purchasing ammunition doesn't mean that they'll use said bullets to shoot people, no more so than the Pentagon purchasing tanks means they'll be rolling down our cities.

My uneductaed liberal, they only are responsible for domestic security. Unless there is some significant domestic terror group that is plotting to take over america that we don't know about, they have no excuse to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo (when they only use 20 million/year in afghanistan) in such harsh economic times. They are doing it because they want to make a statement that they in control, not the people. They let us think we have this nice republic going on where we choose what goes on in society and we choose our leaders, it's really not as perfect as it sounds looking in.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:19:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:48:21 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
My uneductaed liberal, they only are responsible for domestic security. Unless there is some significant domestic terror group that is plotting to take over america that we don't know about, they have no excuse to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo (when they only use 20 million/year in afghanistan) in such harsh economic times. They are doing it because they want to make a statement that they in control, not the people. They let us think we have this nice republic going on where we choose what goes on in society and we choose our leaders, it's really not as perfect as it sounds looking in.

My conspiracy theorist friend, the police also exist for domestic security, and, like the DHS, need guns, ammunition, and more. Also, the war in Afghanistan has cost $620 billion so far. Are you really saying that it costs $20 million a year to fund it? As I said, you're jumping to conclusions.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:30:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:19:15 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:48:21 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
My uneductaed liberal, they only are responsible for domestic security. Unless there is some significant domestic terror group that is plotting to take over america that we don't know about, they have no excuse to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo (when they only use 20 million/year in afghanistan) in such harsh economic times. They are doing it because they want to make a statement that they in control, not the people. They let us think we have this nice republic going on where we choose what goes on in society and we choose our leaders, it's really not as perfect as it sounds looking in.

My conspiracy theorist friend, the police also exist for domestic security, and, like the DHS

I would first like to point out that, while you might not do this, it's OK to have a conspiracy theory on how the government planned 9/11, but when your conspiracy theory involves obummer, you must be a crazed psychopath. At any rate, the police are funded by state and local taxes, not by the DHS.

, need guns, ammunition, and more. Also, the war in Afghanistan has cost $620 billion so far. Are you really saying that it costs $20 million a year to fund it? As I said, you're jumping to conclusions.

A bullet doesn't cost one dollar. You are also leaving out the income for soldiers, bombs, war reparations, drones, vehicles, vehicle repair, bases, food and other misc. supplies, and many other expenses, they don't just give a soldier a few bullets and say "here, go out and fight with this magazine and no gun".
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:31:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:30:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:19:15 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:48:21 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
My uneductaed liberal, they only are responsible for domestic security. Unless there is some significant domestic terror group that is plotting to take over america that we don't know about, they have no excuse to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo (when they only use 20 million/year in afghanistan) in such harsh economic times. They are doing it because they want to make a statement that they in control, not the people. They let us think we have this nice republic going on where we choose what goes on in society and we choose our leaders, it's really not as perfect as it sounds looking in.

My conspiracy theorist friend, the police also exist for domestic security, and, like the DHS

I would first like to point out that, while you might not do this, it's OK to have a conspiracy theory on how the government planned 9/11, but when your conspiracy theory involves obummer, you must be a crazed psychopath. At any rate, the police are funded by state and local taxes, not by the DHS.


, need guns, ammunition, and more. Also, the war in Afghanistan has cost $620 billion so far. Are you really saying that it costs $20 million a year to fund it? As I said, you're jumping to conclusions.

A bullet doesn't cost one dollar. You are also leaving out the income for soldiers, bombs, war reparations, drones, vehicles, vehicle repair, bases, food and other misc. supplies, and many other expenses, they don't just give a soldier a few bullets and say "here, go out and fight with this magazine and no gun".

Oh yes, you are also leaving out our world class air force that we use heavily in Afghanistan, mercenaries, oil used to fuel vehicles and the air force, and once again much much more.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 9:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:30:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

I would first like to point out that, while you might not do this, it's OK to have a conspiracy theory on how the government planned 9/11, but when your conspiracy theory involves obummer, you must be a crazed psychopath. At any rate, the police are funded by state and local taxes, not by the DHS.

What makes you think I support crackpot conspiracy theories from the left either?

A bullet doesn't cost one dollar. You are also leaving out the income for soldiers, bombs, war reparations, drones, vehicles, vehicle repair, bases, food and other misc. supplies, and many other expenses, they don't just give a soldier a few bullets and say "here, go out and fight with this magazine and no gun".

You realize that, by what you're saying, it'd cost more than what I put up (which was gargantuan to what you put up). Point is, the war in Afghanistan costs more than $20 million a year.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:56:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Michael

We have local police, the FBI, SWAT. Why do we need DHS armed to the teeth against America?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 12:28:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:56:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why do we need DHS armed to the teeth against America?

Why do you assume it's against America? This is precisely what I mean when I say everybody's jumping to conclusions.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 6:43:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 9:26:34 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:30:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

I would first like to point out that, while you might not do this, it's OK to have a conspiracy theory on how the government planned 9/11, but when your conspiracy theory involves obummer, you must be a crazed psychopath. At any rate, the police are funded by state and local taxes, not by the DHS.

What makes you think I support crackpot conspiracy theories from the left either?

A bullet doesn't cost one dollar. You are also leaving out the income for soldiers, bombs, war reparations, drones, vehicles, vehicle repair, bases, food and other misc. supplies, and many other expenses, they don't just give a soldier a few bullets and say "here, go out and fight with this magazine and no gun".

You realize that, by what you're saying, it'd cost more than what I put up (which was gargantuan to what you put up). Point is, the war in Afghanistan costs more than $20 million a year.

No, 20 million bullets doesn't equal 20 million dollars. One bullet is probably more like 20-30 dollars if it's FMJ and built for a M4. The point is, we only used 20 million bullets a year in Afghanistan, and 1.6 billion bullets is enough to fight a 20 year war against the American people. You (as a notorious Obummer cheerleader) would rather shy away from the facts and just tune in to the rhetoric you hear on the mainstream media.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 12:28:20 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:56:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why do we need DHS armed to the teeth against America?

Why do you assume it's against America? This is precisely what I mean when I say everybody's jumping to conclusions.

The DHS only takes care of domestic matters, unless China is going to invade us or there is some domestic terror organization causing widespread mayhem that we don't know about, they are buying the bullets to shoot the people.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 11:48:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 12:28:20 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:56:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why do we need DHS armed to the teeth against America?

Why do you assume it's against America? This is precisely what I mean when I say everybody's jumping to conclusions.

The DHS only takes care of domestic matters, unless China is going to invade us or there is some domestic terror organization causing widespread mayhem that we don't know about, they are buying the bullets to shoot the people.

China can't even get a rocket into space and you think our allied country (a trading partner) is going to invade us?

Maybe, and get this, it's just another handout to the military industrial complex which happens all the time without anybody ever batting an eye in this country. Or we'll go with your theory. Janet Napolitano is planning to wage war against the American people (even though they have far more efficient tools to use than just guns) and install a radical socialistic dictator where sharia law is implemented and everything around Christmas time with the word Christmas in it is replaced with the word Seasons or Holiday. There's only one real explanation...Illuminati. The Rothschilds did it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 11:59:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 11:48:31 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

The DHS only takes care of domestic matters, unless China is going to invade us or there is some domestic terror organization causing widespread mayhem that we don't know about, they are buying the bullets to shoot the people.

China can't even get a rocket into space and you think our allied country (a trading partner) is going to invade us?

Maybe, and get this, it's just another handout to the military industrial complex which happens all the time without anybody ever batting an eye in this country. Or we'll go with your theory. Janet Napolitano is planning to wage war against the American people (even though they have far more efficient tools to use than just guns) and install a radical socialistic dictator where sharia law is implemented and everything around Christmas time with the word Christmas in it is replaced with the word Seasons or Holiday. There's only one real explanation...Illuminati. The Rothschilds did it.

I think this is the likely scenario. (minus the Illuminati)
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 12:22:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 11:48:31 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 12:28:20 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:56:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why do we need DHS armed to the teeth against America?

Why do you assume it's against America? This is precisely what I mean when I say everybody's jumping to conclusions.

The DHS only takes care of domestic matters, unless China is going to invade us or there is some domestic terror organization causing widespread mayhem that we don't know about, they are buying the bullets to shoot the people.

China can't even get a rocket into space and you think our allied country (a trading partner) is going to invade us?

Apparently internet sarcasm is harder to use then I thought.

Maybe, and get this, it's just another handout to the military industrial complex which happens all the time without anybody ever batting an eye in this country.

k, just keep ignoring the facts.

Or we'll go with your theory. Janet Napolitano is planning to wage war against the American people (even though they have far more efficient tools to use than just guns)

You're right, but you still need boots on the ground in any invasion, even with drones.

and install a radical socialistic dictator where sharia law is implemented and everything around Christmas time with the word Christmas in it is replaced with the word Seasons or Holiday. There's only one real explanation...Illuminati. The Rothschilds did it.

None of this is worth refuting.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:00:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
k, just keep ignoring the facts.

Which facts? I acknowledged that 1.6 billion rounds of ammo were purchased. Actually, you allowed that fact to determine a conclusion (which is usually called JUMPING to conclusions), and in determining this conclusion, issued a letter disguised as a vague threat to the Department of Homeland Security.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:02:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 4:00:04 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
k, just keep ignoring the facts.

Which facts? I acknowledged that 1.6 billion rounds of ammo were purchased. Actually, you allowed that fact to determine a conclusion (which is usually called JUMPING to conclusions), and in determining this conclusion, issued a letter disguised as a vague threat to the Department of Homeland Security.

Can you outline any logical reason why the US gov't would buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo in tough economic times except to suppress the populous? Mind you this department is only responsible for domestic security too.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:04:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 4:02:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 4:00:04 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
k, just keep ignoring the facts.

Which facts? I acknowledged that 1.6 billion rounds of ammo were purchased. Actually, you allowed that fact to determine a conclusion (which is usually called JUMPING to conclusions), and in determining this conclusion, issued a letter disguised as a vague threat to the Department of Homeland Security.


Can you outline any logical reason why the US gov't would buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo in tough economic times except to suppress the populous? Mind you this department is only responsible for domestic security too.

No, I can't. But I don't need to. You missed the point completely! Outlining reasons when only a fact exists is allowing that fact to determine its conclusion, which isn't what you're supposed to do. You missed that point completely, bro.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 4:04:54 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/13/2013 4:02:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 4:00:04 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/13/2013 6:44:39 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
k, just keep ignoring the facts.

Which facts? I acknowledged that 1.6 billion rounds of ammo were purchased. Actually, you allowed that fact to determine a conclusion (which is usually called JUMPING to conclusions), and in determining this conclusion, issued a letter disguised as a vague threat to the Department of Homeland Security.


Can you outline any logical reason why the US gov't would buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo in tough economic times except to suppress the populous? Mind you this department is only responsible for domestic security too.

No, I can't. But I don't need to. You missed the point completely! Outlining reasons when only a fact exists is allowing that fact to determine its conclusion, which isn't what you're supposed to do. You missed that point completely, bro.

Politics is partially about facts, partially about analyzing them, I don't know what you do with your spare time when you come here if you don't at least slightly analyze the facts.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:27:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 4:04:54 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
No, I can't. But I don't need to. You missed the point completely! Outlining reasons when only a fact exists is allowing that fact to determine its conclusion, which isn't what you're supposed to do. You missed that point completely, bro.

You've been saying that they should buy them....then if asked as to why they should buy them, you say you don't have a reason, and don't have to.

Bad logic son.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:30:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 4:07:53 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Politics is partially about facts, partially about analyzing them, I don't know what you do with your spare time when you come here if you don't at least slightly analyze the facts.

There is such a thing as over-analyzing. That being said, I never made the claim that there's anything wrong with analyzing facts, only with allowing the facts to determine the conclusion instead of the other way around. The DHS isn't shooting down people in the US. That's a fact. But you've clouded it because you think that said fact will change because of another fact, despite that neither has to be related for the other to take place. That's called allowing your conclusion to determine the facts (or jumping to conclusions). Second time I've explained this, buddy.