web analytics

The real reason there is an ammunition shortage in America?

Anyone paying attention at all knows that there has been a huge run on guns and ammo in America thanks to the efforts of the number one gun salesman in America–Barack Obama.   You would be mistaken if you thought that this ‘run’ was inspired only out of concern for stricter gun laws.  Many people have also been very concerned about the Obama administration’s inexplicable purchase of billions of rounds of ammunition… 1.5 billion last year, and evidently another 1.5 billion in the next year or so… and this is what we know about.

To give you some perspective on how odd and unnerving this is, consider that this amount could get our military through a 24 year long Iraq war!  Others think it a very reasonable amount and that it is necessary for all the new Homeland Security agents now roaming the country.   Some are not exactly comforted to know that we are presently witnessing the establishment of a national, Federal, police agency.  Still others remember what Obama said about needing to create a ‘civilian national security force’ and are not persuaded by the poo-pooing of a pseudo-non-partisan organization that there is no cause for alarm.

There are many ‘conspiracy theories’ out there, but of course this is only natural, since few people feel like they can actually believe government explanations any more, which means that nobody has any definitive answer beyond “The government said so, and they wouldn’t lie to us.”

Conspiracies theories regarding the ammunition are especially abundant, as I discovered when I recently tried to purchase some 22 rounds for plinking.  Did you know that the country is virtually out of this normally affordable and plentiful small caliber bullet?  Seems darn near the case;  the same box I bought for $15 two years ago I found online for $50.  The reason why the absence of this round is confusing is because the round is so small that it is not used by law enforcement.  Some speculate that the government is buying it up just to destroy it, preventing everyone else from having it.   Some think it is just market pressures (ie, all the brass is going to fulfill the aforementioned massive ammo purchases, instead of making 22 rounds).

We’ll never know, of course, because they lie.

Now, there are still others who believe that the government is getting ready to put down a massive revolution by Tea Party patriots.  I don’t think this is the case, because I think everyone knows that the unlike the radical left, the Tea Party is law-abiding and long-suffering.   By ‘everyone’ I include Obama.  And I think Obama and his ilk also know that there is a point he better not go past in pursuit of his agenda, for the same reasons why Japan chose not to consider invading the United States during World War 2:  the American people are heavily armed and not to be trifled with.

I therefore would like to throw my own conspiracy into the mix:

Obama is doing whatever he can to jack up the prices of guns and ammo so as to inflict a targeted tax on a group of people he disregards as ‘bitter clingers.’  And it has nothing to do with raising revenue, and everything to do with hurting the targeted group.  Let me explain.

Did you know that Obama has put a tax on people using tanning salons?  Ostensibly, this is to help finance the 1 trillion dollar Obamacare boondoggle.  However, it is only expected to generate a little over 2 billion over the next ten years.  “Why are they targeting me?” cries out a tanning bed patron.  Why, indeed.  Considering that the annual budget deficit is 2,000,000,000,000– or, 20,000,000,000,000 if allowed to persist 10 years, why bother with a measly 2,000,000,000?  Well, who uses tanning beds?  Who doesn’t use tanning beds?

Black people don’t.  White people do.

A tax on tanning bed use thus specifically targets a group of people 90-97% white.

Yes, actually I can imagine Barack Obama sitting across from unnamed staffers from undisclosed agencies saying, “Find me a way to target just the white people.  That’s what I want.”

I can imagine this not because I am a racist, but because Barack Obama is a racist.  And worse.  Obama takes the philosophy of his intellectual mentor,  Saul Alinksy, that the ends really do justify the means.  Thus, whatever he says, whatever he does, it cannot be taken at face value.  Think of it this way:  the Muslims have these two doctrines, one, in which infidels should be turned into slaves or slaughtered, and another, Taqiyya, which gives them latitude to lie to infidels however they please.  Whoever does not take precautions, having learned this, deserves exactly what they get.  Obama also believes you can lie (or do anything, really) so long as the cause is great enough.  And we know he believes that whites have enjoyed entirely too much privilege over the centuries.  No, he hasn’t said that explicitly.  He’s not an idiot.

I don’t believe gun ownership is a ‘race’ issue, per se.  But I do know he hates gun owners and believes that the only people who should have guns are those who work for him.  However, you can only mess with gun owners so much–by definition.  So, if you can’t confiscate their guns, you can at least inflict harm on gun owners.   (But if you could take their guns, that would be icing on the cake.)  By driving up the costs of ammunition, you drain gun owners of some of their surplus cash.  At the same time, more of their money goes into the government coffers.

For example, today I paid $20 for a box of 22 shells that two years ago I would have paid $10 for.  That’s $10 more out of my pocket, and a doubling in the amount of sales tax that goes to the state. More money is funneled to the state and Federal government via the ammunition manufacturers who, while making money hand over fist, also have to turn over 40-60% of their profit to the government in the form of taxes.  While some people may be making out like bandits by the shortage, more money than before is getting sucked out of the wallets of individual Americans and the greater amounts represents a larger tax windfall for the government, further down the chain.

People who don’t buy guns and ammunition won’t, by definition, be impacted by this shortage.  In other words, people that Obama likes won’t generally be targeted by the shortage.  Talk about a win-win!

Are you so sure they don’t think this way?  This is the administration of Cass Sunstein, where by ‘nudging’ and manipulation you get people to do what they normally would not do, often by small increments.  Combined with the hubris and Alinskyite elitism of those who populate the Obama administration, anything is possible.   And if what we do know is troubling, imagine the breadth of things we don’t know.

I do not assert this is true, but it would cover a goodly number of otherwise disparate facts and observations.  Such is the dismal fare of a conspiracy theorist, deprived of reliable information by this government, allegedly of the people, by the people, and for the people.



Skip to comment form

  1. Well, who uses tanning beds? Who doesn’t use tanning beds?

    Black people don’t. White people do.

    A tax on tanning bed use thus specifically targets a group of people 90-97% white.

    Are you being funny?

    • Anthony on June 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    Prove this isn’t the rationale.

    Dannyboy took a stab at it today, and the best we got was his proposal that possibly what the government really wanted to do was dissuade people from engaging in a supposedly harmful practice that the government was trying to protect people from themselves/alleviate future health care costs associated with caring for people who get cancer as a result of the practice.

    I asked him to prove it was this and not mine, and, as he had to, he admitted he couldn’t.

    I take Obama as a vindictive hoodlum who views his purpose in the world to ‘level’ the inequalities he perceives, whether between rich/poor, white/black, advantaged/disadvantaged, colonial/colonialized, and so on and so forth, combined with an ethic he has embraced in Saul Alinsky that explicitly endorses lying and whatever else is necessary in order to gain power and further his agenda. I don’t at all know my supposition to be a fact–after all, I did actually SAY “I therefore would like to throw my own conspiracy into the mix.” So you should know from that the evidential basis for what follows…

    But this of course being one of my points, that we are expressly being denied the information we need in order to decide such issues conclusively, relying pretty much only on ‘plausibility.’ You happen to like Obama, and agree with his agenda, so you find it implausible that he could do such things. I find it implausible that he has not done much, much, much, much worse, and is in fact now doing much, much, much worse. Given that, the proposition that he may use a targeted tax against, well, ANY group he didn’t like, is literally small potatoes. We’d be fortunate if this was all he did/does/doing/will do.

    So no, I’m not being funny. But nor am I at all certain it is the truth. At the same time, I don’t consider absurd. Obama is a bad man. Just bad.

    • End Bringer on June 4, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    “I asked him to prove it was this and not mine, and, as he had to, he admitted he couldn’t.”

    I find it possible both could be true. We know for a fact Obama and his ilk think they are soooooo much smarter than the masses, and thus they know how people should live their lives better than the people themselves. Michelle Obama is practically the poster child for this attitude with telling parents how to feed their children. So I can indeed imagine Obama sitting across from those unnamed staffers with the goal of taxing white people nearly exclusively AND believing he’s just trying to save people from themselves because he knows better.

    That seems to be fairly plausible as well.

    • Anthony on June 4, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    That’s a good point, EB.

    There could be quite a few plausible scenarios, equally elitist, all being maintained simultaneously.

    But we know for sure that one scenario is not descriptive: an attempt to balance the budget… you know, a more appropriate reason to issue a tax (as opposed to using it to transform society, etc, etc). Cuz, there is obviously no hint anyone has any desire to have a balanced budget. So it certainly can’t be for THAT reason.

  2. I preface this response with two admissions – I admit that my knowledge of American politics is far, far inferior to yours. And I also admit that politicians in general are, shall we say, dishonest, self-serving, fuckwits.

    That being said, yes, I do ‘like’ Obama. But only to the extent that he was ‘better’ than the alternative, and that is only based on the observation that the values he espouses in public are more closely aligned to mine than those publicly espoused by Romney. That is, I, like you, can only go on what they tell me.

    I do, however, have a rather massive problem with his foreign policy, and few other things, so to say I ‘agree with his agenda’ is possibly over-stating things, depending on which issues you feel are most important.

    As to the actual tanning-bed thing, I see that Dannyboy and I are once again in agreement. That was exactly where my thoughts first went – the tax was a health measure, in the same way as the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. Now, I say that with absolutely zero knowledge of the policy itself, or the stated reasons for it, or the US government’s history of using these taxes dishonestly, or the track record of the people who devised it. It’s just an (admittedly naive) observation from someone from a country with: a government that is possibly a little more trustworthy than others (though a long way from perfect); a high incidence of skin-cancer; a plan to actually ban tanning beds in some states by 2014; a much less perilous racial agenda.

    I dunno… as you say, I just find it extraordinarily unlikely that he would be making this tax to hurt white people. Given whites make up about 85% of the population, and probably over 90% of taxable income, wouldn’t every tax target white people?

    • Anthony on June 5, 2013 at 7:45 am

    A fine response, Tim, and why I like you so much.

    I’m not wedded to my suggestion, so even though I feel a strong tug to as you to justify your assessment that it is ‘extraordinarily unlikely’, especially after saying we can only go on what they tell us. So, if they say X is their reason for Y, it is ‘extraordinarily unlikely’ it could be something else? I’m trying to wrap my head around the sanity of that. 😉 Seems like a recipe for getting played, over and over and over again, to me.

    My own judgement on what is ‘likely’ is fueled by his Alinsky ethos, which pretty explicitly amounts to ‘say anything necessary.’ People who rely only on what they are told are ripe pickings for a person with Alinsky’s mindset. Throw in the mix Obama’s inclusion in his administration of people who expressly believe that the government is an avenue of transforming culture, whether culture likes it or not, and I think there are ample reasons to doubt very much that we’ll ever hear their real reasons.

    (I am here thinking explicitly of Cass Sunstein, who urged that the government use its machines to ‘nudge’ people. This is consistent with yours and DB’s proposal, but also with mine.)

    If you are a person who says straight out, unashamedly, “I have no compunction against lying to you, if it will get me what I want”, if that means people ponder ulterior motives and spin conspiracy theories concerning your actions and events, why, that’s just the price to be paid for your ethos. It would be silly to trust you, and silly to expect people to trust you, and take your comments and actions at face value.

    And Obama is such a person, and this strongly demonstrated by tracking his time as a ‘community organizer.’ For example, one of his first jobs in Chicago was working for an organization established by, you guessed it, Saul Alinsky.

  3. OK, this seems to be the night for admissions, so here’s another one. I know absolutely nothing about Saul Alinsky.

    Care to have first crack at influencing my opinion, before I google him? 🙂

    And thank you, I’m touched 🙂 Assuming you weren’t being sarcastic!

    • Anthony on June 5, 2013 at 8:42 am

    No, I was not being sarcastic.

    I have a number of posts on this blog about Alinsky. Here is a ‘review’ I wrote: https://sntjohnny.com/front/a-christian-checks-out-saul-alinskys-rules-for-radicals/580.html


  4. Taking your review at face value, I get the impression that I would disagree with a lot of Alinsky’s ideals. But I would probably need to read the book myself to be sure… and… I can’t be bothered. 🙂

    If your interpretations are correct, he seems to be saying “anything goes”, and that’s not something I would agree with. But that’s not to say that I can’t envisage certain circumstances where lying to your constituents is the least worst option.

    And I say that without passing judgment on anything Obama may or may not have lied about, or your own opinion on whether lying is ever justified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

twenty − 4 =