Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SMS" data-source="post: 2150478" data-attributes="member: 42">I&#039;m not &quot;missing it&quot;.&nbsp; It&#039;s just an entirely seperate argument and/or discussion topic.They have armed personnel.&nbsp; They are going to buy ammunition for them. Want to have a conversation or debate about the need for so many armed folks, rock on.&nbsp; But going about it by complaining about ammunition purchases and pouring over spreadsheets in regard to same is not the best way IMHO.(.04 percent of our population engaged in armed law enforcement at the federal level including the defense of our borders and ports etc...is not alarming to me.&nbsp; Maybe it is to you.&nbsp; Still a good point of conversation though.&nbsp; I do think some consolidation is needed to allow for better oversight and control.&nbsp; Every 3-letter fed agency doesn&#039;t need it&#039;s own contingent of LEOs)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SMS, post: 2150478, member: 42"] I'm not "missing it". It's just an entirely seperate argument and/or discussion topic. They have armed personnel. They are going to buy ammunition for them. Want to have a conversation or debate about the [I]need[/I] for so many armed folks, rock on. But going about it by complaining about ammunition purchases and pouring over spreadsheets in regard to same is not the best way IMHO. ([B].04 percent [/B]of our population engaged in armed law enforcement at the federal level [I]including[/I] the defense of our borders and ports etc...is not alarming to me. Maybe it is to you. Still a good point of conversation though. I do think some consolidation is needed to allow for better oversight and control. Every 3-letter fed agency doesn't need it's own contingent of LEOs) [/QUOTE]

Verification