Flashback: Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy Tons Of Ukrainian Ammunition, Small Arms And Anti-Aircraft Missiles

Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 Tons Of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms And 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles In Ukraine – Daily Mail

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.

In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.

The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.

After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.

.

.

.
Photographs from the trip show Obama inspecting a plant where Soviet-era artillery shells and shoulder-fired missiles were collecting dust, leftovers dumped in Ukraine after the USSR withdrew from Eastern bloc nations after the once-mighty communist nation fell apart.

The United Nations had already identified some 7 million small arms and light weapons, and 2 million tons of conventional ammunition, warehoused in more than 80 weapons depots spread across the country.

Many of the artillery shells shown in photographs from Donetsk, multiple weapons experts told MailOnline, would be the same types of ammunition required to repel advancing Russian divisions as they advanced to the west, had they not been destroyed.

Two experts said the ammunition, particularly small-arms rounds, would have been useful to train Ukraine’s armed forces and million-strong reserves.

‘Vast stocks of conventional munitions and military supplies have accumulated in Ukraine,’ Obama said in am August 30, 2005 statement from Donetsk. ‘Some of this stockpile dates from World War I and II, yet most dates from Cold War buildup and the stocks left behind by Soviet withdrawals from East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland.’

‘We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.’

More than a year later, President George W. Bush signed into law a proposal authored by Obama and Lugar.

.

.

.

.

.
Obama said then that the existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ‘has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists.’

Much of the Ukrainian small-arms supply was ultimately exported, not scrapped, by a Yushchenko regime that chose revenue from arms dealing over the cost of melting down metal.

In 2008 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that between 2004 and 2007, the Ukrainian Export Control Service told the UN that it sent 721,777 small arms and light weapons to 27 different countries.

The United States was the top recipient, with more than 260,000 of those weapons, followed by the UK and Libya, which each imported more than 101,000.

That flood of weapons exports has continued, with annual export records showing hundreds of thousands of new exports each year, covering everything from pistols and carbine rifles to heavy machine guns and anti-tank weapons.

.

.

.

.
But while today’s 130,000-strong standing Ukrainian military isn’t short on AK-47s, Russian troops have met little to no large-scale resistance from armored divisions or heavy artillery as they steamrolled their way into Crimea.

Some of that was Ukraine’s own doing – it sold 320 tanks to Pakistan in the 1990s, for instance – but Obama and Lugar accelerated the pace of the country’s arms liquidation.

While the Ukrainian army seems to have been careful to avoid provoking an even larger conflict, it’s impossible to know whether Putin would have behaved differently in the face of columns of heavy weapons that once belonged to the Soviet Union in whose KGB he held a high-ranking position.

Sky News video broadcast on Tuesday showed Russian troops firing automatic weapons over the heads of apparently unarmed Ukrainian Air Force personnel near a contested airfield in Crimea.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Have you seen the Super Offensive Super Bowl ad banned by the NFL?

My patience with the NFL is wearing thin. From not allowing Rush Limbaugh to be part of a ownership group, to the inane rules no one can understand, to the often mediocre product on the field, and oddly enough, the increasingly sanitized and awful Super Bowl ads, to this bit of PC

By the way, the company offered to switch the company logo that appears at the end of the spot for an American flag. The NFL still ruled the ad “offensive”

According to a statement from FOX to Daniel Defense, “Unfortunately, we cannot accept your commercial in football/Super Bowl spots due to the rules the NFL itself has set into place for your company’s category.”

The NFL’s Advertising Policy addresses several Prohibited Advertising Categories, including guidelines for ads featuring alcohol, video games, movies, prescription drugs, and, of course, firearms.

The firearms portion of the NFL’s Prohibited Advertising Categories states:

“5. Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.”

According to these guidelines, Daniel Defense’s Super Bowl commercial does not violate NFL policy for two reasons:

  • Daniel Defense has a brick-and-mortar store, where they sell products other than firearms such as apparel.
  • The commercial itself does not mention firearms, ammunition or weaponry.

While Daniel Defense’s commercial does not mention firearms, it does include a logo of their DDM4 rifle at the very end.

When the NFL denied the ad, Daniel Defense immediately offered to replace the DDM4 logo with an American flag and/or the words “Shall not be infringed.”

The NFL replied with another non-negotiable denial.

Allowing teams to shill for ObamaCare, though? That is OK of course, but an ad that talks about basic liberties and responsibilities? OFFENSIVE!

 

Colorado Gun Maker To Give Away 1,500 30-Round Ammo Mags Before Sales Ban Takes Effect

Gun Manufacturer’s Big Act Of Defiance Ahead of New Magazine Ban In Colorado – The Blaze

It will be illegal to purchase, manufacture or sell magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition in the state of Colorado come Monday. Recently-passed gun control measures have Second Amendment supporters angry while several gun manufacturers are fleeing the state.

.
……….

One of the companies getting out of Colorado is Magpul Industries – but not before one final, symbolic act of defiance.

Magpul plans to give away 1,500 30-round ammunition magazines in Colorado on Saturday, just a couple days before the ban goes into effect. The magazines will be given away at a “Freedom Festival” on a first-come first-served basis. The event will be held at Infinity Park in Glendale, Colo., from 4-8 p.m., Magpul announced on its official Facebook page.

A number of gun control measures will go into effect July 1, including the magazine ban and expansive universal background checks. However, the law is not retroactive and allows gun owners to keep soon-to-be illegal high-capacity magazines if they were purchased legally before July 1.

In other words, every gun owner who gets a free 30-round magazine from Magpul is covered.

“Just to clarify, it seems many of the local news outlets are billing us as an ‘ammunition’ company, and saying that we will be giving out free ammo. This is incorrect… as you all know, we build magazines and accessories, and it is empty, 20 and 30 round magazines that will be for sale and also given away for the first 1500,” Magpul said in a statement.

Magpul, which claims it contributes roughly $85 million to Colorado’s economy and employs 200 people, is leaving Colorado over the new gun control measured signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper in response to the Sandy Hook shooting.

The company reaffirmed its plan to leave Colorado on its Facebook page on Thursday, though Magpul hasn’t announced where it plans to relocate.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ammo shortage easing up?

John Carey reports that he is finding 9 mm easier to find, I can say the same about .40 so, those are good signs.

 Over the past two weeks I’ve noticed that handgun ammo shelves at my favorite sporting goods stores are beginning to fill up again with popular calibers.  It appears the great guns and ammo crisis of 2013 may actually be coming to an end; at least until the next panic buying kicks in

The key to making this last is to pace yourself when purchasing ammo.  If everyone buys a little at a time to fill their stockpile we all win.

Amen!

 

Why is the government buying millions and millions of bullets?

The Lonely Conservative, among others poses this question

Andrew Malcolm reminds us that the Department of Homeland Security is still buying up ammunition. Lots of it. But they won’t say why, and it’s not the only federal agency buying bullets by the boatload.

In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.

Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.

But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano’s agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. (Read More)

Troubling? Yes, I was sitting here, wondering why the government would do this? Some possible answers include:

To limit availability, and or drive up the price? Sort of a back door form of gun control? I know there are other theories out there about more fiendish plots, but I am not buying into those. I do not think the government is looking to start killing us off. But, this ammo buying spree is interesting.

While I am talking guns. I am currently in the market for a new pistol for concealed carry. I am looking at .40 calibers mostly, and believe I have narrowed the choice down to two. Any thoughts on these two, or any suggestions on other .40, or .45 caliber designed for concealed carry? The Taurus MILLENNIUM PRO™ 140 .40 S&W PISTOL IN BLUE STEEL

T1

 or the Taurus 24/7-G240BC-15

T1