Shane45

Either way nice stick

Just to add a little info for anyone reading this thread considering this path, you need to be aware which part is the serialised part for your particuler rifle. In AR's the lower is indeed the serialised part, but in other rifles, the upper is the serialised part. This is the case for rifles like the SCAR, FAL and I believe the ACR. Shane

Best deal on a turn key Ive seen in a while! http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32112-wts-savage-model-10pc-in-308-wscope-bipod/page__fromsearch__1

Hehe your right, your position is illogical, finally we agree

Bone, your penchant for the conspiracy theory clouds your ability to objectively discuss the topic at hand so there is little point to continue. Anyone that doesnt share your view that every move by the Gov't is a carefully orchestrated , calculated move on thier part, must be a drone following the beat of the drum of the man keeping us down. And for the record, and if you read the report, you would note that it is several agencies working together, not just DHS. If you cant track applying your own logic to ccw, I dont know what to tell you about that.

Looks like a DDM4V1LW. I like DD. Nice rifle. Good luck with it. Shane

Bone, it seems like you choose to not track whats being said............. Recessed Filter said "So our DHS said that terrorists were not a threat to the Super Bowl. Ok, so what about a rising threat that might be just as bad as Middle-Eastern terrorists...what about home grown terrorists?" In MY OPINION he is possibly missenterpreting the report to mean there was a consensus that there IS NO TERRORIST THREAT IN EXISTANCE. I interpret the report to mean that there was no evidence of a clear and present danger such as uncovering a plot. Clearly all countermeasures to all threat level assesments are still carried out because THE EVENT IS A POTENTIAL TARGET. No matter how important you may think you are, your office is not high on the target list as far as a know. So Im sad to say your office doesnt qualify under the guidlines for major events. Please indicate to me what I made up. Did you read the report? It seems pretty straigh foward to me! Let me break it down for you. They found no credible threats (which means no smoking gun of a plot has been uncovered) foriegn or domestic. However the report says REPEATEDLY due to the nature of the event and the desire of high profile impact, the event is still considered a major target. It says this over and over, how are you not getting that? Then goes on to catalogue all the threat level assesments forign and domestic. So if the Pres is going to be in Dallas but the Secret Service has NO CREDIBLE THREATS for the day, I guess they all get the day off? This is really how you think? Credible threat in terms of threat level assessment means they have either found evidence or intelligence on a specific threat. The lack of detecting a specific plot DOES NOT MEAN ONE IS NOT PLANNED. STOP BEING SELECTIVE IN YOUR QUOTES! You say the report says no credible threats but you continually ignore the quotes such as the one below. "The high profile of and media attention afforded to the Super Bowl make it a potentially attractive target for terrorist groups. International and domestic terrorists have targeted major sporting events in the past, including the 1972 Munich and 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. More recently, foreign media reports indicated potential threats by al-Qa’ida and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba to the 2010 Commonwealth Games held during October in New Delhi, India" Are you saying Im making stuff up because I used the word plot? What would you call a person or group planning an attack? "Sure, there doesn't mean there couldn't possibly be a threat. But that threat is admittedly not there. There probably isn't a threat that someone is going to attack my office, but that doesn't mean there couldn't maybe be one. I'm not going to hire a sniper to sit across the street and scan it the whole day" By your logic, unless you know of a specific credible threat, you would never need a ccw ..........

I do not take them to mean that there are no threats, I take them to mean they havent uncovered any plots. In other words they didnt find a subteranian map of the facility and a plan in an appartment in yemen.

Translation, to large for the scope of this thread, my head after 3 days of external audit and my meager typing abilities. Catch me at the next NJ2AS meeting and we can discuss untill the cows come home. My direct answer to your questions tie directly to a life long philosophy of balance. I do not see a long gunner in overwatch at a major event an errosion of my rights. Someone knocking on my door for a random search for the greater good or even random drug testing of my child in school would be met with tremendous opposition. My position is one is close to middle, the other is way off balance.

"I don't think anything should be done for the 'greater good'. That is usually an excuse to take away liberties" Yes this is what I have interpreted your position to be. I disagree TO AN EXTENT. Not completely. It is the extremely rare occasion I see anything as an absolute. "If you mean by saying I am heading down a path sarcastically I am saying the opposite, then yes, you are correct." We are in agreement here. "Who determines what is a "qualifying" event? Who determines what is "standard procedure"? If those "standard procedures" violate peoples liberties, or violate state or federal law, are they still ok?" This topic is simply to large for the focus of this discussion. All I can say here is that taking a college class on Constitutional Law and Law theory will answer most if not all of those questions. That is not to say I agree with them, but that I understand how they came about and that the ones we are discussing in this thread, IN MY OPINION, are not overreaching right infringing decisions. "I'll give you an example you may be familiar with. It is real. There is a lawsuit in relation to it. It deals with firearms, and NJ. There are many threads on this forum about it. Are the NJ State Police 'standard procedures' that are mentioned when handling FPID applications in 'The Guide', that are known to violate the NJ Statues, ok? After all, they are standard procedures. So good or no?" My answer to this question should do well to answer this one and your final one. I sit on the Board of Directors of NJ2AS, the organisation that brough the lawsuit.......

Im ignoring nothing. The simple point you are not recognising is that we disagree on the methodology from which you are getting from point a to b. Its not a lack of comprehension, its a disagreement....... Your example based on what I said is flawed in my opinion and its not a suitable pathway to your point. I get your point, I may not even disagree with it on a base level but I do disagree with its application and how you got there as it relates to this subject. Your heading down a path, sarcastically, that anything can be justified on the pretence of a greater good. Im arguing that the right to be free from personal search and seisure and being "over policed" in reasonable applications is not being impacted here in the name of the greater good. Your argument STILL doesnt fit the application of, and what this all boils down to, standard procedures for a qualifying major event. The minimal impact to the population passes as a consideration of low impact for the greater good. Meaning having a couple people handy to address a specific type of threat, however unlikely, is a safe bet because the impact is negligable and deemed a reasonable precuation becaue even if unlikely, an event of this type is the most likely target target if an undetected threat did in fact exist.

Sorry Bone, nice try but no dice. You make the implication that searching a house randomly in the name of anit terrorism is the same as protecting a massive event that may be targeted, by your statement "So if the procedure was to periodically go door to door and search people's houses, or maybe just public businesses, for terrorists, that would be ok too then?" You then extrapolate that statement out to a reguler business because we all know the local dry cleaners is a prime target compared to a national event. Its flawed logic on to many levels to count. My point that I am sure everyone else got, is in fact that a house is not public and is under a different set of laws and regulations MUCH different than a public place. So for you to draw a comparison between a public place and a private one is flawed in its conception. But Im sure you realised that mid sentance and tossed in a public business as an afterthought........Again your reasoning is flawed. there is no lack of comprehension on my part.How about you?

A house is public? Your argument is becoming quite reaching...... Your application is absurd.

It doesnt show that at all because you clearly chose to leave out the part where they mention the AQ handbook. Dont be selective in your excerps. What it does show is that its a qualifying event, they had no hard evidence from international or national rescources, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO THREAT, it just means there are no recent smoking guns pointing to an emminant attack. All preperations for each contingency remains the same. Like I said, its a procedure, simple as that.

The things you describe are, in my opinion, better discussed and considered in the vein of paternalism in the law. The discussion is a short one, however, because I disagree with most aspects of law that are developed in this vein. Like Jesse James said on observing some kids in the back of a pickup in Mexico, if this was the US, Family Services would be all over them.......

http://bryantarmament.com/pics/SuperBowlmemo.pdf

Guys, I really think that unless someone here steps foward as a SME on the subject, I cant understand the comments... Do you guys think that the local PD just decides yeah, i guess we will role out there and setup for the hell of it? Or that there is some overt plan to create a police state? The superbowl is a major event. As an event of this size It comes under the auspices of DHS, FBI, NCC etc etc and there are Fed groups that perform an entire assesment of these events which is required by policy if its a qualifying event. Since things like the Al Qa'ida handbook specifically name events like this, countermeasures to those activities are in place. Its not "the man" keeping you down. All specific threat possibilities are analysed, foriegn and domestic, and countermeasures are layered in place. It is simply routine, nothing more....... The ONE layer that is mising is private CCW, that, I will agree on.

Mal, if the snipers shot every 1000th person I would agree with you.................

So here is the simple question put into a scenario less closer to home. If terrorist plot documentation was uncovered saying there is a plan to make an ANFO bomb and drive it into a major event and detonate it, according to some of the logic found in this thread, having a bomb squad present at major events now constitutes a police state erroding my rights?

Some of you guys have me heading for the pantry to retrieve the tinfoil to make a hat!

And not to put to fine a point on it but: "I disagree with your disagreement! lol" Lets assume for a second that both have focused on the suspect at hand. Who is more likely to have a better observation of the suspect? The guy trying not to be obvious, sitting next to the suspect trying to look through other patrons from a side view likely with no training on what to even look for? Or the guy with the SN3 that can dial up to 17X on his scope giving him the ability to focus on the guys hands and observe and look for the behaviours he is trained to look for?

Malsua, add 7 million witnesses to the scenario and you can sure bet the ROE is a small list of green lights!

Guys, your thinking is too constrained.... So let me ask this question. Jonny the mop guy has a hatred for XYZ officiating at the event or the opposing team playing etc etc. He places his remington 700 from wallmart in a position months in advance. He uncorks and starts letting the lead fly from the rafters. Who exactly is going to stop this? Plainclothes with a glock? CCW with a 1911? Considering this scenario has occured I dont think its terribly far fetched.

"could sure make better assesments of his lethality from a row away then a sniper hundreds of yards away..." I would disagree with this statement.

This looks to be a local rescource to me......