pretty soon we wont be able to fart without permission from someone....

 

You don't get permission????

This was a whole lot of time of my life that was wasted reading this mindless dribble. You don't scan crowds with a loaded rifle. You use your spotting scope or binos. But what you do set up prior to the games start and make sure your rifle is set-up correctly in-case a need arises. In the picture you don’t see the seats filled, the game has not even started yet. Or maybe the game is over at the time of picture.

Time to loosen up your tin foil hats a little. I think they are restricting the flow of oxygen to your brains. Are we seriously saying that you feel having a protective measure such as sharp shooters is a violation of your rights? Random fact No forced anyone to go to that game. NO ONE. They went by choice to a venue that could be a potential target of a terrorist act. You know the risks of going here. We all do. And so do the agencies that want to keep everyone safe. There's no police state here. You don’t see guys one every corner of your street with assault rifles and masks backed by some alphabet soup agency. They aren't there to oppress you. They are not there to violate your rights. They are there for one reason and one alone to make sure everyone goes home they way they arrive.

 

Dont like this.... DONT GO TO THE GAME

http://bryantarmamen...perBowlmemo.pdf

 

Thank you. You are proving our point for us. From your link:

 

 

" The FBI, DHS, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), and Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex-area (DFW-area) law enforcement agencies have identified no credible terrorist threats to Super Bowl XLV or its associated events and venues"

 

"We have no credible information that al-Qa’ida or other international terrorist groups are planning to attack Super Bowl XLV"

 

"We have no information that domestic terrorists plan to conduct attacks against or coinciding with the Super Bowl."

This was a whole lot of time of my life that was wasted reading this mindless dribble.

 

They are not there to violate your rights. They are there for one reason and one alone to make sure everyone goes home they way they arrive.

 

Dont like this.... DONT GO TO THE GAME

 

Mindless dribble for someone without the intellectual capacity to see past agendas. The fact you cannot see past that, and are delusional is not surprising though. Because your own comment at the end shows the opposite. Just don't go to the came if you don't like it? Because that is how it should be. Don't like something? Just accept it and go somewhere else, do something else, etc. No matter, if someone tells you something is going to be a certain way, it doesn't matter what that way is, if that way is right or wrong. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else! That's the answer!

 

:rolleyes:

Mindless dribble for someone without the intellectual capacity to see past agendas. The fact you cannot see past that, and are delusional is not surprising though. Because your own comment at the end shows the opposite. Just don't go to the came if you don't like it? Because that is how it should be. Don't like something? Just accept it and go somewhere else, do something else, etc. No matter, if someone tells you something is going to be a certain way, it doesn't matter what that way is, if that way is right or wrong. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else! That's the answer!

 

:rolleyes:

 

You're a glass half empty kind of guy aren't ya???

You're a glass half empty kind of guy aren't ya???

 

You noticed?

 

I used to be an optimist. But is is hard to remain optimistic when you are constantly disappointed. If you don't take things (everything really) with a level of skepticism, you will continually be fooled unless you verify things first. I've been testing a theory recently, dealing with the recency effect, where people tend to believe what they hear most recently, and I've been very disappointed. I've taken incidents and things that happened when I was with other people, and then posted about them on facebook. Then, a week later, I delete all mention to it, and say something entirely different happened. Well it turns out, even the people I was with and SAW what actually happened, or were directly involved, seem to believe what I am saying now. It is crazy.

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.

So if the procedure was to periodically to enter and inspect public businesses, for terrorists, that would be ok too then? I mean, it is just procedure. Just because there is "no credible threat" (you know, what they said), doesn't mean THERE IS NO THREAT (what you said). That is fine then right? It is as "simple as that".

 

Don't like the way I applied your own post do you? I'm sorry if that is the case, but that is what you said.

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

The public safety issue with all these sniper rifles is pretty scary. How do we know if these rifles are safe to fire or even accurate? Do we really want to risk a miss in a crowded stadium? In the interest of public safety, I'll volunteer to personally test the rifle at the range...because I care!

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

 

Your reading appears limited. "or maybe just public businesses".

 

Your comprehension even more so. I said a house was public where exactly?

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?

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?

 

You still failed to comprehend my post, so I have edited it for you. In fact, I realized as soon as I wrote "door to door" that you would say what you are saying, which is why I corrected it. And then mentioned it a second time. You failed to comprehend that. You then go on this rant about the difference between a private home and public place, contrary to me talking about other public places as reason to assert how what you said doesn't apply. So if you want to think I was applying what you said to private homes, okay. Now I am applying it to public businesses. Again, using what YOU said.

 

So if the procedure was to periodically to enter and inspect public businesses, for terrorists, that would be ok too then? I mean, it is just procedure. Just because there is "no credible threat" (you know, what they said), doesn't mean THERE IS NO THREAT (what you said). That is fine then right? It is as "simple as that".

 

I am finding it increasingly more difficult to try and discuss things with people when they ignore their own posts, and try and divert and deflect...which I'm sure you will do again.

 

3.2.1...

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.

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.

 

I'm going to tread cautiously, because I think I may not be understanding your intent properly. If you mean by saying I am heading down a path sarcastically I am saying the opposite, then yes, you are correct. I don't think anything should be done for the 'greater good'. That is usually an excuse to take away liberties. To your comment about not being applicable, I am not going to argue with your view on why it isn't, but rather I will ask you a question.

 

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?

 

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?

 

Im ignoring nothing.

 

Well actually...

 

"So if the procedure was to periodically to enter and inspect public businesses, for terrorists, that would be ok too then? "

"That is fine then right? "

 

I didn't get an answer, even if as simple as a yes or no, so how did you not ignore that...

"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.......

Well that was much easier now wasn't it.

 

It was clear to both of us we disagreed on the issue. I got that. I was trying to find out why you disagreed, which is why I made comparisons and asked those questions. You seemed reluctant to answer and in fact deflected and avoided. I wasn't sure why, as you last post did well in explaining to me your views.

 

Two things still.

 

You still avoided my initial questions.

 

I take issue with this statement. "This topic is simply to large for the focus of this discussion."

That issue, IS the issue. It isn't too large for any discussion. To avoid discussing it is an avoidance of the entire issue. Your agreement with me is not a requirement for the discussion.

 

 

I'll say this. I understand not everybody is going to agree with what I say. That is why I take part in these discussions, and these debates. I want to see why people disagree. There is often another side to things I may have overlooked or not thought of. Sometimes in these discussions, my opinion is strengthened. Sometimes I actually have a change of opinion. That is why we have them. It helps both sides be more informed and enlightened. To avoid them and ignore talking about controversial things is detrimental to everybody.

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.

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?

 

Not trying to steer the thread away, just kind of making a point that the threats aren't always so obvious.

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?

 

Not trying to steer the thread away, just kind of making a point that the threats aren't always so obvious.

 

They mentioned that. I quoted that. But I can quote it again for your viewing pleasure.

 

"We have no information that domestic terrorists plan to conduct attacks against or coinciding with the Super Bowl."

 

Straight from DHS that is.

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.

I'm confused what you guys are trying to do right now. This wasn't even the debate to begin with. Your debate was that this was a standard procedure and due to the size of the event justified. I can at least understand that, though I may not agree. But now you are arguing something different, that is also not the reason you gave, or DHS would argue. Because what DHS said themselves, is that there is NO CREDIBLE THREAT! They didn't say there was no specific plot. They said there was no credible threat.

 

Credible: Capable of being believed; plausible; believable, of sufficient capability.

 

Threat: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage.

 

So if they did not believe that it was even plausible for there to be an intention of causing injury or damage, why would they need any additional precautions? 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. I'm not saying there is no need for any precautions, but extra, excessive, non practical ones? Nope. No need. None.

 

Why must you continually try and make up stuff to justify a point, that doesn't need to be justified further...

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 ..........

And of course, DHS Makes all such threats 100% Public....

The only threats DHS makes public are the 'threats' they themselves made up, in order to force these restrictions and procedures that Shane is talking about on us. If they didn't, there shenanigans would be more transparent. That isn't to say it isn't already, but obviously some people still have their blinders on.

 

I see where I went wrong Shane. I was operating under the assumption we were both talking about real threats, and real problems, and not that you just believe everything that DHS and other government agencies tell you. I on the other hand, believe what I see and confirm. I'm glad you absorbed their whole report so well. The non-credible threats you refer to, are from people like me, and you in fact, as a gun owner.

 

By your logic, unless you know of a specific credible threat, you would never need a ccw ..........

 

You lost me there. It seems you confused yourself too. As you were quick to jump on earlier (even though it wasn't what I said, but I digress), there is a difference between things. Those things in this case mainly being, the government and their control and power, and individual freedom. I have the right to be able to protect myself. You have the same right, as does Billy Bob and Suzy Mae. And if I want the governments help, I'll ask them. But because they are the government, doesn't mean they can do whatever the heck they want.

It is clear your view on government and my view on government are opposites.

 

I posted the definitions of both the word 'credible' and the word 'threat'. Your confusion on what they mean is not my problem on your inability to properly express what you meant. Don't take things the wrong way, I can only respond to what you say. If that is different than what you mean, it makes it quite hard to distinguish online...

And of course, DHS Makes all such threats 100% Public....

 

Oh sure they do, probably about .01% of them, heck if people knew the amount of crap that comes through, well lets just say it would be eye opening.

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.

Probably because my logic is the opposite of what you are saying.

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

 

 

Oh sure they do, probably about .01% of them, heck if people knew the amount of crap that comes through, well lets just say it would be eye opening.

 

Could not agree more. Being in law enforcement one hears about things that the public never knows about. There is stuff I don't tell my family. We are talking about a large scale public event not a small storefront. Of course there will be anti - terror personnel. I have to say the govt conspiracy lunacy is really getting crazy lately.