Well, I didn't worry about it as much when Bush was president and Tom Ridge was the director like I do now.
DHS says people with handguns, rifles, and shotguns may be terrorists
- Thread starter ssyoumans
- Start date
- Status
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
blarby
Member
While I get the inference there- that all LE should be able to judge and NOT forward Constitutional issues.......
I don't hold a vast majority of that body capable of making such judgement calls.
I'm sorry to those that could, and do make them correctly- but the ones that don't are the ones I'm talking about, and depending on your zip code, the mixture can vary widely.
I'm sure The Crown identified them all as terrorists. All depends on your perspective.
The most difficult thing our Government can do is attempt to define what a "terrorist" is. It's so hard that there is NO legal definition. Unfortunately, it's whatever the officer in charge of that investigation says it is.
The reality is that attempting to define terrorism is like trying to define pornography, for a lot of the exact same reasons of logical analysis. It defies wrapping a boundary on it. In fact, one early group actually declared themselves terrorists and used the term repeatedly to show their determination to express their view. In the beginning, the Marxist movement determinedly spoke out against it - they didn't want to alienate the common man, they were trying to sell him they were morally right.
When it comes down to actually acquiring arms as a terrorist, you DON'T stockpile huge quantities, and you DON'T have piles of ammo. There simply isn't any money for it. You basically steal it from your opponent, which also adds another level of embarrassment to your campaign. That's what is so extremely wrong about the concept of "terrorists stockpile large amounts of stuff." If they really did, would they then be stupid enough to show it off to all and sundry who are even allowed into their domains? Nope, it's a fallacy.
Goes to who wrote this - completely uninformed and ignorant. You want to know what terrorists REALLY do, the websites are up, go surf it. For those who won't like the NSA knowing you did, might want to activate incognito browsing thru a proxy. No, I don't mind saying it, because both of us aren't likely to get 30 cops at the door.
This was entirely a political DC event staged for public consumption - not a real drill. If it had been of any merit, there would be BOLO's out for quite a few terrorists. And they would likely be laughing all the way to their safe houses about how they were able to make a huge splash in the news over it. And the funerals would have been televised coast to coast.
DC needs to get it's act together, they are only telegraphing how easy it would be to set them up for a fall by a real terrorist. That's the tactical error they really made, and if they keep it up, it can be taken advantage of.
Somebody just saw personal political gain and traded off their credibility as a real leader.
BTW - She didn't get the house in the divorce, did she? And, this isn't going to help DC at all, it's a loser case. Lots of things going on here . . .
The reality is that attempting to define terrorism is like trying to define pornography, for a lot of the exact same reasons of logical analysis. It defies wrapping a boundary on it. In fact, one early group actually declared themselves terrorists and used the term repeatedly to show their determination to express their view. In the beginning, the Marxist movement determinedly spoke out against it - they didn't want to alienate the common man, they were trying to sell him they were morally right.
When it comes down to actually acquiring arms as a terrorist, you DON'T stockpile huge quantities, and you DON'T have piles of ammo. There simply isn't any money for it. You basically steal it from your opponent, which also adds another level of embarrassment to your campaign. That's what is so extremely wrong about the concept of "terrorists stockpile large amounts of stuff." If they really did, would they then be stupid enough to show it off to all and sundry who are even allowed into their domains? Nope, it's a fallacy.
Goes to who wrote this - completely uninformed and ignorant. You want to know what terrorists REALLY do, the websites are up, go surf it. For those who won't like the NSA knowing you did, might want to activate incognito browsing thru a proxy. No, I don't mind saying it, because both of us aren't likely to get 30 cops at the door.
This was entirely a political DC event staged for public consumption - not a real drill. If it had been of any merit, there would be BOLO's out for quite a few terrorists. And they would likely be laughing all the way to their safe houses about how they were able to make a huge splash in the news over it. And the funerals would have been televised coast to coast.
DC needs to get it's act together, they are only telegraphing how easy it would be to set them up for a fall by a real terrorist. That's the tactical error they really made, and if they keep it up, it can be taken advantage of.
Somebody just saw personal political gain and traded off their credibility as a real leader.
BTW - She didn't get the house in the divorce, did she? And, this isn't going to help DC at all, it's a loser case. Lots of things going on here . . .
Deaf Smith
Member
So by DHS standards, their own people possess handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Thus they are potential terrorist! And considering Obama's war by drone assassinations I guess they are spot on.
And governments that suppress voters by delaying groups from registering for voter turnout would be what, tyrants? Hmmm wonder if that includes the IRS?
But at the same time, Interpol's chief thinks civilians with guns stop terrorism!
Imagine that!
You know the Bill of Rights was put there for a reason, and lately we have seen just why it's there.
Deaf
And governments that suppress voters by delaying groups from registering for voter turnout would be what, tyrants? Hmmm wonder if that includes the IRS?
But at the same time, Interpol's chief thinks civilians with guns stop terrorism!
Imagine that!
You know the Bill of Rights was put there for a reason, and lately we have seen just why it's there.
Deaf
Fella's;
OMG, the U.S. Army musta taught me to be a terrorist! The Department Of Homeland Security should immediately investigate them. If DHS doesn't find anything on the first pass, that only means the devious SOB's were very good at covering up and a far more rigorous probe is required.
Hopefully it'll keep the nitwits busy for a coupla decades.
900F
OMG, the U.S. Army musta taught me to be a terrorist! The Department Of Homeland Security should immediately investigate them. If DHS doesn't find anything on the first pass, that only means the devious SOB's were very good at covering up and a far more rigorous probe is required.
Hopefully it'll keep the nitwits busy for a coupla decades.
900F
lobo9er
Member
whoa please help me catch up.... This isn't from the DHS website though or am I mistaken? Or is the website this is from apart of a Gov't/DHS website of some sort. Sorry to bog down this conversation.
bainter1212
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,175
So....if the targeted killing of women and children makes one a terrorist.....
What about the folks who call it "acceptable collateral damage" when they order a drone to do the same?
We need some heads checked over there in D.C.
What about the folks who call it "acceptable collateral damage" when they order a drone to do the same?
We need some heads checked over there in D.C.
Outlaw Man
Member
Agreed. So what does that say about our current situation?
As much as I enjoy taking a bite-out-of-Washington, we are drifting away from firearms, and wandering into politics here. We need to get back at least directly to the firearms aspect.
Me? I own handguns, revolvers, rifles, carbines and shotguns. My weapons are for fun, for hunting, for collecting, for the heck of it, and for self-defense if I ever need them. I make no apologies to anyone in any public office for exercising my God given rights.
Geno
Me? I own handguns, revolvers, rifles, carbines and shotguns. My weapons are for fun, for hunting, for collecting, for the heck of it, and for self-defense if I ever need them. I make no apologies to anyone in any public office for exercising my God given rights.
Geno
Why not go to the material that has PublicIntelligence.net so excited and make your own interpretation after reading the entire body of information?
http://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-FBI-Weapons.pdf
Here's the information sharing document they provide a link to http://nsi.ncirc.gov/documents/ISE-...Issued_2009.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
The PI.net folks do say, "Like other bulletins in the DHS-FBI series on suspicious activity reporting, the document notes that “constitutional activities should not be reported” unless the circumstances “support the source agency’s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism, including evidence of pre-operational planning related to terrorism.” However, no guidance is provided on potential legal issues related to the reporting of constitutionally-protected activities.", but they don't acknowledge that guidance is part of law enforcement training nor are they acknowledging that the "Like other bulletins" is an acknowledgement that this warning to LE to respect the constitutional guarantees on the 2A is oft repeated.
Have we seen weapons and explosives caches in the hands of terrorists? Sure. Have we seen personal firearms collections that rival those terrorist caches? Sure. How do you know the other guy with the same collection you have is a terrorist or an enthusiast? You don't just by the fact that he has several guns so you must determine if there are other indicators before assuming it equals terrorist activity. That's what the DHS bulletin is warning LE to not make the mistake of assuming. That's the crux of the matter.
http://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-FBI-Weapons.pdf
Here's the information sharing document they provide a link to http://nsi.ncirc.gov/documents/ISE-...Issued_2009.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
The PI.net folks do say, "Like other bulletins in the DHS-FBI series on suspicious activity reporting, the document notes that “constitutional activities should not be reported” unless the circumstances “support the source agency’s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism, including evidence of pre-operational planning related to terrorism.” However, no guidance is provided on potential legal issues related to the reporting of constitutionally-protected activities.", but they don't acknowledge that guidance is part of law enforcement training nor are they acknowledging that the "Like other bulletins" is an acknowledgement that this warning to LE to respect the constitutional guarantees on the 2A is oft repeated.
Have we seen weapons and explosives caches in the hands of terrorists? Sure. Have we seen personal firearms collections that rival those terrorist caches? Sure. How do you know the other guy with the same collection you have is a terrorist or an enthusiast? You don't just by the fact that he has several guns so you must determine if there are other indicators before assuming it equals terrorist activity. That's what the DHS bulletin is warning LE to not make the mistake of assuming. That's the crux of the matter.
Black Knight
Member
Didn't George III do something similar 238 years ago? History seems to be repeating itself.
armsmaster270
Member
Home grown terrorists
Texan Scott
Member
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!
Last edited:
Outlaw Man
Member
We'd rather you do all the work and spoon feed it to us!
The problem is, Law Enforcement are just people too. (Well, some of them)
If 80% (just throwing a number out there) of gun owners think this means "people who have lots of guns and ammo, might be a terrorist", they it stands to reason that a lot of (being human) Law Enforcement Officers might come to the same conclusion.
Social thought engineering takes time, patience, and a skillful hand to deliver messages which subtly shift the public perception over time. Bulletins like this are a perfect medium for this because they are circulated through official channels and delivered to an audience which is responsible for enforcing the government's authority.
"Hey, that guy has enough firepower to rival our police agency. But he's OK because we know him and he's lived here his whole life."
Slowly evolves in to...
"Hey, that guy has enough firepower to rival our police agency. Sure, he's lived here his whole life, and we know him, but really.. what is he planning? Why does he need all of those guns, all of that ammo?"
This is nothing more than an extension of the powers that be continuing their anti-gun social engineering. It wasn't 2 minutes after Aurora and Newtown that the anti-gunners were on every medium available screaming "PEOPLE CAN ORDER THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION OVER THE INTERWEBZ!"
And not long after, a ban on private purchase of ammunition in NY happened, restrictions and reporting on quantity, etc.
This tells the general population - via their authority role models - that "owning a lot of guns and ammo is wrong. Good people don't need to do that. Sportsman don't need to do that. Hunters don't need to do that. Only people who aren't quite right in the head do these sorts of things."
Not being paranoid, or reading more in to it than I should; just watching it unfold, with some understanding of what the pieces (like this bulletin) mean in the overall game plan.
I've studied Dr. Josef Goebbels and read his diaries. Not especially fond of socialism, but the old Doctor from WWII was incredibly adept at bending public will to the favor of the party. I can see the same tactics being used today to get people to accept National Power, and believe that The Government Can Do No Wrong.
Sometimes propaganda is a big stick. Sometimes a small stick. Sometimes you don't even know you've been handed a stick to carry.
If the above is too long for you to read:
The crux of the issue is the government continually trains people, children, LEO, everyone to "not trust your fellow citizen". Subtle messages like this are no different.
The question of "Do terrorists want firearms and ammunition?" ... Let's think real hard on that one... duhhh.
That's not the point of the bulletin. The point of the bulletin is to cast doubt on ALL firearms owners. Because any one of them might be a terrorist in hiding. Sure, if they are "constitutional gun owners", maybe they are OK.
But you have to shift the default thinking pattern first.
Now the default thinking pattern is "Hey, that guy owns quite a few guns. Is he a terrorist?"
Not so long ago it was "Hey, that guy owns quite a few guns. He's one of those gun-nuts."
The net result is this:
Through various official publications, media manipulation, and other social engineering, the powers that be are trying to cast gun owners in to a dubious light, where we are looked at with suspicion and doubt.
The question WE should be asking.. is why?
The crux of the issue is the government continually trains people, children, LEO, everyone to "not trust your fellow citizen". Subtle messages like this are no different.
The question of "Do terrorists want firearms and ammunition?" ... Let's think real hard on that one... duhhh.
That's not the point of the bulletin. The point of the bulletin is to cast doubt on ALL firearms owners. Because any one of them might be a terrorist in hiding. Sure, if they are "constitutional gun owners", maybe they are OK.
But you have to shift the default thinking pattern first.
Now the default thinking pattern is "Hey, that guy owns quite a few guns. Is he a terrorist?"
Not so long ago it was "Hey, that guy owns quite a few guns. He's one of those gun-nuts."
The net result is this:
Through various official publications, media manipulation, and other social engineering, the powers that be are trying to cast gun owners in to a dubious light, where we are looked at with suspicion and doubt.
The question WE should be asking.. is why?
In totalitarian state any armed citizen is suspect as possible w/in country terrorist. That is why their weapons are confiscated and internal security forces keep dossiers on possible citizen trouble makers in case of crisis where martial law needs to be declared. You know,.... they monitor purchases through credit cards, how much money is moved around through financial institutions, keep records what mail is received, tap phone conversations, internet use, use spy drones,.... In such cases said troublemakers get detained.
Gee, can you think of such a country?
Destructo6
Member
Some folks here have terrible reading/comprehension skills.
Terrorist=a person or entity that opposes status quo.
OilyPablo
Member
Don't even think about voting for Democrats. They cause this stuff. It's not some kind of indirect connection, it's in their party platform and their leaders are openly anti-2nd amendment. How much more clear does it need to be?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked