TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:If they are using them for shoot/no shoot would the ones you are not supposed to shoot not be pointing a gun? Interestingly the melanin count of all those people was quite low. If it was a realistic training shouldn't there be all skin shades?

If it was just this I would discount it. However with everything else going on it is yet another example of our gov't malfeasance.

You are seeing one media report, said reporter had a very specific intent and endsate they wanted you to think (feel) when you finished reading the piece. Seems it worked for many..here and elsewhere

How do you know there were not the no shoot targets? (ie, they are threatening, but a NO SHOOT scenario in the training program of instruction being used at the time)

Or they may have been the shoot targets interspersed with the same type targets minus the weapon.
Or they could have been.........

The point being, we have no idea, as the writer of that article wanted you to be full of faux rage about what they wrote, not what may have actually been the use of those targets.

Or worse yet,, the department who bought and used those targets really are planning on killing all American Gun owners.. I say worse, because, based on the slanted, misleading article that does not have the FULL STORY, we do not really know.

I really don't know. But quite honestly, once I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, and hoped that they were not up to anything. Now...well lets just say my trust in many of our govt institutions including some PD's has been very eroded. When things like this come up, I do not take anything for granted anymore. Just because one is paranoid does not mean that there is not someone out to get you.

mamabearCali wrote:I really don't know. But quite honestly, once I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, and hoped that they were not up to anything. Now...well lets just say my trust in many of our govt institutions including some PD's has been very eroded. When things like this come up, I do not take anything for granted anymore. Just because one is paranoid does not mean that there is not someone out to get you.

Though I understand what the Sergeant Major is getting at, 100%, I don't trust the so-called Justice Department in this country very much either. Specifically, I don't trust them because I don't trust Eric "Brainwash 'Em" Holder. Because of "Fast and Furious". And because they want gun control so badly, they are almost salivating for it. I'm sure that not every rank-and-file Federal agent is a threat to the public at large, I'm sure a large number of them are conscientious and hard-working folks who want to do things the right way. But with bosses like they have, a few bad apples could do some real bad things, and maybe get away with it. These days, there is simply no way to tell otherwise. And that is sad, indeed.

Do y'all think they printed these up for the first time for DHS.
Do you think LE Targets is the only company that prints this type of target?
http://www.targetsonline.com/store/
Look at the full list of paper target types they have on the website:
Split second, work place violence, home invasion, urban streets, armed robbery, K-9(yep, shooting dogs) all are threat/no threat types.
Mabel the receptionist (who just shot her cheating boyfriend), distraught 13 year old boy (who just shot his family). Oscar the "gang member" who is really a hair stylist. Killer the hardcore biker, who is an IT specialist, church goer and father of 4.
It's important for our LEOs to be able overcome their built in expectation of what a threat is. For their safety and ours.
Or don't you think there are "atypical" shooters out there. Are older, white, adolescent, female, pregnant, grandpas, all innocent of any type of mayhem or crime? And if you do believe that, how does it feel to be wrong.

Andrew wrote:Do y'all think they printed these up for the first time for DHS.
Do you think LE Targets is the only company that prints this type of target?
http://www.targetsonline.com/store/
Look at the full list of paper target types they have on the website:
Split second, work place violence, home invasion, urban streets, armed robbery, K-9(yep, shooting dogs) all are threat/no threat types.
Mabel the receptionist (who just shot her cheating boyfriend), distraught 13 year old boy (who just shot his family). Oscar the "gang member" who is really a hair stylist. Killer the hardcore biker, who is an IT specialist, church goer and father of 4.
It's important for our LEOs to be able overcome their built in expectation of what a threat is. For their safety and ours.
Or don't you think there are "atypical" shooters out there. Are older, white, adolescent, female, pregnant, grandpas, all innocent of any type of mayhem or crime? And if you do believe that, how does it feel to be wrong.

I understand what you have said completely. My comments above about the Justice Department could cover this topic, or any of a number of others...I guess what I'm saying is that once upon a time, almost no one would have worried about something like this. Now, folks have a distinct distrust of people they SHOULD be able to trust. And that is what is so messed up.

Why do they have that distrust? I am not saying that a healthy dose of skepticism of what we are told by our government isn't good, what I'm asking is what happened to critical thought? Reason? The ability to be discerning?
Why do folks automatically assume the worst? I spent all of 5 minutes investigating the company, target types, etc. and came to the conclusion that there was no story here. And I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, by any means.

Andrew wrote:Why do they have that distrust? I am not saying that a healthy dose of skepticism of what we are told by our government isn't good, what I'm asking is what happened to critical thought? Reason? The ability to be discerning?
Why do folks automatically assume the worst? I spent all of 5 minutes investigating the company, target types, etc. and came to the conclusion that there was no story here. And I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, by any means.

Perhaps it is because we see disrespect for constitutional rule of law on all sides of us. Perhaps we hear murmurings of plans to try to disarm the people, forcibly in some states. Perhaps ,we see LEO's rather often abusing their authority on tape. We are told by DHS that if we love the constitution and keep more than three days of food on hand we are potential terrorism threats. Now is everyone guilty in govt and LEO positions, heavens no. But it is enough that things I would have passed over 5 years ago I take a close look at it with concern.

mamabearCali wrote:

Andrew wrote:Why do they have that distrust? I am not saying that a healthy dose of skepticism of what we are told by our government isn't good, what I'm asking is what happened to critical thought? Reason? The ability to be discerning?
Why do folks automatically assume the worst? I spent all of 5 minutes investigating the company, target types, etc. and came to the conclusion that there was no story here. And I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, by any means.

Perhaps it is because we see disrespect for constitutional rule of law on all sides of us. Perhaps we hear murmurings of plans to try to disarm the people, forcibly in some states. Perhaps ,we see LEO's rather often abusing their authority on tape. We are told by DHS that if we love the constitution and keep more than three days of food on hand we are potential terrorism threats. Now is everyone guilty in govt and LEO positions, heavens no. But it is enough that things I would have passed over 5 years ago I take a close look at it with concern.

Perhaps it's due to to much information, rumors and speculative fiction masquerading as journalism. There has never before been a time when our gov't and it's activities have received such scrutiny.
Disrespect for constitutional rule: 1950's Eisenhower, I grew up in Southern Nevada, I've seen the results of the DoD marching soldiers into ground zero at the Nevada Test Site hours after an above ground test, have friends in S.E. Utah who were assembled outside their school buildings to watch the tests and then be covered with fallout from prevailing winds.1930s Roosevelt, SSA, WPA, and all the other New Deal garbage that changed our country forever. ETC, ETC.
Murmurings? With the 24 hour news cycle and the web if a State government is planning to forcibly disarm citizens we'd all know, if you are referring to NY's legislation why don't we see how that shakes out in the court system and the election process, y'know Constitutional exercise of franchise etc.
LEO's abusing their authority, Believe me there was just as much, if not more abuse of authority before dash cams and cell phones. Why does a LEO have to read you your rights? Miranda v. Arizona 1966. The only thing that's worse is perception, we see it if it happens in Richmond, Detroit, Los Angeles, or Dallas.
DHS Constitution/Food storage, have you seen/read the BJA/FBI circular that started this one? http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI- ... urplus.pdf read it and the disclaimers. What do you object to? LEOS use reasonable suspicion all the time. That we have home grown domestic terrorists shouldn't be in dispute. If the activities that have been compiled from studying the Weather Underground, Una Ted Kasinsky, Timothy McVeigh, etc. are observable in someone else shouldn't that interest you. We talk about how all the mass shooters of recent vintage being mentally ill and they only were able to do what they did because no one reported them, how is this request for information different?
Are there things you passed over 5 years ago, that now are ginned up reports and exclusives designed to elicit the worst in us. You have read, as have I, the responses in this thread of people who have dedicated their lives to the preservation of this country and our society. People who are honorable, yes, even noble in their devotion to our Constitution, who have stated, no story here. Yet this story and the ones from the last however many years, all proven false, will remain in the back of our minds, FEMA Death Camps, Mass Graveyards, Stockpiles of Caskets, Targets of American Gun Owners. Festering, giving us no peace and feeding fear of all around us. Who gains from this fear? Who benefits from it? Certainly not the federal gov't. Maybe it's the people who wholesale this trash? Do we watch their programs, buy their books and other products they advertise? What did we use to call these people? Loons. Don't believe them.

I wonder if the government have targets of themselves and their leaders...just in case.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Andrew wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that once upon a time, almost no one would have worried about something like this. Now, folks have a distinct distrust of people they SHOULD be able to trust. And that is what is so messed up.

With the current administration when there is smoke there has always been fire sooner or later. It's time we wake up, look at the sum total of the bigger picture, take everything into account and realize all is not well.

Andrew wrote:Why do they have that distrust? I am not saying that a healthy dose of skepticism of what we are told by our government isn't good, what I'm asking is what happened to critical thought? Reason? The ability to be discerning?
Why do folks automatically assume the worst? I spent all of 5 minutes investigating the company, target types, etc. and came to the conclusion that there was no story here. And I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, by any means.

Just checking to see if you caught what I said about Eric "Brainwash 'Em" Holder, Fast and Furious, etc.? THAT is why people mistrust these government organizations. Well, that and the mass media who are now, by and large, just a propaganda mill for the current administration. Since they now distrust the organizations they traditionally trusted, they look for alternate sources of information. The "ability to discern"? Does that mean the ability to blindly trust whatever CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. are spewing these days? To just assume the best about people who set up failed gun running operations on the taxpayers' dime? These are the same people who now want to take firearms away from law abiding citizens, or push regulations through that curtail the usage of firearms, or put citizens on lists like a criminal, or cause them undue hardship to own firearms...and the citizenry is supposed to trust these people?

If people reflexively mistrust the Justice Department and the "traditional" media, then its because that distrust has been EARNED. And then, right or wrong, people begin to put their trust elsewhere. Human beings cannot operate in an information vacuum.

EDITED TO ADD: I've got nothing against what the Sergeant Major said. I'm not even arguing in favor of the article saying those targets are intended to "teach" LEOs to shoot innocent people or some such. I'm just telling you that when you have the sort of authorities we have now, peoples' minds are going to think bad stuff about them.

Andrew wrote: Perhaps it's due to to much information, rumors and speculative fiction masquerading as journalism. There has never before been a time when our gov't and it's activities have received such scrutiny.
.

I have a different view. There never has been a time when those in the press, who should be watching for problems with government actions have become such cheerleaders for the Federal government and purposely distort or omit information about EVERYTHING that happens. These are not isolated incidents (Bengazi) but run the breath of topics.

1. The Affordable Care Act never was scrutinized for its content by the press. The provisions should have been made public but only a few ever were. The popular provisions were trumpeted by political leader and their press sycophants but the taxes and other aspects weren't
2. Fast and Furious was a disastrous program that not only didn't accomplish its stated purpose but caused a lot of collateral damage. How much of the American public knows anything about it, due to its being buried by the "watchdog" press.
3. Political strategies (War on Women) are created and pushed through the media. There is no substance behind them but they are used, without press challange, to sway elections.

I believe that what you are seeing is the public reaction to those excesses. Those with access to the information refuse to provide it and when every day citizens try to fill the void, sometimes they get it wrong. I personally saw the fields of FEMA trailers in Arkansas but I don't know all of the facts surrounding them and don't have the means to find out.

Then, you couple that with the "most transparent administration" for whom everything that they don't want made public ends up being a government secret (including a round of golf) and you have created an unprecedented level of distrust. Blaming those who don't have half of the information that they should have for the missing data is like blaming a battered wife for her husband's beatings of her.

Trust in a relationship is a two way street. You want me to trust you - then don't deliberately do things to cause my distrust. I always have a distrust of big government, not because I'm a conspiracy theorist but because I know the gross problems that result from huge bureaucracies which don't have checks and balances. My favorite phrase is "never attribute to malice that which is easily explained as incompetence." I've granted a continuing exception from that to this Federal administration. Malice has to be unproven.

Well I was gonna reply, but KMooney, and Chasfm have said it much better than I could.

E.Marquez wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:If they are using them for shoot/no shoot would the ones you are not supposed to shoot not be pointing a gun? Interestingly the melanin count of all those people was quite low. If it was a realistic training shouldn't there be all skin shades?

If it was just this I would discount it. However with everything else going on it is yet another example of our gov't malfeasance.

You are seeing one media report, said reporter had a very specific intent and endsate they wanted you to think (feel) when you finished reading the piece. Seems it worked for many..here and elsewhere

How do you know there were not the no shoot targets? (ie, they are threatening, but a NO SHOOT scenario in the training program of instruction being used at the time)

Or they may have been the shoot targets interspersed with the same type targets minus the weapon.
Or they could have been.........

The point being, we have no idea, as the writer of that article wanted you to be full of faux rage about what they wrote, not what may have actually been the use of those targets.

Or worse yet,, the department who bought and used those targets really are planning on killing all American Gun owners.. I say worse, because, based on the slanted, misleading article that does not have the FULL STORY, we do not really know.

WRONG. That presumption on your part is a straw man. I'm basing my remarks solely on the targets themselves and how the seller is promoting them. NO HESITATION TARGETS with realistic photographs of children, grannies, old men, pregnant women, and school girls. Sorry, I don't think there should be NO HESITATION in shooting a 10 year old. I think LE needs MORE hesitation not less. Any decent human being should hesitate to shoot a 10 year old even if he's got a gun in his hands. It seems like the police only hesitate these days when an active shooter is shooting up a school, like Columbine. The LAPD had no hesitataton in shooting up an old lady in a pickup. The LVPD didn't hesitate when they killed Eric Scott. You can't serve and PROTECT if the first priority is officer safety over public safety. The reality is that policing in any given year isn't even in the top 10 of most deadly occupations and when it reaches #10, police deaths are a fraction of occupation #1. On top of that, about 50% of police deaths are in traffic accidents, not from being shot. Language is important. NO HESITATION targets with realistic photographs of small children help to normalize indecent behavior.

Folks, the link is to Alex Jones' site; enough said.

These are photo-realistic targets that have been used in tactical training for decades. They are used, in part, because it helps to train students (COPS or citizens) that threats come in all shapes, sizes, colors and gender. One can no more say that all black men are a threat anymore than one can say "old men" and pregnant women are never a threat. In typical Alex Jones fashion, he puts a picture of a pregnant woman on his site purely to be inflammatory.

I'm getting tired of saying this, "the TexasCHLforum is not the National Inquirer." Stop now!

Chas.