Be a Supporter!

U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones

  • 1,460 Views
  • 45 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
MushookieMan
MushookieMan
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:17 AM Reply

Article

"The Army's solicitation also suggests how such a nonlethal suicide drone could work in the U.S. homeland âEU" crowd control for police, border protection for Homeland Security or "temporary incapacitation of nonviolent criminals" for police and their SWAT teams. Like so many military technologies, this one could easily come back to the homefront."

Why would they even suggest that? As if having drones circling above a city to slam into crowds wasn't the most Orwellian image ever seriously suggested.

BBS Signature
tox
tox
  • Member since: Mar. 13, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 28
Audiophile
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:27 AM Reply

long range large rubber bullets?


call me toxie 0.~
reached vet status by RacistBassist , fuckyeah.jpg

BBS Signature
MushookieMan
MushookieMan
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:37 AM Reply

At 5/2/12 08:27 AM, tox wrote: long range large rubber bullets?

Rubber bullets don't physically knock you down.


BBS Signature
Gimmick
Gimmick
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Game Developer
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:43 AM Reply

At 5/2/12 08:37 AM, MushookieMan wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:27 AM, tox wrote: long range large rubber bullets?
Rubber bullets don't physically knock you down.

It depends.


Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp
"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies

BBS Signature
Wagggs
Wagggs
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Audiophile
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 11:03 AM Reply

I don't know if its possible, but the army has an infrared wave gun that is non-lethal, and has a really long range. I wonder if they could mount that on a UAV and remotely incapacitate individuals in urban areas?


Exploding genitalia
"Get buttfucked in the mouth." | "Dammit, let me spread my anger, breed my hate!"

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 11:25 AM Reply

At 5/2/12 08:37 AM, MushookieMan wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:27 AM, tox wrote: long range large rubber bullets?
Rubber bullets don't physically knock you down.

They do if they kill you. Which they can.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:19 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 11:25 AM, DickBuns wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:37 AM, MushookieMan wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:27 AM, tox wrote: long range large rubber bullets?
Rubber bullets don't physically knock you down.
They do if they kill you. Which they can.

or your close enough an the velocity knocks you down. (or the pain)

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:22 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:19 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 5/2/12 11:25 AM, DickBuns wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:37 AM, MushookieMan wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:27 AM, tox wrote: long range large rubber bullets?
Rubber bullets don't physically knock you down.
They do if they kill you. Which they can.
or your close enough an the velocity knocks you down. (or the pain)

The velocity is incapable of knocking you down, it would be the pain. Otherwise if the velocity could knock you down, it would also knock the shooter down as well.

Shade
Shade
  • Member since: Mar. 26, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Voice Actor
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:35 PM Reply

I wish they'd just go back to beating up hippies instead of just lettung them go.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:43 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:35 PM, Shade wrote: I wish they'd just go back to beating up hippies instead of just lettung them go.

Yeah! Fuck freedom of speech! If it's not the same as my opinion, then they deserved to be beaten!

MushookieMan
MushookieMan
  • Member since: Dec. 11, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:52 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:48 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:17 AM, MushookieMan wrote: Why would they even suggest that? As if having drones circling above a city to slam into crowds wasn't the most Orwellian image ever seriously suggested.
It's a new way to break up riots without killing anyone. How could anyone find that a bad thing? Maybe you'd like it better if the army just went Kent State on their asses instead.

Anyway, maybe it could deploy tear gas or knockout gas canisters. Or maybe it could make use of that new heat ray the army's been touting. Perhaps a high-altitude explosion that rains burning shrapnel of pain on the rioters.

Right, let's develop new terrifying military technology to be used on crowds even though current crowd control methods are good enough. Oh and it should be able to fly around and target people.


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:59 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:52 PM, MushookieMan wrote: Right, let's develop new terrifying military technology to be used on crowds even though current crowd control methods are good enough. Oh and it should be able to fly around and target people.

yes! it would be the best. then RODS FROM GOD 20 foot long by 3 foot in Diameter tungsten rod launched from space into orbit and strike a target within 3M.

thats where military tech is going. SPACE!

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:14 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:58 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 04:52 PM, MushookieMan wrote: Right, let's develop new terrifying military technology to be used on crowds even though current crowd control methods are good enough. Oh and it should be able to fly around and target people.
Current crowd control methods could always be improved. In fact, they SHOULD be improved. And again, so long as it is non-lethal, there is no moral issue with using it for crowd control.

There is always a moral issue regarding crowd control. Does this crowd really need controlling? Otherwise, we're all just sheep being told what to do, when to shit, when to eat, and what to think.

Shade
Shade
  • Member since: Mar. 26, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Voice Actor
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:22 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:43 PM, DickBuns wrote:
At 5/2/12 04:35 PM, Shade wrote: I wish they'd just go back to beating up hippies instead of just lettung them go.
Yeah! Fuck freedom of speech! If it's not the same as my opinion, then they deserved to be beaten!

Well, think about it. They're all generally high so they won't feel most of it.

The world would be a better place without freedom of speech, at least not full freedom.

Y'know lack of racism and all that.
Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:26 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 05:22 PM, Shade wrote:
Well, think about it. They're all generally high so they won't feel most of it.

The world would be a better place without freedom of speech, at least not full freedom.

Y'know lack of racism and all that.

I was going to write up a large thesis on why you are a dumb fuck and an idiot, but since: 15, Male... I'll let it slide. You'll learn one day why you are wrong.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:53 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 05:48 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 05:14 PM, DickBuns wrote: There is always a moral issue regarding crowd control. Does this crowd really need controlling? Otherwise, we're all just sheep being told what to do, when to shit, when to eat, and what to think.
Don't tell me you actually believe that conspiracy garbage.

Also, I'm pretty sure the term "crowd control" was used erroneously and that it's actually referring to riot control.

Don't tell me that you don't actually believe that the government is not slowly and surely encroaching on our rights when they clearly are.

Crowd control is an appropriate term in this thread due to the amount of non-violent crowd control that has taken place over the past year. Or were you under a rock when people were getting beaten by cops left and right for simply expressing their 1st amendment rights?

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 06:52 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 06:26 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 05:53 PM, DickBuns wrote: Don't tell me that you don't actually believe that the government is not slowly and surely encroaching on our rights when they clearly are.
Nice hat. Tinfoil doesn't look that good on you, though. Have you tried leather?

Yeah. I guess the PATRIOT act and the increasingly invasive search procedures by the TSA, and all these constant bills poppping up to restrict whatever is left of the internet.


Crowd control is an appropriate term in this thread due to the amount of non-violent crowd control that has taken place over the past year. Or were you under a rock when people were getting beaten by cops left and right for simply expressing their 1st amendment rights?
Protestors have been beaten to shit because they broke the law. Whether by a not having proper permits or just flat-out rioting, it happens because they broke the law.

What law says that a person needs the shit beat out of them for dancing? It says no where in the constitution that people need to get permits to assemble. It says that we have the right to petition the government. Period. Not petition the government in order to petition the government. People do not need to respect unjust laws. Hence the civil rights movement.

Wow. You are a bigger tool than I thought possible. Please. Continue with your 4 letter words in an attempt to impress the middle school children.

ILoveToGrok
ILoveToGrok
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:00 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 04:48 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:17 AM, MushookieMan wrote: Why would they even suggest that? As if having drones circling above a city to slam into crowds wasn't the most Orwellian image ever seriously suggested.
It's a new way to break up riots without killing anyone. How could anyone find that a bad thing? Maybe you'd like it better if the army just went Kent State on their asses instead.

Anyway, maybe it could deploy tear gas or knockout gas canisters. Or maybe it could make use of that new heat ray the army's been touting. Perhaps a high-altitude explosion that rains burning shrapnel of pain on the rioters.

Alterior motives.

A silent subjugation to advanced power and control.

You are letting a vampire into your house. First impressions are always facades to hide true impressions. [Rare exceptions.]

AutumnalEquinox
AutumnalEquinox
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Art Lover
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:09 PM Reply

Nah, let's be as lethal as can be.


Sig made by Skaren
Formerly known as StonedGrenade

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:23 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 07:15 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: The patriot act is a boogeyman. It sounds scary, but when has it actually been abused?

Any single time that a phone conversation was listened to without a warrant. It's a gradual slipping away of rights and privacy.

Full-body scanners = end of freedom.

No single rain drop is to blame for a flood.

How many of those have actually passed? And lol @ "whatever is left." Like you actually believe the modern US internet is censored.

The problem lies in the part where they would pass if the internet did not collectively flip their shit. One day, one of those bills will end up passing under the radar.

How about rioting? Because when these laws are broken, the first thing the police try to do is disperse the crowd peacefully. The problem is, alarmists like you incite riots over this, forcing the police to take more drastic measures.

Let's equate dancing and peaceful protest to rioting (Which, in case you didn't notice, came AFTER the people started being arrested for expressing a right)

Right, because the constitution is the ONLY legal document we should ever use. Screw all those superfluous "laws."

Yes, we can have more laws, but when those superfluous laws end up restricting or even denying people rights for whatever reason, there's a problem.

Are you really that stupid? You can honestly write to your congressman, start a petition or otherwise contact the government however else your heart desires WITHOUT a permit.

I like how you leave out the methods that actually show that people mean what they say.

Formal assemblies are the only things not subject to this protection, because crowds are subject to rioting and law enforcement is needed to keep it peaceful.

Look at the shenanigans that happened in the ME. When police were up close, shit went down. Went police were ordered to stay as far as possible and to only watch, everything was peaceful

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this. In what way are protest permits an "unjust law?"

You know, the part where you can be denied the right to protest.

Your username is DickBuns. Please go on about how I curse too much.

Let's bring in user aliases instead of how the person actually posts.

At 5/2/12 06:26 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Protestors have been beaten to shit because they broke the law. Whether by a not having proper permits or just flat-out rioting, it happens because they broke the law.

When protesting is all it takes to break the law, then something is wrong.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
ILoveToGrok
ILoveToGrok
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:28 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 07:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
No single rain drop is to blame for a flood.:

I'm sorry, but this example is poor.

Raindrops do not have cognition like an individual human being does.

An individual would know better, versus the un-bias artifact of nature.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:36 PM Reply

RB and Xyphon have already stated everything I was going to state.

Other than the fact that you are an angry angsty child today RWG. Seriously. I've never seen you in such a virgin with rage mood.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:00 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 07:49 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 07:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Any single time that a phone conversation was listened to without a warrant. It's a gradual slipping away of rights and privacy.
If a government lackey listens to your conversation without your knowledge, then assuming you're not a criminal, how does this affect your life in a negative way?

It's none of their business. I shouldn't have to worry about what I say on the phone being construed as criminal. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


No single rain drop is to blame for a flood.
So where is this flood you're talking about?

The problem lies in the part where they would pass if the internet did not collectively flip their shit. One day, one of those bills will end up passing under the radar.
With congress under as much scrutiny as it is, each failed attempt will only make the next one harder to pass.

Let's equate dancing and peaceful protest to rioting (Which, in case you didn't notice, came AFTER the people started being arrested for expressing a right)
They were arrested for protesting without a permit.

It's not that hard to get a fucking permit.

Where does it say in the constitution that one needs a permit to protest and address the government?


Once it turns into a riot, are you saying the cops SHOULDN'T beat them up?

Yes, we can have more laws, but when those superfluous laws end up restricting or even denying people rights for whatever reason, there's a problem.
Notice, the right to protest is neither restricted nor denied. You need a permit to drive a car, why shouldn't you need one to gather a massive crowd in a public place?

Driving a car is not a right. The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, IS A RIGHT. The right to protest has been restricted, and denied several times. Occupy's form of protest was camping. OH TEH NOES, PEOPLE EXERCISING THEIR FREEDOMS IN A WAY WE DONT LIKE, LETS ENFORCE ALL THESE BULLSHIT LAWS.


I like how you leave out the methods that actually show that people mean what they say.
Remember how SOPA was defeated? Did we need to go out and riot to stop it? Did we even need a physical protest? No. In the information age, petitions and cyber-protests were all that was needed.

SOPA was defeated thanks to a large grass roots petition by several communities, in addition to physical protest.


Look at the shenanigans that happened in the ME. When police were up close, shit went down. Went police were ordered to stay as far as possible and to only watch, everything was peaceful
Tell it to the police. Maybe they'll take your advice. Either way, the solution IS NOT to simply leave it completely unchecked.

You're right. People should be kept in check for no other reason than just because.


You know, the part where you can be denied the right to protest.
Again, you can also be denied the right to drive if it is considered a threat to public safety. Legal, non-riot protests happen all the time. The tea parties were a great example of that.

Explain how people were threatening public safety when they were dancing in the Jefferson memorial and thus got arrested? It wasn't a huge flash dance, it was one or two. No threat to public safety, AT ALL. The reason why they didn't fuck with the tea party has more to do with the fact that so many of the tea partiers were openly carrying firearms, and less to do with them being a non-threat to public safety.


When protesting is all it takes to break the law, then something is wrong.
Try driving without a license. Legally, there's nothing wrong with driving. It's the license that makes the difference.

That is irrelevant and really did not address what RB stated.

Really RWG. Did you give your account to a piss poor half retarded troll? Or are you just plain on a troll roll today?

ILoveToGrok
ILoveToGrok
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:04 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 07:56 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:
At 5/2/12 07:49 PM, GoodFish wrote:
A biting down on a little bit of pain will always make you a stronger man.
Oh god the average "We should take it up the ass from homeland security so we can be safer"

Do you know how useless this all is considering how safe we are already? When is the last time anything MAJOR happened in america? Besides 9/11. Yes tighter airport security after that is a reasonable move, but why is the government basically slowly turning america into a dystopia? What was the huge fucking disaster that caused them to flip their shit and start trying to hurt/spy on the least suspicious people possible? 10 dead people in DC isn't a fucking call to arms against your own country.

What was the three sentences of dystopic propaganda?

I do concur with your assessment. People do not acknowledge the power and leverage we are handing over to what will only result to Big Brother. Then, if it becomes far more corrupt, we are in trouble.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:05 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 07:49 PM, GoodFish wrote:
At 5/2/12 07:46 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:
At 5/2/12 07:41 PM, GoodFish wrote:
Let it happen, it's awesome.
You forgot the part where all of this technology is being used to spy on/hurt citizens under unjust reason.
A biting down on a little bit of pain will always make you a stronger man.

And you forgot about the part where people with access to sniper rifles roam around the DC area shooting people for a week without being caught.

I was unaware that throwing a simple rifle scope onto a .223 varmint rifle converts into OH NOES A SNIPER RIFLES. Really, mentioning that was irrelevant.

Wagggs
Wagggs
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Audiophile
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:06 PM Reply

As far as the limiting of freedoms debate going on in this thread, I'd like to point out that laws pertaining to needing a permit to protest are completely constitutional, which makes them legitimate laws. While I'm not advocating the beating of protestors without permits, extended protesting without a permit should result in law enforcement action, because if there is no law enforcement, then the law is redundant. Law enforcement should use non-aggressive techniques to remove unlawful protests, and increase the aggression of their tactics as the situation sees fit. Application of force in the case of protests has always been a tricky affair, and that's why many police departments have special units assigned to riot control.

I believe both extremes of this issue are wrong. Unlawful protesters should not just be allowed to protest, however, unlawful protesters should not be beat, especially when they are non-hostile. However, in order to achieve the happy medium, law enforcement officers need to be a trained better. In particular, they need to be smarter, and more sensitive to those they are dealing with. One of my pet-peeves about law enforcement officers is that many of them try to act above everybody else, like they are strong, emotionless men. Police officers need to be cautious to the personalities and individuals around them because they are there to uphold the law. Without us, there is no law.


Exploding genitalia
"Get buttfucked in the mouth." | "Dammit, let me spread my anger, breed my hate!"

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:12 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 08:11 PM, MuyBurrito wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:05 PM, DickBuns wrote: irrelevant bullshit
No, stay on track. Maybe you'll learn something.

The only person who is spouting irrelevant bullshit, is yourself and your circlejerking alt account kiddo.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:15 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 08:13 PM, GoodFish wrote:
Count my five posts per thirty minutes, Bunny.

Cool story bro.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:21 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 07:49 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: If a government lackey listens to your conversation without your knowledge, then assuming you're not a criminal, how does this affect your life in a negative way?

Privacy is a huge concern. Not knowing context can end up to being labeled a criminal

So where is this flood you're talking about?

A stone doesn't turn to sand overnight, it takes many drops rubbing against it but it eventually gives way. Let's see.

Cracking down on peaceful protests
Illegal search and seizure
Capacity to assassinate US citzens
Capacity to remove citizenship
Capacity to torture people after removing citizenship
Pat downs and full body scanners

With congress under as much scrutiny as it is, each failed attempt will only make the next one harder to pass.

Not true. All they need to do is slip it in inside of another bill that's semi-related to the subject, or wait for everyone to calm down

They were arrested for protesting without a permit.

Gasp! Those protesters had the audacity to try to express their rights without paying money or hoping to have the government give them the privilege.

It's not that hard to get a fucking permit.

Ease of obtaining has little to do with whether or not something should be legal. It would be very easy to call into your local police station every four hours so they always know where you are, but that does not mean it should be requires.

Once it turns into a riot, are you saying the cops SHOULDN'T beat them up?

The rioting doesn't occur until AFTER the beatings occur. Look at Occupies live feeds they have. Much of the destruction comes after police try to detain people who are peaceful.

Notice, the right to protest is neither restricted nor denied. You need a permit to drive a car, why shouldn't you need one to gather a massive crowd in a public place?

One is explicitly a guaranteed right, that historically has been one of the things being oppressed in every single non-free society in existence, while the other is a machine that requires skill to handle?

Remember how SOPA was defeated? Did we need to go out and riot to stop it? Did we even need a physical protest? No. In the information age, petitions and cyber-protests were all that was needed.

Oh, right, because an internet wide protest is the same as 15 people wanting to protest. SOPA mainly failed because websites, and not the website users, ended up protesting. You're attempting to compare apples to a word that rhymes with orange.

Tell it to the police. Maybe they'll take your advice. Either way, the solution IS NOT to simply leave it completely unchecked.

Right, because having the police maintain a distance and to not interfere to peaceful protests is leaving it unchecked.

Again, you can also be denied the right to drive if it is considered a threat to public safety. Legal, non-riot protests happen all the time. The tea parties were a great example of that.

Right to drive?

You are only denied the right to drive if you have done something to show you are a danger. Protests? You can be denied the right before you even go out the door because a city official doesn't agree with your movement.

Try driving without a license. Legally, there's nothing wrong with driving. It's the license that makes the difference.

There's a huge difference between being licensed to do something which every single person can obtain provided they pass the requirements and being denied the right to protest for any number of bullshit reasons


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones May. 2nd, 2012 @ 08:35 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 05:14 PM, DickBuns wrote:
There is always a moral issue regarding crowd control. Does this crowd really need controlling? Otherwise, we're all just sheep being told what to do, when to shit, when to eat, and what to think.

They should obviously be able to protest, but when they start breaking the law and busting up people's shops and homes they should get their asses lit up. There is a difference between protest and rioting.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature