Be a Supporter!

U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones

  • 1,498 Views
  • 45 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 20:35:23 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:06 PM, Wagggs wrote: 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.

I'd like to know what reasoning you have for such an assumption

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 20:46:41 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:21 PM, GoodFish wrote: Have fun arguing hypothetically about how wrong you are for the next month as the thread grows to 30 pages because you idiots can't learn how to accept change.

That's great that you are admitting you are wrong via ad hominem.

Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 20:49:04 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:35 PM, Cootie 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.
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.

Oh definitely. I agree. Rightwingnazi over here believes however that you shouldn't be able to protest without a permit. Which of course, makes no sense seeing as governments before have plain denied permits.

II2none
II2none
  • Member since: Jul. 21, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 20:59:21 Reply

Am I missing something here,what are people so up in arms about? Nothing has been confirmed. Besides this idea is more effective then crowd control means of today. Yeah sure like everything else it has the capacity to be abused but thats in the minority.


QOTW:
"I hate you because you never pass up and opportunity to mention that you are a "female"-Wreckr
How to review like your opinion matters

BBS Signature
Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:03:36 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:53 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:49 PM, DickBuns wrote: Oh definitely. I agree. Rightwingnazi over here believes however that you shouldn't be able to protest without a permit. Which of course, makes no sense seeing as governments before have plain denied permits.
Doesn't even matter. If the united states even tried to make a law that touched the first amendment, there would be rioting everywhere.

They've already done it. And sheep like Rightwingdouchenozzle over here are the complacent majority.

Wurfel-Waffles
Wurfel-Waffles
  • Member since: Feb. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Programmer
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:10:20 Reply

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

Bag beans?


MWHAHA!!! VODKA!
NAC Hall of Fame

BBS Signature
Richard
Richard
  • Member since: Jan. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Animator
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:13:13 Reply

At 5/2/12 09:05 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 5/2/12 09:03 PM, DickBuns wrote: Rightwingnazi Rightwingdouchenozzle
What was that you were saying about insults?

I only engaged after it was clear that your cockmongling was not going to stop.

IAmSapphireBlvd
IAmSapphireBlvd
  • Member since: Apr. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:19:37 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.

implying that racism would not exist if people were prohibited from expressing it

racism is a part of human nature. freedom of speech is essential to every modern civilization and it should be considered a human right.

ILoveToGrok
ILoveToGrok
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:23:23 Reply

At 5/2/12 09:05 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:
At 5/2/12 09:03 PM, DickBuns wrote: They've already done it. And sheep like Rightwingdouchenozzle over here are the complacent majority.
Well, they have, but only in small areas. Which again I suppose goes back to the domino effect. People are always like "whatever, they are only changing one little thing". 1984 isn't far away if we keep up like this.

Yes, the chain reaction is a very dangerous result to being careless with the choices we make.

ILoveToGrok
ILoveToGrok
  • Member since: Apr. 28, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:27:02 Reply

At 5/2/12 09:19 PM, IAmSapphireBlvd wrote:
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.
implying that racism would not exist if people were prohibited from expressing it

racism is a part of human nature. freedom of speech is essential to every modern civilization and it should be considered a human right.

Do not ever correlate the distortion of our vision to our human nature. People were socially conditioned to see what they wanted them to see.

You can not blame someone that is myopic. 95% of the time, that myopia was influenced by older distortionists.

Where did you get this information from? How in any way does the impaired vision of a being have anything to do with their natural code? Lack of a better word? -- I hope.

Wagggs
Wagggs
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Audiophile
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 21:29:35 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:35 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:06 PM, Wagggs wrote: 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.
I'd like to know what reasoning you have for such an assumption

The constitution outlines the right of assembly. However, the constitution does not specifically have a clause for the use or disuse of permits to protest. By the 10th amendment in the same bill of rights, laws not covered by the constitution can be governed/interpreted by the states. Protest permits are state-laws, not federal laws. Ergo, if the state you live in says you must get a permit to protest, then you need to get a permit to legally protest. Since the permit laws still allow citizens to exercise their right to assemble, permit laws are constitutional.


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 2012-05-02 22:03:15 Reply

At 5/2/12 09:52 PM, GoodFish wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:46 PM, DickBuns wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:21 PM, GoodFish wrote: Have fun arguing hypothetically about how wrong you are for the next month as the thread grows to 30 pages because you idiots can't learn how to accept change.
That's great that you are admitting you are wrong via ad hominem.
No, I am just not interested in committing to read your writing for the next month while trying to respect you for your service to the nation.

The fact remains that there are radical players in the field on any given day. The military is paid to protect our nation and her interests, and allowing the Army to use nonlethal methods to disable a target who poses a threat to other people is absolutely justified.

I could care less about whatever non lethal weapons the US military is deploying. That's fine and dandy. What I am worried about however, is the increasingly military nature of equipment provided to police forces to police a population that doesn't need that much policing.

Also. Police.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 22:05:16 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:45 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: That's purely hypothetical.

Except for the people who are put on no-fly lists but aren't told why.

Okay, enough with the damn metaphors.

Do you get the point? I like vivid language

Permits.

Because as we all know, there is absolutely zero percent chance of it happening even when they had permits, and it especially did not happen recently with the Occupy movement, before the shenanigans started.

Like when?

Ability to track US citizens without consent. Ability to detain and search without ability to resist.

The only case of that ever happening was when the "citizen" in question was also an enemy combatant openly hostile to the united states.

That does not change the ability being on the law book.

Like when?

Hasn't happened that I know of. Does not change the fact that the power is still there

Like when?

Refer to the above

Regardless of it seeming silly, don't tell me you actually believe there's malicious intent behind it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Because no one actually pays attention to congress and is ready to flip shit over something like this.

Except for what is reported on the major networks, pretty much.

Also, there's the little matter of internet censorship being unconstitutional and the supreme court still existing.

Which doesn't mean shit considering the Supreme Court is not some bastion of constitutionality and they definitely don't follow personal interests

"The privilege?" Legal protests happen all the time. It's not that hard. The government doesn't just deny the right to protest because they don't agree with the message.

Happen all the time. That doesn't mean shit considering you can still be turned down for any reason, even not having a reason.

Actually, that would be a royal pain in the ass. Your comparison is moot.

No it wouldn't. One quick 5 second phone call. Easier then obtaining a permit/

Timeline:
Occupiers protest without a permit.
Police move in to disperse the crowd and make arrests.
Riot starts and the cops are left with no other option.

Did you see the Seattle or Oakland feeds? It was fucking hilarious. Riot police surrounded the protesters who were singing. They told them to disperse. They told them to stop approaching officers (Which is hard to do considering they are surrounded). They then threw tear gas.

Solution: Get a damn permit!

You're forgetting that it happened even when they had permits.

It's about potential danger to public well-being. Simple as that.

Potential, not guaranteed danger, which is what happens almost every single time someone untrained gets behind the wheel.

Except that's not what I said at all. What I said was that even if the police keep their distance, they still need to be there.

And you're saying that I said they shouldn't be there at all.

Or if you never went to the DMV and got your license.

Again, need skill to operate compared to not needing skill.

Except it doesn't happen like that. Legal protests happen all the time. Notice how those never turn into riots?

Herp derp. "The protests that were allowed to happen happened. Notice how the ones where police don't instantly go to arrest mode never turn to protest?"

Imagine what would happen at a Tea Party rally if police tried to take somebodies weapons because it was a potential danger.

Reasons like "Likelyhood to incite riot."

Because that is not vague and 100% subjective.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 22:24:13 Reply

At 5/2/12 09:29 PM, Wagggs wrote:
At 5/2/12 08:35 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I'd like to know what reasoning you have for such an assumption
The constitution outlines the right of assembly. However, the constitution does not specifically have a clause for the use or disuse of permits to protest. By the 10th amendment in the same bill of rights, laws not covered by the constitution can be governed/interpreted by the states. Protest permits are state-laws, not federal laws. Ergo, if the state you live in says you must get a permit to protest, then you need to get a permit to legally protest. Since the permit laws still allow citizens to exercise their right to assemble, permit laws are constitutional.

Though you do give a good point about the tenth amendment, isn't the whole point of having a right is so that you don't need permission from the government(eg permits) to do it?

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to U.S. Army wants non-lethal drones 2012-05-02 23:21:57 Reply

At 5/2/12 08:49 PM, DickBuns wrote:
Oh definitely. I agree. Rightwingnazi over here believes however that you shouldn't be able to protest without a permit. Which of course, makes no sense seeing as governments before have plain denied permits.

He would rather the government fuck everyone over than have criminals fuck a small percentage over. I would rather be afraid of being mugged or a riot than fear a drone constantly cruising around in the sky.


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

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 2012-05-03 23:09:54 Reply

At 5/2/12 09:27 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Do not ever correlate the distortion of our vision to our human nature. People were socially conditioned to see what they wanted them to see.

Why does insanctuary keep coming back?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature