Dallas Shooting Thread

Unfortunately that's not exactly how it works in practice. SCOTUS has read the 2nd amendment to be much weaker than I think it was intended to be. That said, fundamental rights can be limited in certain circumstances. At least according to SCOTUS.

While nice in theory, unfortunately the way our CJ system works is we A. Don't have enough room in large part because we put the wrong people in jail and B. everything is basically just ****ed up. What that means is we have people we know are dangerous and likely to re-offend we let out of prison.

Mike

And this little discussion right here is what I am talking about. Restate the 2nd such that under no circumstances can it be "interpreted" differently from the original and future intent. Something like: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms are defined as any device, weapon or article that can be used to kill, injure, capture, intimidate or incapacitate any Citizen." That means we get machine guns and aircraft carriers if we can afford them. I am down with that.
 
I get all of that, and I agree 100%. I would actually be in favor of almost no 2a restrictions. I hate the idea of a government dictating who can defend their life and who can not. What I am talking about is structure. Resistance by individuals, while noble, isn't going to accomplish real change.

There is no Confederacy. There is no state that people can relocate to and mount a defense. I am seriously not trying to be a smart ass. I just don't understand how people think this "civil war " is going to go down. Lets say a new .gov is put in place. Then what? Who will be the dictator? And it has to be a dictator, because if you allow elections, the left will just vote out the new .gov.

So what's the endgame? Start a new country? In our lifetime? Resisting when they come for your guns is one thing. This hypothetical civil war is another. Without the support and resources of a huge chunk of the military it would be nearly impossible. When the North and South fought, they had similar weaponry. I know some folks with decent collections, but none with Apaches or Bradleys.

I get what you are saying. This is why I'd welcome an Article 5 Constitutional Convention. The Liberals would do it to try to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they'd fail at that and they'd likely get Constitutional bans on gay marriage and the "A" word while they were at it. At least we'd be using the freaking methods proscribed by the document to change the document. Every time a liberal says "the Constitution is out dated and shouldn't be paid attention to" I want to toe punch them in the taint. Our founding fathers couldn't have made it more easy for us to effect the change we say we want in how things are run, but we are so polarized by our bullshit party system we can't get anything done.
 
13620190_520942561435081_6143352742133673940_n.jpg
 
Unfortunately that's not exactly how it works in practice. SCOTUS has read the 2nd amendment to be much weaker than I think it was intended to be. That said, fundamental rights can be limited in certain circumstances. At least according to SCOTUS.

While nice in theory, unfortunately the way our CJ system works is we A. Don't have enough room in large part because we put the wrong people in jail and B. everything is basically just ****ed up. What that means is we have people we know are dangerous and likely to re-offend we let out of prison.

Mike

I can see that these "SCOTUS" guys and gals are going to need to get a strongly worded letter from my side in my civil war.
 
It is convenient that the firearm allegedly retrieved from the bomb scene is unscathed save for a little dust. Not even a scratch on the frame.

Maybe he shielded it with his body to protect it..... [thinking]

MicahJohnsonAK-1.jpg

If you zoom in on the pic it looks like the handguard is all beat to shit on the right front.
 
And this little discussion right here is what I am talking about. Restate the 2nd such that under no circumstances can it be "interpreted" differently from the original and future intent. Something like: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms are defined as any device, weapon or article that can be used to kill, injure, capture, intimidate or incapacitate any Citizen." That means we get machine guns and aircraft carriers if we can afford them. I am down with that.

Im always called a statist for it, but I think there are good reasons to have restrictions (not outright prohibitions) on certain items, namely explosives and CBRN. You guys can save it, agree to disagree.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Im always called a statist for it, but I think there are good reasons to have restrictions (not outright prohibitions) on certain items, namely explosives and CBRN. You guys can save it, agree to disagree.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

I'm of the mentality that if the government can use it on their own people as an offensive tactic, we should have the same for defense and to retaliate. I don't see our government using CBRN on our soil, but I do see a need for explosives.

I've been wrong before though
 
I'm of the mentality that if the government can use it on their own people as an offensive tactic, we should have the same for defense and to retaliate. I don't see our government using CBRN on our soil, but I do see a need for explosives.

I've been wrong before though

I dont think there should be an outright prohibition, but controls on items that can be used to cause exponentially more damage than firearms are ok with me.

Ubiquitous civilian ownership of rifles sans registration is enough for an insurgency, which can/will be just a step in aquiring military equipment.

I dont see the military working remotely as a cohesive unit against the people in this country. But that could change. With robots. ;)

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
I dont think there should be an outright prohibition, but controls on items that can be used to cause exponentially more damage than firearms are ok with me.

Ubiquitous civilian ownership of rifles sans registration is enough for an insurgency, which can/will be just a step in aquiring military equipment.

I dont see the military working remotely as a cohesive unit against the people in this country. But that could change. With robots. ;)

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

All the more reason to try and stop their proliferation now, rather than sometime in the future when the streets are crawling with them.

EDIT: Robots, that is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont see the military working remotely as a cohesive unit against the people in this country. But that could change. With robots. ;)

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

The thing I'm most concerned about that happened last week is that the Government used a robot to kill a person.
 
The thing I'm most concerned about that happened last week is that the Government used a robot to kill a person.

Which should be analyzed m under existing use of force guidelines. Just because they used an expensive RC car doesnt automatically make it wrong.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
The thing I'm most concerned about that happened last week is that the Government used a robot to kill a person.

There's a particularly lively and troubling thread about that part of it, somewhere around here...

I'll save you the time. Suffice it to say a number of NESers do not agree with you. Which surprises me, frankly.
 
There's a particularly lively and troubling thread about that part of it, somewhere around here...

I'll save you the time. Suffice it to say a number of NESers do not agree with you. Which surprises me, frankly.

A more clear cut example: man barricaded in building in a manner that prevents engagement by sharpshooter. Man is continuing to fire on civilians. Ok to use robot with C4 to get into his fortified position and neutralize the threat?

This is why I dont think the fact they used a robot in and of itself is problematic.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Which should be analyzed m under existing use of force guidelines. Just because they used an expensive RC car doesnt automatically make it wrong.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

So what will be the response when people use the same technology against "they"?

The whole de escalation of the situation is going to have to begin with .gov as "they" are the ones who consistently respond with the heavier hand in most every instance. Until "they" put the brakes on their own responses things will continue down the tubes.
 
So what will be the response when people use the same technology against "they"?

The whole de escalation of the situation is going to have to begin with .gov as "they" are the ones who consistently respond with the heavier hand in most every instance. Until "they" put the brakes on their own responses things will continue down the tubes.

What? Like every IED thats been setoff, mailbomb sent out, the killdozer guy, etc. So it hasnt been an rc gun/bomb yet. The other stuff is essentially no different.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
A more clear cut example: man barricaded in building in a manner that prevents engagement by sharpshooter. Man is continuing to fire on civilians. Ok to use robot with C4 to get into his fortified position and neutralize the threat?

This is why I dont think the fact they used a robot in and of itself is problematic.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

Well thought out.

My concern equates robots to drones. The greater the psychological distance between killer and victim, the easier violence becomes (Grossman researches this at length, as did Keegan). I'm not in favor of making violence easier for the State.

And in general, using c4 against a position is fine; using it against a person leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 
Which should be analyzed m under existing use of force guidelines. Just because they used an expensive RC car doesnt automatically make it wrong.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

The concern that I have is that robots can be programmed to do things that humans *should* refuse to do.
 
The thing I'm most concerned about that happened last week is that the Government used a robot to kill a person.

I am less concerned about the robot in this scenario. In this case the robot was really just a delivery method, and it was pretty precise. For all intents and purposes, it was really the same effect as a well placed shot with a grenade launcher, and did not require line of sight.

It is the same argument as guns don't kill people. Robots don't kill people, it is the guy that gives the order and the guy with the joy stick.
 
The thing I'm most concerned about that happened last week is that the Government used a robot to kill a person.

Don't be and don't be surprised when they use a drone.
See the collateral damage will be ok in the name of safety as the "intent " is not to kill innocent people just bad guys.
It's easier to get bad guys with drones.

Now I have not been following the "news" much on this but im noticing black shooter has slowly being replaced with "Army Vet" ? Sort of follows along with our own Gov. Saying Vets are a danger to our safety....

DHS report back in 2009 said return vets are a danger of being terrorist.
DHS in itself is a standing army willing to follow orders.

I'm not sure how far our Gov is willing to go , about as far we let them I guess.

Sad days ahead I'm sure. There has been a war declared by enemies foreign and domestic now targeting citizens and government officials. I feel either our gov needs to follow the constitution follow its own laws or we are screwed.
 
Well thought out.

My concern equates robots to drones. The greater the psychological distance between killer and victim, the easier violence becomes (Grossman researches this at length, as did Keegan). I'm not in favor of making violence easier for the State.

And in general, using c4 against a position is fine; using it against a person leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It's really a tough position ....... for instance if our government gets used to the solution being as easy as blowing people up the Florida night club shooting can now easily be "clear use for drones" there is still a lot about that incident that remains in clear. Anyhow we have a serious problem in this country and that is to many people who do not want to live by the constitution and the freedom on which America came to be.
People are no longer coming to USA to be American for the most part.
 
It's really a tough position ....... for instance if our government gets used to the solution being as easy as blowing people up the Florida night club shooting can now easily be "clear use for drones" there is still a lot about that incident that remains in clear. Anyhow we have a serious problem in this country and that is to many people who do not want to live by the constitution and the freedom on which America came to be.
People are no longer coming to USA to be American for the most part.

Yes, the melting pot appears to have solidified and separated into a pot full of separate and unequal aggregate, with government fast becoming the least miscible portion to all the rest.
 
Well thought out.

My concern equates robots to drones. The greater the psychological distance between killer and victim, the easier violence becomes (Grossman researches this at length, as did Keegan). I'm not in favor of making violence easier for the State.

And in general, using c4 against a position is fine; using it against a person leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The concern that I have is that robots can be programmed to do things that humans *should* refuse to do.

I agree with both of these posts.

In talking about an impending civil war, I agree with fencer, any chance of success would hinge on a large part of the country being willing to secede from the union along with a large part of the military and law enforcement that can use that territory as a base to defend from. Perhaps the initial goal would be to simply form a new country based on the Constitution in a much more literal manner. If the old USA decided to use their military to try to force the states/territory that had seceded back into the union then it would change to a winner take all war for the entire USA. Doesn't sound very likely though.

The other side of the coin is just a large portion of Americans spread out all across the country getting fed up and refusing to comply with the govt anymore. That is way more problematic as it would be uncoordinated with no real home base to run operations from. Again, the only hope for success here is for large portions of the military and LE to side against the govt and carve out some territory as a base of operations and provide some leadership and coordination.

Both of these scenarios show where the robot/drone issue becomes part of the problem. Start replacing soldiers and police with automated alternatives and that takes away the chance of military and LE personnel siding with the rebels.
 
What "home base to run operations " do you need? A bunker with maps and comms and sand tables for the country?
A concentrated "civil war" wont happen in this country, even if shtf, because no one would agree to the end game, everyone would want their own ideas, rules, and ideals to be the most important. What you would have, is groups (bands, tribes, gangs) containing some skilled and combat experienced members, using and teaching their skills to others, while the majority of the local populace does nothing positive or negative for/to you. Our country would become Afghanistan.

Or, you can do what I do, drink a lot of vodka, wait patiently in my own bunker, and watch Red Dawn and Taps over and over.
 
What "home base to run operations " do you need? A bunker with maps and comms and sand tables for the country?
A concentrated "civil war" wont happen in this country, even if shtf, because no one would agree to the end game, everyone would want their own ideas, rules, and ideals to be the most important. What you would have, is groups (bands, tribes, gangs) containing some skilled and combat experienced members, using and teaching their skills to others, while the majority of the local populace does nothing positive or negative for/to you. Our country would become Afghanistan.

Or, you can do what I do, drink a lot of vodka, wait patiently in my own bunker, and watch Red Dawn and Taps over and over.

I think we are sort of saying the same thing. My point is, without real leadership and a shared goal/direction it would all be a huge cluster-f and go nowhere. That leadership would need a secure place to lead from. A bunch of random disobedient civilians isn't going to get anywhere as far as actually taking over the govt or anything like that.

It may eventually lead to real discussion and wake up enough Americans to get some changes going and stop voting in criminals who ignore the Constitution, maybe. Or it may just convince the average dolt that civilians with guns are bad because their little revolt took out a cell tower or two and they couldn't text each other what the Kardasians were doing for 5 minutes.

This is really just a bunch of tin foil make believe at this point. Maybe I'll write a dystopian book and hope for a movie like the dozens of others already out there so I can retire early, lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom