MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Drones!
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Drones. This is a highly controversial topic. Recently, I was reading an article on a website called, Defense Tech: http://defensetech.org/2013/07/22/faa-to-town-please-dont-shoot-down-drones/#comment-387315

That basically said that a Colorado town was trying to pass an ordinance that would allow citizens to shoot down drones. What is your stance on drones? Are these illegal aircraft? Or are they just a new form of aviation, and should be treated like fighter jets, or passenger planes?


DEBATE!
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:21 pm
If we're talking about these little remote controlled drones used to report traffic accidents and forest fires, I'm against it.

If we're talking about Predator-Q drones in the air watching people... That's a different story. But you can't shoot down a high altitude drone with a shotgun.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
If we're talking about these little remote controlled drones used to report traffic accidents and forest fires, I'm against it.

If we're talking about Predator-Q drones in the air watching people... That's a different story. But you can't shoot down a high altitude drone with a shotgun.

No, but in the article, they are saying that civilians will actually be PAID if they show proof of shooting one done. Maybe if you mount a .50 Cal?

Overall, I support drones, to an extent. If the Predators aren't weaponized, then great! If they start strapping on machines guns and missiles, well, no!
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:26 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, but in the article, they are saying that civilians will actually be PAID if they show proof of shooting one done. Maybe if you mount a .50 Cal?

Overall, I support drones, to an extent. If the Predators aren't weaponized, then great! If they start strapping on machines guns and missiles, well, no!

Well, a .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun would be very hard to acquire, especially in a Commie state like Colorado. Even a Barett would be extremely difficult to buy. Even if they did acquire the Big Fifty, it would still be extremely difficult to hit a drone. Once. With the price of .50 ammo these days, it wouldn't be worth it to go out and shoot down drones for a bounty. Might as well save the money.

Oh, and Predators aren't armed with machine guns. I guess I could see some sort of drone with an autocannon, but that drone would have to be one of those "heli drones," and those aren't used to a very large extent.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Well, a .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun would be very hard to acquire, especially in a Commie state like Colorado. Even a Barett would be extremely difficult to buy. Even if they did acquire the Big Fifty, it would still be extremely difficult to hit a drone. Once. With the price of .50 ammo these days, it wouldn't be worth it to go out and shoot down drones for a bounty. Might as well save the money.

Hmm. Yeah. But lets get back on topic. So you say that Reaper drones have no place above civilian American aerospace, I'm not so sure. Using one to follow a bad guy through the woods, yeah, thats acceptable. But not for gunning down cars and blowing up buildings.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:35 pm
 Group admin 
Oh, and I have nothing against Air Hogs, or any other toy RC plane; they last like three flights before losing their ability to fly :-/
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh, and I have nothing against Air Hogs, or any other toy RC plane; they last like three flights before losing their ability to fly :-/

They actually have some small but high quality drones used for, again, things like traffic and fire monitoring. I don't have a problem with drone following known getaway criminals.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
They actually have some small but high quality drones used for, again, things like traffic and fire monitoring. I don't have a problem with drone following known getaway criminals.

Yeah. But once again. No weapons! Maybe if they are patrolling the border, some small weapons or smoke grenade launchers wouldn't be bad, but otherwise, arm them with cameras.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:46 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah. But once again. No weapons! Maybe if they are patrolling the border, some small weapons or smoke grenade launchers wouldn't be bad, but otherwise, arm them with cameras.

They already have drones patrolling the border, but they don't have any sort of weapon system as far as I'm concerned.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
They already have drones patrolling the border, but they don't have any sort of weapon system as far as I'm concerned.

Mhh. Yeah. Maybe some type of system would be good, solely to protect Border agents.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 1:56 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Mhh. Yeah. Maybe some type of system would be good, solely to protect Border agents.

Nothing lethal, though, because the White House would be mad if some future welfare recipients were killed.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 2:06 pm
 Group admin 
If they're just patrolling the border, or participating in a police chase, I'm fine with that, but not with random surveillance just because they feel like it.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:02 pm
I think that there should be privacy policies on them.

Call me paranoid, but I'd be worried about the people using the drones selling personal information about what I'm doing in my house.

Not that they'd know, but they would be able to tell when I'm not around or when I am, when I have the fireplace lit, etc.

However, I think that people shouldn't fire at anything in the air at all. The extent of playing with guns should be with BBs, and at cans and bottles.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 3:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Brick Munky
I think that there should be privacy policies on them.

Call me paranoid, but I'd be worried about the people using the drones selling personal information about what I'm doing in my house.

Not that they'd know, but they would be able to tell when I'm not around or when I am, when I have the fireplace lit, etc.

However, I think that people shouldn't fire at anything in the air at all. The extent of playing with guns should be with BBs, and at cans and bottles.

Well, the problem is that cameras on drones aren't that high-res yet. Also, looking through glass via a camera from thousands of feet in the air is not particularly, clear. It only works to an extent. I am sure that drones are operated by people that respect the law; and will use it accordingly.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 5:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, the problem is that cameras on drones aren't that high-res yet. Also, looking through glass via a camera from thousands of feet in the air is not particularly, clear. It only works to an extent. I am sure that drones are operated by people that respect the law; and will use it accordingly.

How can you trust them? They tell lie after lie, and you still trust them? Where do you draw the line with government spying?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 5:52 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, the problem is that cameras on drones aren't that high-res yet. Also, looking through glass via a camera from thousands of feet in the air is not particularly, clear. It only works to an extent. I am sure that drones are operated by people that respect the law; and will use it accordingly.

High-res and IR cameras are used on drones all the time. They could spot and target a mouse in the woods if they really wanted to. Sure, they may not be the "high-res" you're referring to, but they can still show the operators a pretty clear image of the ground below.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 6:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
How can you trust them? They tell lie after lie, and you still trust them? Where do you draw the line with government spying?

Government. Spying. Right, okay. I was under the impression that these unarmed drones were being flown by local police/county departments. A drone won't give you that much information about a person's computer files and thoughts.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 7:52 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Government. Spying. Right, okay. I was under the impression that these unarmed drones were being flown by local police/county departments. A drone won't give you that much information about a person's computer files and thoughts.

They can give a lot information about a lot of other things, though. The route you take from school/work to your house, where you go, how often you go there, when you're at your house and when you're not, what you pick up from the store, what you're carrying the back of your truck, etc.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 7:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
They can give a lot information about a lot of other things, though. The route you take from school/work to your house, where you go, how often you go there, when you're at your house and when you're not, what you pick up from the store, what you're carrying the back of your truck, etc.

Well, yeah they can, but you have to realize that drones can't stay in the air forever. They can only be up for a few hours, and remember they have to find you first. It would be a massive operation; I don't see how feasible it would be to use a drone to track someone on a day-to-day basis.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:03 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I don't see how feasible it would be to use a drone to track someone on a day-to-day basis.

The actually do. Drones played an incredibly huge part in the killing of Osama Bin Laden, as they allowed the CIA to keep their eyes on the compound at almost all hours of the day.

And when it comes to the government actually finding you, it won't be hard.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
The actually do. Drones played an incredibly huge part in the killing of Osama Bin Laden, as they allowed the CIA to keep their eyes on the compound at almost all hours of the day.

And when it comes to the government actually finding you, it won't be hard.

Okay. Once again, you have to realize. That is the Air Force; and they have access to (quickly checks up a few sites) ~850 known, declassified drones. Thats, a lot. Not nearly as many are available for domestic use, so.....
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:17 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay. Once again, you have to realize. That is the Air Force; and they have access to (quickly checks up a few sites) ~850 known, declassified drones. Thats, a lot. Not nearly as many are available for domestic use, so.....

I don't see what you're trying to say.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I don't see what you're trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is that the US military has access to more drones than local police departments; thats how they managed to keep eyes on Bin Laden 24/7. The US simply can't afford enough drones to be able to stalk, say, two million people here in the US. In fact, there aren't enough drones in the world to keep tabs on THAT many people.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:30 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Government. Spying. Right, okay. I was under the impression that these unarmed drones were being flown by local police/county departments. A drone won't give you that much information about a person's computer files and thoughts.

I meant the federal government, but yes, I'd be much more inclined to trust state, county government.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
I meant the federal government, but yes, I'd be much more inclined to trust state, county government.

.....and those are the gov't organizations using those drones. I don't see why there should be such controversy.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:37 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What I'm trying to say is that the US military has access to more drones than local police departments; thats how they managed to keep eyes on Bin Laden 24/7. The US simply can't afford enough drones to be able to stalk, say, two million people here in the US. In fact, there aren't enough drones in the world to keep tabs on THAT many people.

I'm not saying they'll use drones to stalk everyone in the United States, I'm saying that they'll probably do it to a bunch of people who are not threats to society in any way.

Oh, and no police departments have access to Predator drones. Especially ones that are armed.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:38 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....and those are the gov't organizations using those drones. I don't see why there should be such controversy.

State and county governments don't use Predators. He said he's more inclined to trust state/county government because they're more in touch with the people. Smaller government systems like a county legislature are more likely to serve the people in accordance to what the people actually want.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I'm not saying they'll use drones to stalk everyone in the United States, I'm saying that they'll probably do it to a bunch of people who are not threats to society in any way.

Oh, and no police departments have access to Predator drones. Especially ones that are armed.

How much is, "A bunch"? You do realize that every drone has at least one-two people operating it; thats a lot of people when you are talking about "a bunch". The logistics make it impractical for a state to run as an effective surveillance system.

Also, to my knowledge, no drones are armed with anything.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:49 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
How much is, "A bunch"? You do realize that every drone has at least one-two people operating it; thats a lot of people when you are talking about "a bunch". The logistics make it impractical for a state to run as an effective surveillance system.

Also, to my knowledge, no drones are armed with anything.

I'm talking about anyone who identifies as a Tea Party member and confirms that they own a lot of firearms. In all seriousness, anyone who does anything "suspicious" but doesn't warrant the local county police department to do any sort of search is subject to being watched. Carefully. Like an eagle watching a mouse. Heck, it could be someone who has a "Done in One" Obama decal on their truck.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:54 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
How much is, "A bunch"? You do realize that every drone has at least one-two people operating it; thats a lot of people when you are talking about "a bunch". The logistics make it impractical for a state to run as an effective surveillance system.

Also, to my knowledge, no drones are armed with anything.

"Also, to my knowledge, no drones are armed with anything."
MQ-9 reaper! MQ-8B fire scout! MQ-1 Predator, to name a few. Or were you talking about those little toy helicopters/quadricopters/etc. with cameras fitted to them? I don't think civilians should be allowed to shoot them down, anyway.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting claw paradox
"Also, to my knowledge, no drones are armed with anything."
MQ-9 reaper! MQ-8B fire scout! MQ-1 Predator, to name a few. Or were you talking about those little toy helicopters/quadricopters/etc. with cameras fitted to them? I don't think civilians should be allowed to shoot them down, anyway.

Uhm. You are thinking of the ones in military spec; they aren't the same as the ones used by state gov't.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I'm talking about anyone who identifies as a Tea Party member and confirms that they own a lot of firearms. In all seriousness, anyone who does anything "suspicious" but doesn't warrant the local county police department to do any sort of search is subject to being watched. Carefully. Like an eagle watching a mouse. Heck, it could be someone who has a "Done in One" Obama decal on their truck.

But, once again, that is sooo many people; there isn't enough people to conduct such an operation.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:56 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Uhm. You are thinking of the ones in military spec; they aren't the same as the ones used by state gov't.

Quadcopters are used by state and can be owned by a private citizen.
The MQ series of drones is what I'm talking about when I talk about the government watching you.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 8:57 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
But, once again, that is sooo many people; there isn't enough people to conduct such an operation.

They don't need to continuously monitor them. One or two days, then they move on.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Quadcopters are used by state and can be owned by a private citizen.
The MQ series of drones is what I'm talking about when I talk about the government watching you.

Not all MQs have H**L fire missiles strapped aboard. Ones that fly in the US of A are very, docile, with cameras.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:00 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
They don't need to continuously monitor them. One or two days, then they move on.

But even so, that is a long time, and a lot of drones. US simply can't operate something like that.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:01 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Not all MQs have H**L fire missiles strapped aboard. Ones that fly in the US of A are very, docile, with cameras.

...As far as you know. Who is to say that there aren't MQ Predators flying over the states somewhere, armed with missiles?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:02 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
But even so, that is a long time, and a lot of drones. US simply can't operate something like that.

My point isn't that they are doing it to a lot a people. When I meant a bunch, I meant a couple dozen. That is very plausible. They do it in the Middle East all the time, day and night. Whether or not they're doing it to a lot of people or just a few people, it's still unconstitutional to spy on your own citizens.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:04 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
...As far as you know. Who is to say that there aren't MQ Predators flying over the states somewhere, armed with missiles?

Uhm, the fact that arming a drone with missiles would be expensive, and that even the "corrupted" government can see, that is serious overkill.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:04 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Uhm, the fact that arming a drone with missiles would be expensive, and that even the "corrupted" government can see, that is serious overkill.

It's not overkill, and they're willing to spend the money. One example being the killing of an American citizen in the Middle East because he was suspected to be a part of a terrorist organization. They waste one rocket to kill just him.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
My point isn't that they are doing it to a lot a people. When I meant a bunch, I meant a couple dozen. That is very plausible. They do it in the Middle East all the time, day and night. Whether or not they're doing it to a lot of people or just a few people, it's still unconstitutional to spy on your own citizens.

It would be cheaper, and way more informative, to have boots on the ground than wings in the air in this scenario. In the US, you can have plain-clothed spies following your target. In the Bin-Laden case, you can't stick a spy as easily.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:08 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
It would be cheaper, and way more informative, to have boots on the ground than wings in the air in this scenario. In the US, you can have plain-clothed spies following your target. In the Bin-Laden case, you can't stick a spy as easily.

They don't have boots on the ground because sooner or later people are going to find out that a strange dude is following them around everywhere, and it'll probably end up with a few agents dead. The terrifying thing about drones is that you can't see them, nor can you tell when they're there.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:10 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
They don't have boots on the ground because sooner or later people are going to find out that a strange dude is following them around everywhere, and it'll probably end up with a few agents dead. The terrifying thing about drones is that you can't see them, nor can you tell when they're there.

....Well, you kinda can see them. At least, you can hear 'em. (How else are those crack teams of Colorado amateur Anti-Air battalion suppose to get 'em?!) But that old method, boots on ground, has worked for years. And agents haven't died in droves.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
....Well, you kinda can see them. At least, you can hear 'em. (How else are those crack teams of Colorado amateur Anti-Air battalion suppose to get 'em?!) But that old method, boots on ground, has worked for years. And agents haven't died in droves.

I don't think you understand how dead-quiet drones are. Or how many agents have died trying to get intel. Because it's a lot.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I don't think you understand how dead-quiet drones are. Or how many agents have died trying to get intel. Because it's a lot.

First bit was sarcasm.

Now, agents are not lost nearly as high as you think, as they are here in the US. More allies (until Snowden) here in the US than enemies. Agents are well trained, they know what they are doing, and they will bring the right people to justice.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:20 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
First bit was sarcasm.

Now, agents are not lost nearly as high as you think, as they are here in the US. More allies (until Snowden) here in the US than enemies. Agents are well trained, they know what they are doing, and they will bring the right people to justice.

Which is how they caught those foreigners that bombed the Boston Marathon, right? Oh wait, no. They didn't. And that's how they stopped the last few major crimes, and 9/11, right? No, they didn't do that either. Agents are obsolete, why spy with agents when you can spy without being seen?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Which is how they caught those foreigners that bombed the Boston Marathon, right? Oh wait, no. They didn't. And that's how they stopped the last few major crimes, and 9/11, right? No, they didn't do that either. Agents are obsolete, why spy with agents when you can spy without being seen?

Agents and their work were not taken as seriously after the Soviet fell; no big enemy to take down. LAX. The Boston Attack was a major mess up, and shows that the US still needs to work on its Anti-terrorist programs. The trouble is that people are so quick to look at the surface of what the gov't is doing, that they come to quickly criticize it.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Agents and their work were not taken as seriously after the Soviet fell; no big enemy to take down. LAX. The Boston Attack was a major mess up, and shows that the US still needs to work on its Anti-terrorist programs. The trouble is that people are so quick to look at the surface of what the gov't is doing, that they come to quickly criticize it.

Actually no, the government tries to make the surface of its agenda look as shiny as possible, just so it looks good in the eyes of the people foolish enough to believe it. It's when people start to dig beneath the surface that they find out the real goal in sight, and that's when the criticizing occurs.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Actually no, the government tries to make the surface of its agenda look as shiny as possible, just so it looks good in the eyes of the people foolish enough to believe it. It's when people start to dig beneath the surface that they find out the real goal in sight, and that's when the criticizing occurs.

So what is the real goal that I am blindly not seeing?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:34 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
So what is the real goal that I am blindly not seeing?

They want control. I've said it over and over again.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:35 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
They want control. I've said it over and over again.

Why do they want control though? Hm? What would they gain from total control?
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:36 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Why do they want control though? Hm? What would they gain from total control?

You obviously have never read a single thing about dictators or tyrannical governments. Ever. Power is a very tempting thing.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:43 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
You obviously have never read a single thing about dictators or tyrannical governments. Ever. Power is a very tempting thing.

Insults on my intellect will not get you anywhere, and is in violation of one of the rules. I'm sorry, I know its not easy, but insults are not needed in this group, thank you. Failure to follow this rule will sadly leave me to remove you from the group, despite the excellent, and very interesting and compelling points you have brought to the table, thank you.

Now, yes power is a tempting thing. But would the government do with it? THAT is the point. Also, the US already has a lot of power. More power would leave the gov't fighting itself. If I, with my un-informed mind about power, figured that out, the gov't can.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:47 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Insults on my intellect will not get you anywhere, and is in violation of one of the rules. I'm sorry, I know its not easy, but insults are not needed in this group, thank you. Failure to follow this rule will sadly leave me to remove you from the group, despite the excellent, and very interesting and compelling points you have brought to the table, thank you.

Now, yes power is a tempting thing. But would the government do with it? THAT is the point. Also, the US already has a lot of power. More power would leave the gov't fighting itself. If I, with my un-informed mind about power, figured that out, the gov't can.

I said that because only someone who does know about tyrants and dictatorships and how they came to power would look at what's going on and think, "What are they really trying to do here?"
Now, the government at this point has so much power that it is fighting itself. Just not in a Civil War kind of way. Wait, I take that back, this almost exactly like how the Civil War started. But we're not at that point yet. The government doesn't need to have a reason for control. They do it because they can. They do it because, in reality, what is going to stop them? Control is very pleasant thing to have, and you don't even need a reason to have it.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I said that because only someone who does know about tyrants and dictatorships and how they came to power would look at what's going on and think, "What are they really trying to do here?"
Now, the government at this point has so much power that it is fighting itself. Just not in a Civil War kind of way. Wait, I take that back, this almost exactly like how the Civil War started. But we're not at that point yet. The government doesn't need to have a reason for control. They do it because they can. They do it because, in reality, what is going to stop them? Control is very pleasant thing to have, and you don't even need a reason to have it.

I was asking that question so that I could here what YOU have to say.

No. Just no. A civil war here in the US is not here. Nothing near it. The US is simply too developed to allow that to happen. I'm sorry, but if you believe that, then friend, I have no hope in trying to fix this country up in the future.

Once again, they are protecting us.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 9:59 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I said that because only someone who does know about tyrants and dictatorships and how they came to power would look at what's going on and think, "What are they really trying to do here?"
Now, the government at this point has so much power that it is fighting itself. Just not in a Civil War kind of way. Wait, I take that back, this almost exactly like how the Civil War started. But we're not at that point yet. The government doesn't need to have a reason for control. They do it because they can. They do it because, in reality, what is going to stop them? Control is very pleasant thing to have, and you don't even need a reason to have it.

Cade. We are getting off topic. Please take this to the USA thread.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 10:03 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I was asking that question so that I could here what YOU have to say.

No. Just no. A civil war here in the US is not here. Nothing near it. The US is simply too developed to allow that to happen. I'm sorry, but if you believe that, then friend, I have no hope in trying to fix this country up in the future.

Once again, they are protecting us.

The wool is pulled over your eyes, friendo.

We are at such a political divide that hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition in order to secede from the Union. Whether or not that was to be taken literally or taken as a figurative message, that's pretty serious. We are at such a racial divide in this country that people are threatening violence onto one another. We have militias springing up everywhere, and no one really trusts the government anymore. Even back in the day of the actual Civil War, many believe America to be too advanced to have a conflict within itself. But it happened.
In no way is destroying a country protecting the people of the country.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 10:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
The wool is pulled over your eyes, friendo.

We are at such a political divide that hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition in order to secede from the Union. Whether or not that was to be taken literally or taken as a figurative message, that's pretty serious. We are at such a racial divide in this country that people are threatening violence onto one another. We have militias springing up everywhere, and no one really trusts the government anymore. Even back in the day of the actual Civil War, many believe America to be too advanced to have a conflict within itself. But it happened.
In no way is destroying a country protecting the people of the country.

The people destroying the government are those that are singing these petitions. I haven't seen such a petition, by the way. You a have link to it?

The problem is that the US has a such a role in the world, that a civil war here would something that the whole world would be involved in.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 10:07 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The people destroying the government are those that are singing these petitions. I haven't seen such a petition, by the way. You a have link to it?

The problem is that the US has a such a role in the world, that a civil war here would something that the whole world would be involved in.

Oh my god. Another American civil war... would be devastating. China and Russia would try to step in. EU and Japan/Korea would lose support/faith. Terrorism.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 11:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the Almighty
Oh my god. Another American civil war... would be devastating. China and Russia would try to step in. EU and Japan/Korea would lose support/faith. Terrorism.

It would be the end of the world. Anarchy, everything would just go wrong. That is why we all need to realize why the US gov't is doing this. The whole world operates on the basis of the US. A downfall of it, would be, catastrophic.
Permalink
| July 23, 2013, 11:55 pm
Just a note: a secession should not automatically lead to a civil war.

If it DOES, what does that tell you about the original country?
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 1:21 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Just a note: a secession should not automatically lead to a civil war.

If it DOES, what does that tell you about the original country?

Oh, I know there would be a small chance of a civil war breaking out as the result of a secession. I was just pointing out that people are so displeased with the government that they decided to send a message in that manner.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 2:37 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Areetsa C
Just a note: a secession should not automatically lead to a civil war.

If it DOES, what does that tell you about the original country?

A secession wouldn't automatically lead to a Civil War. I, disagree.

The Government is, among other things, suppose to keep this Union together. Even George Washington knew that, and was willing to use force to put down threatening rebellions (remember that Whisky Rebellion?) A war would start, as the gov't would focus on keep this Union together. Catastrophe would happen if a secession would happen, though since that on its own is illegal, I doubt it would happen in the first place.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 4:17 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
A secession wouldn't automatically lead to a Civil War. I, disagree.

The Government is, among other things, suppose to keep this Union together. Even George Washington knew that, and was willing to use force to put down threatening rebellions (remember that Whisky Rebellion?) A war would start, as the gov't would focus on keep this Union together. Catastrophe would happen if a secession would happen, though since that on its own is illegal, I doubt it would happen in the first place.

If the government wouldn't allow a secession it's basically saying "We're forcing you stay with us so we can control you."

And no, a secession would not be illegal. This country was founded on and shaped by secession. Having a state (or a few states, in this matter) leave and become its own country would be unlikely, but not entirely illegal. As long as there are petitions, a state could petition to secede.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 4:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
A secession wouldn't automatically lead to a Civil War. I, disagree.

The Government is, among other things, suppose to keep this Union together. Even George Washington knew that, and was willing to use force to put down threatening rebellions (remember that Whisky Rebellion?) A war would start, as the gov't would focus on keep this Union together. Catastrophe would happen if a secession would happen, though since that on its own is illegal, I doubt it would happen in the first place.

The people signing these petitions to secede are, I think, taking this too lightly. Lincoln had all the rebels arrested as traitors. What if the Obama did that? Not that he would realistically do it, but I wouldn't put it past him. On to my main point.
If the majority of people in a state want to secede, I don't see why we should stop them. No state would have joined the union if they were told their joining was permanent and could never leave.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 5:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
The people signing these petitions to secede are, I think, taking this too lightly. Lincoln had all the rebels arrested as traitors. What if the Obama did that? Not that he would realistically do it, but I wouldn't put it past him. On to my main point.
If the majority of people in a state want to secede, I don't see why we should stop them. No state would have joined the union if they were told their joining was permanent and could never leave.

There is a BIG difference between now and Lincoln's era. Back then, you had a lot of different variable to work; the NSA and Taliban none of them. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. The current gov't is protecting it.

Now, should Obama suspend Habius Corpes, I will proudly stand next to any rebel, as that is kicking it into territory that even this "spying" hasn't done. Now, I know you all are going to say "but they kinda already have". Nnneh, no. Just so I can here you stance, the gov't isn't executing random people without any suspicion, right (and please don't answer, "not yet")?
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 10:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Now, I know you all are going to say "but they kinda already have". Nnneh, no. Just so I can here you stance, the gov't isn't executing random people without any suspicion, right (and please don't answer, "not yet")?

This spying thing isn't causing any immediate harm, but we are on a slippery slope. When the patriot act was passed, people were like, "Ohhhh, they'll never do that." Now it's "Weeellll, they are, but they'll never do anything bad with that."
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 10:50 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
This spying thing isn't causing any immediate harm, but we are on a slippery slope. When the patriot act was passed, people were like, "Ohhhh, they'll never do that." Now it's "Weeellll, they are, but they'll never do anything bad with that."

Alright, now I am starting to agree with you. I am kinda turning, in view points, but not fully agreeing. I think it depends on the next move the US government does. They shot down a bill that would limit the NSA's power. That is going to be a riot tomorrow. If the gov't wants to keep its people happy, than it needs to be a little more transparent with what was accomplished in the ten or so years this has been going on.

But the big problem is that I feel that the people of the US are starting to become a bit, well, not proactive. They like to raise all about this, but I haven't seen anyone take a positive, clear, and, most importantly, bloodless approach to fix these "atrocities". I dunno. I say the drones are okay, shooting them down is way, way, way out of the league of the civilian population. Overall, gov't isn't evil, but needs more transparency.
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 10:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
But the big problem is that I feel that the people of the US are starting to become a bit, well, not proactive. They like to raise all about this, but I haven't seen anyone take a positive, clear, and, most importantly, bloodless approach to fix these "atrocities". I dunno.

YES!! The problem is the last 10 years we've become a lazy country. People are just like, "Well I've got nothing to hide, it's not hurting me, so I don't care."
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I say the drones are okay, shooting them down is way, way, way out of the league of the civilian population. Overall, gov't isn't evil, but needs more transparency.

You realize that drone hunting license is more of a symbolic thing. Who has a guided missile to shoot down a plane anyway?
Permalink
| July 24, 2013, 11:05 pm
Like any weapon, a drone is a tool that is dependent upon he morals of the person at the controls. Our laws should provide adequate controls to prevent misuse of such weapons by the people our government hires to fly them. Our problem is that our government considers itself above the law, and has the firepower to remain so.

It all comes down to "Do you want your government to have the power to kill you from the sky without possibility of reprisal?"
Permalink
| July 25, 2013, 9:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.


Yeah, that's not what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that if people were willing to do something, like, say, understand that the gov't is protecting you, and not sit around and complain, things would be better.

On your second point. People may very much see the need to own an RPG-7 or something. THAT is very concerning. I don't care what you are saying; you don't need an RPG here in the USA. Shooting down drones = ridiculous.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:19 am
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258
Like any weapon, a drone is a tool that is dependent upon he morals of the person at the controls. Our laws should provide adequate controls to prevent misuse of such weapons by the people our government hires to fly them. Our problem is that our government considers itself above the law, and has the firepower to remain so.

It all comes down to "Do you want your government to have the power to kill you from the sky without possibility of reprisal?"

.....But the thing is that the drones flying over the US aren't armed. Even the "cruel" gov't know that arming a drone with missiles and machine guns isn't a good idea.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:20 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Quoting Michael K.


Yeah, that's not what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that if people were willing to do something, like, say, understand that the gov't is protecting you, and not sit around and complain, things would be better.

On your second point. People may very much see the need to own an RPG-7 or something. THAT is very concerning. I don't care what you are saying; you don't need an RPG here in the USA. Shooting down drones = ridiculous.

Well if people realized that governments do become corrupt and take advantage of the people and then sweep it off as "protection," there would be very few politicians left in office today. How are you supposed to know that there aren't drones flying overhead with some sort of weapon system? It's nearly impossible to tell if the drones are in the sky in the first place.

Also, RPG-7s don't necessarily count as anti-air. Sure, there have been a few helicopters hit with the rockets, but never a drone. It would be impossible to shoot down an aircraft at such a high altitude with an RPG.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:39 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Well if people realized that governments do become corrupt and take advantage of the people and then sweep it off as "protection," there would be very few politicians left in office today. How are you supposed to know that there aren't drones flying overhead with some sort of weapon system? It's nearly impossible to tell if the drones are in the sky in the first place.

Also, RPG-7s don't necessarily count as anti-air. Sure, there have been a few helicopters hit with the rockets, but never a drone. It would be impossible to shoot down an aircraft at such a high altitude with an RPG.

The RPG thing was just an example. If you want, maybe a S300 (which, I have no idea how you could get, but there most likely is a way to acquire on the black market)

Near where I live, there is an Army Aviation support facility. There, they operate, not drones, but full fledged Apache gunships. And I have no concerns whatsoever.

Yes, you could arm a drone with missiles, and just not tell the public, but when would they need to use a missile? It makes no sense for them to use missiles, so, they just strap on cameras.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:42 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The RPG thing was just an example. If you want, maybe a S300 (which, I have no idea how you could get, but there most likely is a way to acquire on the black market)

Near where I live, there is an Army Aviation support facility. There, they operate, not drones, but full fledged Apache gunships. And I have no concerns whatsoever.

Yes, you could arm a drone with missiles, and just not tell the public, but when would they need to use a missile? It makes no sense for them to use missiles, so, they just strap on cameras.

The difference between a high altitude Predator drone and a helicopter is the fact that you could see a helicopter. I wouldn't be concerned over a helicopter either, but it's the things I can't see that I am concerned of.

"Why would they need to use a missile?"
Where have you been for the last 15 years? They have been using drones to destroy targets in the Middle East for years, and guess what? They use missiles to do it. What would stop them from doing it here if they really wanted to?
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:50 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
The difference between a high altitude Predator drone and a helicopter is the fact that you could see a helicopter. I wouldn't be concerned over a helicopter either, but it's the things I can't see that I am concerned of.

"Why would they need to use a missile?"
Where have you been for the last 15 years? They have been using drones to destroy targets in the Middle East for years, and guess what? They use missiles to do it. What would stop them from doing it here if they really wanted to?

Okay, well firstly, let me say that an S300 is an advanced, Russian anti-aircraft system that, if you don't have the correct jamming system, will make it unbeatable. Those systems aren't available for drones, though getting your hands on one of those systems is pretty hard, if possible in the first place.

Now, the difference is that using missiles in the Middle East are different from here; mainly, collateral damage. There are efforts to reduce the amount of damage in drone strikes, but these accidents would feel much more, dangerous, here in the USA. They know that one trip up would be very, very bad, which is why it makes no sense to arm drones with missiles. Also, think of the utility bills of destroying water mains and power lines, things they would have to fix.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:55 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
On your second point. People may very much see the need to own an RPG-7 or something. THAT is very concerning. I don't care what you are saying; you don't need an RPG here in the USA. Shooting down drones = ridiculous.

This may sound odd, but I think you should be able to have one for fun. To get something like an RPG legally, you've got to, first, find a legal one for sale, have a spotless record, pay a tax, and wait 6-8 months for the paperwork to clear BEFORE you can get it. If you were going to do something bad with it, why would you waste your time with paperwork, when you could get an one off the black market without a paper trail?
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 11:59 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Okay, well firstly, let me say that an S300 is an advanced, Russian anti-aircraft system that, if you don't have the correct jamming system, will make it unbeatable. Those systems aren't available for drones, though getting your hands on one of those systems is pretty hard, if possible in the first place.

Now, the difference is that using missiles in the Middle East are different from here; mainly, collateral damage. There are efforts to reduce the amount of damage in drone strikes, but these accidents would feel much more, dangerous, here in the USA. They know that one trip up would be very, very bad, which is why it makes no sense to arm drones with missiles. Also, think of the utility bills of destroying water mains and power lines, things they would have to fix.

Drones are pretty hard to shoot down. Last time I checked, they carried flares to avoid any surface to air missiles.

Would the big government honestly care about collateral damage? They'll just try to cover up the strike as much as they could. Heck, they do that right now with drone strikes in the Middle East.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:01 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
This may sound odd, but I think you should be able to have one for fun. To get something like an RPG legally, you've got to, first, find a legal one for sale, have a spotless record, pay a tax, and wait 6-8 months for the paperwork to clear BEFORE you can get it. If you were going to do something bad with it, why would you waste your time with paperwork, when you could get an one off the black market without a paper trail?

Oh no. I simply would not live in this country if you could get RPG-7s "for fun". No matter how "safe" you are, something will go wrong, and the country will be littered with ticking grenades. Those things can punch through armor; not about to let that be treated as a toy.

Though, this is kinda getting off topic, I think, so.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:02 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Drones are pretty hard to shoot down. Last time I checked, they carried flares to avoid any surface to air missiles.

Would the big government honestly care about collateral damage? They'll just try to cover up the strike as much as they could. Heck, they do that right now with drone strikes in the Middle East.

I don't think flare will have an effect on a S-300, though that isn't a good example of something you can use. You could get a MANPADS, though.

Yes, the government would care about collateral damage. You all make it seem as the government is the most evil thing in history. For goodness sakes, folks, they aren't that crazy.
Besides, they can't mutter any excuses here, as who are they gonna blame? Exactly.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:05 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I don't think flare will have an effect on a S-300, though that isn't a good example of something you can use. You could get a MANPADS, though.

Yes, the government would care about collateral damage. You all make it seem as the government is the most evil thing in history. For goodness sakes, folks, they aren't that crazy.
Besides, they can't mutter any excuses here, as who are they gonna blame? Exactly.

Do you realize how many innocent people this government has killed in illegal wars? They may not be as evil as the Nazis, but my God this government is guilty of a lot of crimes. Do you see how many times they make up excuses on events like Benghazi? They avoid the question at all costs. They don't want to admit the fact that they did wrong.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Do you realize how many innocent people this government has killed in illegal wars? They may not be as evil as the Nazis, but my God this government is guilty of a lot of crimes. Do you see how many times they make up excuses on events like Benghazi? They avoid the question at all costs. They don't want to admit the fact that they did wrong.

"Killed in illegal wars"? Huh? What wars?

Has it ever been possible that maybe they are telling the truth? Why is it that we can't believe them?

All countries commit war crimes. I'm not proud to say that US has. I'm not going to say anything on Benghazi (I still have to completely understand the gov't view on the matter) but why is it that it is hard to believe that the gov't is trying to protect us?
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:12 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"Killed in illegal wars"? Huh? What wars?

Has it ever been possible that maybe they are telling the truth? Why is it that we can't believe them?

All countries commit war crimes. I'm not proud to say that US has. I'm not going to say anything on Benghazi (I still have to completely understand the gov't view on the matter) but why is it that it is hard to believe that the gov't is trying to protect us?

Iraq was an illegal war, for example. After all this stuff the government pulls all the time, with all the corruption scandals and what not, a better question to ask would be "How can I still trust these people?"
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:16 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Iraq was an illegal war, for example. After all this stuff the government pulls all the time, with all the corruption scandals and what not, a better question to ask would be "How can I still trust these people?"

"After all this stuff". What stuff? I agree, the recent invasion of Iraq was uncalled for (dang it Bush!), but what is the "corruption scandals"? The drone strikes that bring terrorist organizations to their knees? I agree, the people accidentally killed in these attacks should be owned up by the gov't, but they are protecting us.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh no. I simply would not live in this country if you could get RPG-7s "for fun".

Too late. "Destructive Devices" are legal, but heavily regulated by the BATFE. The only people who can afford them are people like this guy.
http://youtu.be/_UU4zYC1GgI?t=2m10s
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No matter how "safe" you are, something will go wrong, and the country will be littered with ticking grenades. Those things can punch through armor; not about to let that be treated as a toy.

Things seem to be going fine. Since 1934, there've been only 2 murders with registered NFA weapons, one of them by a cop. Nobody has ever shot down with a weapon they were allowed to have.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:28 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
"After all this stuff". What stuff? I agree, the recent invasion of Iraq was uncalled for (dang it Bush!), but what is the "corruption scandals"? The drone strikes that bring terrorist organizations to their knees? I agree, the people accidentally killed in these attacks should be owned up by the gov't, but they are protecting us.

If you've bothered to watch the news in the last year you would know about the IRS scandal, the voter fraud scandal, the DOJ scandal, the race divide in America thanks to the government, and more scandals in the Middle East that can't even be counted because there are so many of them happening on a weekly basis.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 12:35 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....But the thing is that the drones flying over the US aren't armed. Even the "cruel" gov't know that arming a drone with missiles and machine guns isn't a good idea.


I have worked for the US government. Their views of what constitutes a "good idea" are quite different from the public's idea. Armed or not, drones will be used as weapons by providing real time intel to US federal agents who DO have guns and missiles. The predator is a fairly modular package. One that is unarmed this morning can be loaded with hellfires for an afternoon sortie. at 35000 feet, who on the ground will know it has missiles until too late?
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 4:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting JWG 258

I have worked for the US government. Their views of what constitutes a "good idea" are quite different from the public's idea. Armed or not, drones will be used as weapons by providing real time intel to US federal agents who DO have guns and missiles. The predator is a fairly modular package. One that is unarmed this morning can be loaded with hellfires for an afternoon sortie. at 35000 feet, who on the ground will know it has missiles until too late?

Yeah, but why would you need missiles? Thats the point. Taking out one target doesn't need missiles. Also, how is a drone different than, say, an F-15E? Other than there being a pilot on board, which a drone also has (though he or she is on the ground), who is to say that there isn't a fleet of F-15, or even Apache Helicopters waiting to blow you up?
Cost, that is what.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 6:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
If you've bothered to watch the news in the last year you would know about the IRS scandal, the voter fraud scandal, the DOJ scandal, the race divide in America thanks to the government, and more scandals in the Middle East that can't even be counted because there are so many of them happening on a weekly basis.

After bothering to watch the news all last year, and also bothering to check news websites online, yes I see what you are saying, but half of these, who was killed? I'm not saying that they make them any less bad, but I am saying, who honestly died from these things?
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 6:25 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael K.
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh no. I simply would not live in this country if you could get RPG-7s "for fun".

Too late. "Destructive Devices" are legal, but heavily regulated by the BATFE. The only people who can afford them are people like this guy.
http://youtu.be/_UU4zYC1GgI?t=2m10s
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No matter how "safe" you are, something will go wrong, and the country will be littered with ticking grenades. Those things can punch through armor; not about to let that be treated as a toy.

Things seem to be going fine. Since 1934, there've been only 2 murders with registered NFA weapons, one of them by a cop. Nobody has ever shot down with a weapon they were allowed to have.

FPS Russia. Yeah, but thats different.

I say make those illegal, for sure. Are you kidding me? I don't want to live somewhere in which I know that an RPG could "accidentally" destroy my house, government or not (and no, the gov't doesn't have RPGs fitted on any drones here in the States).
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 6:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, but why would you need missiles? Thats the point. Taking out one target doesn't need missiles. Also, how is a drone different than, say, an F-15E? Other than there being a pilot on board, which a drone also has (though he or she is on the ground), who is to say that there isn't a fleet of F-15, or even Apache Helicopters waiting to blow you up?
Cost, that is what.

Dude, they use missiles to wipe out single targets all the time.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 7:12 pm
Quoting Cade .
Dude, they use missiles to wipe out single targets all the time.

No, fitting lasers would be better...
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 7:13 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
After bothering to watch the news all last year, and also bothering to check news websites online, yes I see what you are saying, but half of these, who was killed? I'm not saying that they make them any less bad, but I am saying, who honestly died from these things?

First off, none of these incidences require someone to be killed in order for it be considered "bad." All of these situations either ruined peoples' lives or made them feel like victims to a government run amuck. And you say they're trying to "protect us."

But you want to hear the stories where people have been killed? Sure, I have time. For starters:
Benghazi: Gun running in Middle Eastern countries leads to the wrong people being armed. Insurgents storm the US embassy. Government gets call about attack, does nothing. Some high ranking government official orders a stand-down on helicopters loaded with Marines, who were going to be deployed to the embassy to save ambassadors. Four Americans are killed.
Operation Fast and Furious: Weapons are supplied to Cartel by Obama administration as planned by Operation Fast and Furious. They were supposed to be tracking the firearms so they could lead to more Mexican drug cartel members being arrested, but because of pure negligence, the weapons were never tracked. Countless Mexican citizens and two border patrol agents were killed as a result.
And to avoid making this comment too long, I just listed down those two. There are plenty of other examples.

So yeah, "protection."
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 7:22 pm
Quoting Benhamin Eukatah
No, fitting lasers would be better...

We haven't perfected laser-weapon technology yet.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 7:25 pm
Quoting Cade .
We haven't perfected laser-weapon technology yet.

Well, look at all of our creations, they have lasers. :}
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 7:55 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, but why would you need missiles? Thats the point. Taking out one target doesn't need missiles. Also, how is a drone different than, say, an F-15E? Other than there being a pilot on board, which a drone also has (though he or she is on the ground), who is to say that there isn't a fleet of F-15, or even Apache Helicopters waiting to blow you up?
Cost, that is what.


No, that is not the point. The point is that our government cannot be trusted with the power to make a decision whether to kill a person or not. There are awards for "neutralizing targets" within the drone controller subculture. If the wrong target is neutralized, there is an excuse structure in place to make it look like the right target.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 8:04 pm
Quoting JWG 258

No, that is not the point. The point is that our government cannot be trusted with the power to make a decision whether to kill a person or not. There are awards for "neutralizing targets" within the drone controller subculture. If the wrong target is neutralized, there is an excuse structure in place to make it look like the right target.

I'm going to go ahead and give you his future argument just so we can get a debate going again.

"But the government is supposed to protect us! No way they would use a drone against the citizens of this country.... Besides, when have they ever misused a drone?"
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 8:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Achintya Prasad
FPS Russia. Yeah, but thats different.

I say make those illegal, for sure. Are you kidding me? I don't want to live somewhere in which I know that an RPG could "accidentally" destroy my house, government or not (and no, the gov't doesn't have RPGs fitted on any drones here in the States).

Again, only 3 deaths (2 murders) with legal NFA weapons in 79 years. 3 IN 79 YEARS! Is this a big problem? If there were killings every day with legal bazookas and anti air missiles, I'd agree with you.
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 9:11 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Again, only 3 deaths (2 murders) with legal NFA weapons in 79 years. 3 IN 79 YEARS! Is this a big problem? If there were killings every day with legal bazookas and anti air missiles, I'd agree with you.

You also forgot to mention that RPGs don't just "go off."
Permalink
| July 26, 2013, 9:34 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
I'm going to go ahead and give you his future argument just so we can get a debate going again.

"But the government is supposed to protect us! No way they would use a drone against the citizens of this country.... Besides, when have they ever misused a drone?"

Thanks for trying to predict what I am going to say. I would prefer if you just stick to what you wish to say.

JWG. I once again don't see why you would need a missile or bomb to take out one or two targets. Also, once again, I say, what is the difference between a drone and an actual fighter, in terms of monitoring people? There are much cheaper ways to, eliminate, people, and shooting a missile seems very cost ineffective.
Permalink
| July 27, 2013, 10:37 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thanks for trying to predict what I am going to say. I would prefer if you just stick to what you wish to say.

JWG. I once again don't see why you would need a missile or bomb to take out one or two targets. Also, once again, I say, what is the difference between a drone and an actual fighter, in terms of monitoring people? There are much cheaper ways to, eliminate, people, and shooting a missile seems very cost ineffective.

Well maybe because they are high value targets and they're inside the side of a mountain? Happens in the middle east, all the time.

Also, the difference between a drone and a jet is that the jet is faster and can be seen, making them not so adequate for actual surveillance. Seriously, do you expect a jet to fly over one target in a circle over and over again just for "surveillance?"

Permalink
| July 27, 2013, 11:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Cade .
Well maybe because they are high value targets and they're inside the side of a mountain? Happens in the middle east, all the time.

Also, the difference between a drone and a jet is that the jet is faster and can be seen, making them not so adequate for actual surveillance. Seriously, do you expect a jet to fly over one target in a circle over and over again just for "surveillance?"

Alright, that was sarcastic, but if you really want to know, it would be cheaper to just put a little microphone in someone's phone and call it a day (just waitin' for the NSA joke.....) The point is, its not cost effective to use drones to knock out targets here in the US, as you aren't going to find one building controlled by terrorists. Now, in the Middle East, what i have to say is this: US, ask the permission of each country you want drone strikes to be done in, and then triple, triple check your targeting sensors and then, just before you fire, check once more, and then maybe, just maybe, pull the trigger.
Permalink
| July 27, 2013, 3:06 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting CY-EV .
Drones: War crimes under Bush, beloved symbols of Pax Americana under Obama!

Depends on what they are used for. For the most part, they are used to for tracking crims, so, I mean.

I wonder, though, if when the US Army first started using airplanes, people had outcries that the gov't was infringing their rights.....
Permalink
| July 30, 2013, 10:23 am
Drones are the same as any other aircraft, except the pilot is elsewhere. I like them and think we should use them, but do so wisely and carefully.
Permalink
| September 8, 2013, 10:55 am
Other topics
Aliens? Updated Saturday



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use