User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:24:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Not sure if dupe or not.
However.... Are you surprised? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:25:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Not sure if dupe or not. However.... Are you surprised? I am surprised that they seem surprised! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:31:19 PM EDT
[#3]
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind. There is no true escape I'm watching all the time. I'm made of metal My circuits gleam. I am perpetual I keep the country clean.... <...> I take pride in probing all your secret moves My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:34:44 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:34:46 PM EDT
[#5]
And the libs keep acting like we're crazy for being concerned about government tyranny.
It's not whether it will come. It's already here. It just hasn't finished escalating yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:43:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
And the libs keep acting like we're crazy for being concerned about government tyranny. It's not whether it will come. It's already here. It just hasn't finished escalating yet. True. I think it will need to start hitting closer to home for it to really sink in for most people. By then things will be real bad…. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:46:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And the libs keep acting like we're crazy for being concerned about government tyranny. It's not whether it will come. It's already here. It just hasn't finished escalating yet. True. I think it will need to start hitting closer to home for it to really sink in for most people. By then things will be real bad…. It wont be long at all. Once people finish selling off their means to defend themselves, they'll get a wake up call when someone is hit with a drone strike, or arrested for some shit, and the proof provided is an aerial snapshot from a drone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:47:31 PM EDT
[#8]
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil?
There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:47:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Don't worry, they will only kill terrorists.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:48:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if dupe or not. However.... Are you surprised? I am surprised that they seem surprised! Surprising... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:50:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Whew.Don't worry, they will only kill terrorists. Freedom Fighters are going to be safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 8:52:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Boy, I can hardly wait until we have thousands of these things patrolling the skies all across our nation.
Suddenly feeling the urge to take up model rocketry or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 9:03:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Read the story. It taught me that my whole life i thought imminent meant just about to happen. Now i understand it means like maybe someday possibly. Learn something every day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 9:09:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
You think you've private lives Think nothing of the kind. There is no true escape I'm watching all the time. I'm made of metal My circuits gleam. I am perpetual I keep the country clean.... <...> I take pride in probing all your secret moves My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove.... nice work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 9:21:41 PM EDT
[#15]
I guess I'll dust off that ancient 10 gauge goose gun. Put a red-dot on that fucker.
Ack-ack, it's not just for Baghdad anymore! Um, anyone know if CTD has any 10 gauge in stock? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 11:20:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I guess I'll dust off that ancient 10 gauge goose gun. Put a red-dot on that fucker. Ack-ack, it's not just for Baghdad anymore! Um, anyone know if CTD has any 10 gauge in stock? Probably...but just curious, are you seriously in need of both arms? 
Ya know...CTD and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 11:22:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Terrifying how close to reality Matthew Bracken's books are becoming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2013 11:27:25 PM EDT
[#18]
It has already happened, old news. I don't think this is a liberal or conservative thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:28:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And the libs keep acting like we're crazy for being concerned about government tyranny. It's not whether it will come. It's already here. It just hasn't finished escalating yet. True. I think it will need to start hitting closer to home for it to really sink in for most people. By then things will be real bad…. As long as they don't knock out any of the 'reality' show channels, American Idol, etc. then I'll bet a lot of people won't even notice. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:44:12 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
And the libs keep acting like we're crazy for being concerned about government tyranny. It's not whether it will come. It's already here. It just hasn't finished escalating yet. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:44:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em The memo is very narrow in scope and only says that it's legal to kill an American citizen overseas who is working specifically for Al Quaida. In other words, it's much ado about nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:52:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em The memo is very narrow in scope and only says that it's legal to kill an American citizen overseas who is working specifically for Al Quaida. In other words, it's much ado about nothing. Feels like "mission creep" to me. Starts over there, ends over here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:54:03 AM EDT
[#23]
I guess big brother is watching.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 1:57:07 AM EDT
[#24]
I'm thinking Cessna with the window down and a Barrett?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 2:46:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em The memo is very narrow in scope and only says that it's legal to kill an American citizen overseas who is working specifically for Al Quaida. In other words, it's much ado about nothing. Feels like "mission creep" to me. Starts over there, ends over here. I have to agree. The verbiage in the very beginning clearly states the intent is for US Citizens on foreign soil. However, reading through it, I am NOT finding anything to support that in the details. That element of "wiggle room" doesn't sit well with me. I have no intention of flipping out about this (yet), but I believe firmly that this needs to be watched...closely. If anyone has any more insight, please contribute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 2:49:08 AM EDT
[#26]
What round for drone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 2:53:57 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
What round for drone? Golden bb's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 2:57:54 AM EDT
[#28]
This event unraveled on foreign soil, right?
Just for clarification... I don't think they're talking about on US soil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:03:52 AM EDT
[#29]
I have no doubt that drones will be used in some capacity by the myriad law enforcement agencies here in the US. Maybe just surveillance drones, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:04:47 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: This event unraveled on foreign soil, right? Just for clarification... I don't think they're talking about on US soil. Yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:05:41 AM EDT
[#31]
Well, Jesse Jackson says our AR's can take out jet liners and are a national security issue, so, shooting down drones should be no problem........will they still fly 'up armored'?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:07:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em I agree with this poster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:09:04 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I guess big brother is watching. My first thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:14:18 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em The memo is very narrow in scope and only says that it's legal to kill an American citizen overseas who is working specifically for Al Quaida. In other words, it's much ado about nothing. Feels like "mission creep" to me. Starts over there, ends over here. Yeah, what it feels like is irrelevant. What it is, is old news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:16:06 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Don't worry, they will only kill terrorists. The modern definition is very broad. Veterans can be considered terrorists. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:18:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't worry, they will only kill terrorists. The modern definition is very broad. Veterans can be considered terrorists. 
Let's not get too hyperbolic just yet, all right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:31:47 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This event unraveled on foreign soil, right? Just for clarification... I don't think they're talking about o"n US soil. Yet. Correct, its coming. Soon. Must think beyond guns for "disabling" these things before they hit the sky. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 3:56:58 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em The memo is very narrow in scope and only says that it's legal to kill an American citizen overseas who is working specifically for Al Quaida. In other words, it's much ado about nothing. And who makes the determination that the individual is AQ? Using what criteria, evidence and oversight? I do know how we can check whether a person is a US citizen and determine with a high likelihood that they are. In this case, the evidence needs to be weighed in a court of law. If the defendant is given a realistic chance to respond (this is the difficult part when considering these individuals live in AQ controlled parts of places like Yemen) and they fail to do so, they are tried in absentia. Keep the required response time short, but there has to be a proven effort (again, the difficult part here) to contact the individual and serve them with the summons. Every American should have an opportunity for his day in court, whether he is believed to be AQ or not. Of course this will tip the person off that they are a person of interest and give them a chance to flee and strike again. Freedom is dangerous. We'll find him again, and by this time the court will have made their decision... It certainly is not much ado about nothing. It is a government (both republican and democrat) trading off my freedoms for a small amount of security without fully weighing the alternatives and consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:02:50 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
And who makes the determination that the individual is AQ? Using what criteria, evidence and oversight? I do know how we can check whether a person is a US citizen and determine with a high likelihood that they are. In this case, the evidence needs to be weighed in a court of law. If the defendant is given a realistic chance to respond (this is the difficult part when considering these individuals live in AQ controlled parts of places like Yemen) and they fail to do so, they are tried in absentia. Keep the required response time short, but there has to be a proven effort (again, the difficult part here) to contact the individual and serve them with the summons. Every American should have an opportunity for his day in court, whether he is believed to be AQ or not. Of course this will tip the person off that they are a person of interest and give them a chance to flee and strike again. Freedom is dangerous. We'll find him again, and by this time the court will have made their decision... It certainly is not much ado about nothing. It is a government (both republican and democrat) trading off my freedoms for a small amount of security without fully weighing the alternatives and consequences. That's totally unworkable in the situation in question. If an American citizen turns jihadist and is working with Al Quaeda, and they are in a vehicle with senior Al Quaida leaders and we have a shot at that vehicle with a drone, we should not take it because of that one American citizen who has turned traitor? Instead, we should let those guys get away on the off chance that, at some point in the undetermined future, we might be able to risk the lives of God knows how many US troops to move in and arrest the guy? You REALLY think that's how it should work? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:04:42 AM EDT
[#40]
Tinfoil hat time!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:11:05 AM EDT
[#41]
"Following a drone strike curious neighbors inspect a house in Wurz Ma'Rufe."
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:12:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: I'm thinking Cessna with the window down and a Barrett? Attack Cessna-172? An AC-172? The most dangerous plane a civilian can own. Armed with a Barrett it can take out a city block with one shot. They must be banned for the children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:19:00 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
American citizens fighting for a foreign entity, overseas? Or American citizens on American soil? There is a difference. We're all 'enemy combatants' and 'enemies of the state' F#&k em The memo is very narrow in scope and only says that it's legal to kill an American citizen overseas who is working specifically for Al Quaida. In other words, it's much ado about nothing. If the gubermint can kill Al Qaeda, what's stopping them from killing e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:20:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And who makes the determination that the individual is AQ? Using what criteria, evidence and oversight? I do know how we can check whether a person is a US citizen and determine with a high likelihood that they are. In this case, the evidence needs to be weighed in a court of law. If the defendant is given a realistic chance to respond (this is the difficult part when considering these individuals live in AQ controlled parts of places like Yemen) and they fail to do so, they are tried in absentia. Keep the required response time short, but there has to be a proven effort (again, the difficult part here) to contact the individual and serve them with the summons. Every American should have an opportunity for his day in court, whether he is believed to be AQ or not. Of course this will tip the person off that they are a person of interest and give them a chance to flee and strike again. Freedom is dangerous. We'll find him again, and by this time the court will have made their decision... It certainly is not much ado about nothing. It is a government (both republican and democrat) trading off my freedoms for a small amount of security without fully weighing the alternatives and consequences. That's totally unworkable in the situation in question. If an American citizen turns jihadist and is working with Al Quaeda, and they are in a vehicle with senior Al Quaida leaders and we have a shot at that vehicle with a drone, we should not take it because of that one American citizen who has turned traitor? Instead, we should let those guys get away on the off chance that, at some point in the undetermined future, we might be able to risk the lives of God knows how many US troops to move in and arrest the guy? You REALLY think that's how it should work? Just to be clear, you are asking whether I believe if a confirmed US citizen who has not been tried in a court of law should be executed simply because of who they are with? Again, you failed to see what I am pointing at. You said someone who 'turns jihadist and is working with Al Quaeda(sic)'. How do you know this? Because they themselves claimed this? Because they are hanging out with people who are AQ? Because a friend of his snitched and told us that he was AQ and planning an attack? I by no means think that terrorism should be approached like a law enforcement issue on the whole, but when dealing with known US citizens you CAN NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES kill them unless they are an immediate and known threat. Your situation is not an immediate and known threat to US interests, meaning we give him a chance to defend himself in a court of law. If he fails to show, the evidence against him is brought forth. If he is found guilty, blow that mother fucker up all day long. In your scenario everything about the situation is known. The person just happens to pop up out of the blue with AQ leadership and we know nothing about him nor have we went through the above legal process. If you want to learn how ridiculously uncommon this is, go get a job that requires a security clearance and learn something about ROE. The US isn't just flying around the world popping off drone missiles willy nilly. Oversight is the key here. Checks and balances. A President should not be allowed to be a sole arbitrator on whether a US citizen should be executed. If there is an immediate danger, then convene an oversight committee made up of all branches of the Government and make a decision. If planned for ahead of time, this could take the matter of 30 mins. Edit: Typo of your typo... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:26:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Im elected, electric spy...Quoted: You think you've private lives Think nothing of the kind. There is no true escape I'm watching all the time. I'm made of metal My circuits gleam. I am perpetual I keep the country clean.... <...> I take pride in probing all your secret moves My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove.... nice work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:26:37 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Just to be clear, you are asking whether I believe if a confirmed US citizen who has not been tried in a court of law should be executed simply because of who they are with? If they are with senior Al Quaeda leadership in a foreign country, they are taking their chances and deserve what they get. I by no means think that terrorism should be approached like a law enforcement issue on the whole, but when dealing with known US citizens you CAN NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES kill them unless they are an immediate and known threat.
Then you DO think that terrorism should be dealt with like a law enforcement issue, with all the unworkable baggage that goes with that mindset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:37:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just to be clear, you are asking whether I believe if a confirmed US citizen who has not been tried in a court of law should be executed simply because of who they are with? If they are with senior Al Quaeda leadership in a foreign country, they are taking their chances and deserve what they get. I by no means think that terrorism should be approached like a law enforcement issue on the whole, but when dealing with known US citizens you CAN NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES kill them unless they are an immediate and known threat.
Then you DO think that terrorism should be dealt with like a law enforcement issue, with all the unworkable baggage that goes with that mindset. (1) No, just no. Unless you want to start offing journalists. As a US citizen, you are judged by your actions, not your associations or what someone assumes you may do. What and who legally defines a senior AQ leader? I notice that you keep avoiding this issue. (2) Absolutely not. Allow me to spell it out again, US citizens should be tried in a court of law. If this is unfeasible judged by a group made up of more than just the POTUS or if the person refuses to show, they are judged in absentia. This does not have anything to do with 'law enforcement' in the sense that I believe you mean (FBI, cops, etc). This has to do with the US Constitution. If convicted, they are killed however you want to kill them. You are the one who brought up arrests. I have only used the term summons, and even then have acknowledged the difficulties therein. Every case would need to be handled carefully and differently. This isn't a bad thing since there are only a small number of these cases. Non US citizens participating in terrorism are killed, flat out. Law enforcement does't go around executing non-US citizens who break the law, hence, terrorism should not be handled like law enforcement. Edit: Want to be more clear about this. If convicted of a capital offense (i.e. treason) and arrest is deemed unfeasible, then kill them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:45:08 AM EDT
[#48]
So due process isn't worth defending but the 2A is?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:48:10 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just to be clear, you are asking whether I believe if a confirmed US citizen who has not been tried in a court of law should be executed simply because of who they are with? If they are with senior Al Quaeda leadership in a foreign country, they are taking their chances and deserve what they get. I by no means think that terrorism should be approached like a law enforcement issue on the whole, but when dealing with known US citizens you CAN NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES kill them unless they are an immediate and known threat.
Then you DO think that terrorism should be dealt with like a law enforcement issue, with all the unworkable baggage that goes with that mindset. (1) No, just no. Unless you want to start offing journalists. As a US citizen, you are judged by your actions, not your associations or what someone assumes you may do. What and who legally defines a senior AQ leader? I notice that you keep avoiding this issue. (2) Absolutely not. Allow me to spell it out again, US citizens should be tried in a court of law. If this is unfeasible judged by a group made up of more than just the POTUS or if the person refuses to show, they are judged in absentia. This does not have anything to do with 'law enforcement' in the sense that I believe you mean (FBI, cops, etc). This has to do with the US Constitution. If convicted, they are killed however you want to kill them. You are the one who brought up arrests. I have only used the term summons, and even then have acknowledged the difficulties therein. Every case would need to be handled carefully and differently. This isn't a bad thing since there are only a small number of these cases. Non US citizens participating in terrorism are killed, flat out. Law enforcement does't go around executing non-US citizens who break the law, hence, terrorism should not be handled like law enforcement. Edit: Want to be more clear about this. If convicted of a capital offense (i.e. treason) and arrest is deemed unfeasible, then kill them. In other words, it is first and foremost a law enforcement operation in your mind, complete with a prosecution and trial, albeit in absentia. Only then can military forces perform military operations. Is this what you are saying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2013 4:52:41 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
So due process isn't worth defending but the 2A is? Are you suggesting the Constitution does not make a distinction between law enforcement operations and combat operations? Why would Congress have the power to call forth the miltia to enforce laws or suppress insurrections, if the latter was viewed as an extension of the former? Do you think the founders envisioned these militia forces only being used to prosecute arrests, and why is there nothing there about court trials prior to suppressing insurrections? Who gets to declare someone being in insurrection against the US government? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
