Citizen Guns Bad/Drones Good?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

False Dichotomy

Michael Noire

False Dichotomy

Michael Noire

Some drones are armed. Some drones have Artificial intelligence. Drones kill people. But RC drones are used by people to kill people as well. I'm not sure how long that will persist. When you apply predictive programming to AI machines capable of moving and shooting people, it becomes highly probable that in the very, very near future, a drone will just up and go kill someone without any order from a human being.

I personally oppose drones, even though this was Tesla's model of warfare. The reason is because of how it is implemented.

When Tesla envisioned these weapons, he saw robots in the skies attacking other robots, like a massive chess game where no blood is actually shed. But that's not what's happening. Drones are robots that kill living people, and counter drones and foreign drones are also being built by places like Iran, Russia, and China with the intent of killing people. If you have a bunch of robots killing people on both sides, instead of robots killing each other, all you have is a higher body count with a reduced chance of civilians being able to defend themselves, coupled with the bankrupting costs on both sides to build these infernal machines.

It is economically and morally unsound. Our tax dollars should be going to fund soldiers, not mindless killing machines. If our soldiers become mindless killing machines, we are training them wrong.

Our tax dollars shouldn't go to killing people, period. If we spent half the money we did on our military on building sustainable housing, perhaps we might actually progress beyond the point of "DEM A TURRIST" and start to focus on internal affairs.

If civilians with patriotic ties should be permitted to arm themselves sufficiently to represent a civilian military, loosely mirroring Switzerland or Israel on a non federal, non state level, then yes, but money from somewhere needs to be spent on providing a nations people with means to resist occupation and oppression, even if that means my neighbor has a rifle and his boss has a cannon - each according to his economic means.

But if the people have no means of defending themselves from foreign marauders, then you are advocating the worst kind of tragedy, and you should seek therapy immediately.

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

But the right thing to do is to help them, and if the right side is armed and prepared, then they can suppress the other side, therefore allowing us not to get attacked, and not have to intervene all the time etc.

It's better in the long run to the do right thing.


You don't build the hoover dam out of sticks and say "that will keep all the water out!"; you build it in such a way to ensure it will never break and you release some of the flow so it doesn't come pouring out all at once.

You can build no wall high enough to keep out the crazies without their just being a dome over the whole U.S., and honestly I don't think we could really even do that.

[Aporeia]

Suicidesoldier#1

False Dichotomy

Michael Noire

False Dichotomy

Michael Noire

Some drones are armed. Some drones have Artificial intelligence. Drones kill people. But RC drones are used by people to kill people as well. I'm not sure how long that will persist. When you apply predictive programming to AI machines capable of moving and shooting people, it becomes highly probable that in the very, very near future, a drone will just up and go kill someone without any order from a human being.

I personally oppose drones, even though this was Tesla's model of warfare. The reason is because of how it is implemented.

When Tesla envisioned these weapons, he saw robots in the skies attacking other robots, like a massive chess game where no blood is actually shed. But that's not what's happening. Drones are robots that kill living people, and counter drones and foreign drones are also being built by places like Iran, Russia, and China with the intent of killing people. If you have a bunch of robots killing people on both sides, instead of robots killing each other, all you have is a higher body count with a reduced chance of civilians being able to defend themselves, coupled with the bankrupting costs on both sides to build these infernal machines.

It is economically and morally unsound. Our tax dollars should be going to fund soldiers, not mindless killing machines. If our soldiers become mindless killing machines, we are training them wrong.

Our tax dollars shouldn't go to killing people, period. If we spent half the money we did on our military on building sustainable housing, perhaps we might actually progress beyond the point of "DEM A TURRIST" and start to focus on internal affairs.

If civilians with patriotic ties should be permitted to arm themselves sufficiently to represent a civilian military, loosely mirroring Switzerland or Israel on a non federal, non state level, then yes, but money from somewhere needs to be spent on providing a nations people with means to resist occupation and oppression, even if that means my neighbor has a rifle and his boss has a cannon - each according to his economic means.

But if the people have no means of defending themselves from foreign marauders, then you are advocating the worst kind of tragedy, and you should seek therapy immediately.

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

But the right thing to do is to help them, and if the right side is armed and prepared, then they can suppress the other side, therefore allowing us not to get attacked, and not have to intervene all the time etc.

It's better in the long run to the do right thing.

But it isn't the right thing. The right thing would be to fix our own problems before we go out trying to fix others'. If you think invading foreign countries to demolish their government in place of what you think is proper is the right thing to do, then I pity you.

These insurgencies will never end. These religious zealots will never die out. The middle east will not solve its problems by Cracker McWhitey poking his nosey head into it. At the rate we're at, we'll be in at least 2 more wars before any of the current ones end... which they might not. We might as well just go in full force and claim the middle east as American territory.

There's far more humanitarian things we can do with our tax dollars than fling shards of metal into brown people's heads at high velocities.

[Michael Noire]

i never said anything about foreign engagements. I was talking about domestic residents having the capacity to defend themselves. But this is what I'm thinking with regard to foreign invasion. Genocide is always a viable reason to invade and wage a righteous war with a foreign power. When a political party, military, or government starts mass slaughter torturing/prison camping large numbers of people in its own borders, that country has failed and those people need to be protected, as a humanitarian obligation of the most obvious kind. Everything else is up to debate and the normal default should be "mind your own business".

For example, if Fantasystan decided to start gathering people with dump trucks and people scoopers and throwing them into giant vats to boil alive to then feed to the armies of Fantasystan, you better believe I would be among the first to sign up to start an invasion of Fantasystan.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

False Dichotomy

Suicidesoldier#1

False Dichotomy

Michael Noire

False Dichotomy

Michael Noire

Some drones are armed. Some drones have Artificial intelligence. Drones kill people. But RC drones are used by people to kill people as well. I'm not sure how long that will persist. When you apply predictive programming to AI machines capable of moving and shooting people, it becomes highly probable that in the very, very near future, a drone will just up and go kill someone without any order from a human being.

I personally oppose drones, even though this was Tesla's model of warfare. The reason is because of how it is implemented.

When Tesla envisioned these weapons, he saw robots in the skies attacking other robots, like a massive chess game where no blood is actually shed. But that's not what's happening. Drones are robots that kill living people, and counter drones and foreign drones are also being built by places like Iran, Russia, and China with the intent of killing people. If you have a bunch of robots killing people on both sides, instead of robots killing each other, all you have is a higher body count with a reduced chance of civilians being able to defend themselves, coupled with the bankrupting costs on both sides to build these infernal machines.

It is economically and morally unsound. Our tax dollars should be going to fund soldiers, not mindless killing machines. If our soldiers become mindless killing machines, we are training them wrong.

Our tax dollars shouldn't go to killing people, period. If we spent half the money we did on our military on building sustainable housing, perhaps we might actually progress beyond the point of "DEM A TURRIST" and start to focus on internal affairs.

If civilians with patriotic ties should be permitted to arm themselves sufficiently to represent a civilian military, loosely mirroring Switzerland or Israel on a non federal, non state level, then yes, but money from somewhere needs to be spent on providing a nations people with means to resist occupation and oppression, even if that means my neighbor has a rifle and his boss has a cannon - each according to his economic means.

But if the people have no means of defending themselves from foreign marauders, then you are advocating the worst kind of tragedy, and you should seek therapy immediately.

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

But the right thing to do is to help them, and if the right side is armed and prepared, then they can suppress the other side, therefore allowing us not to get attacked, and not have to intervene all the time etc.

It's better in the long run to the do right thing.

But it isn't the right thing. The right thing would be to fix our own problems before we go out trying to fix others'. If you think invading foreign countries to demolish their government in place of what you think is proper is the right thing to do, then I pity you.

These insurgencies will never end. These religious zealots will never die out. The middle east will not solve its problems by Cracker McWhitey poking his nosey head into it. At the rate we're at, we'll be in at least 2 more wars before any of the current ones end... which they might not. We might as well just go in full force and claim the middle east as American territory.

There's far more humanitarian things we can do with our tax dollars than fling shards of metal into brown people's heads at high velocities.

But we can arm and train the local people so they can resist such organizations rather than be oppressed by them. Rather than be in constant they can fight back, and get to a point to where it's mostly stable.

The foreign wars we're engaged don't really cost us that much, money wise. Brown, black, green, white, it doesn't really matter; since most Arabic people count as caucasian your view of them as "brown people" only shows your simplified view of the matter.


We could, at best, maybe cut out 700 billion dollars from our 3.6 trillion dollar budget, and at least half of that would go back to research for technology that goes on to supports civilians and other people. Planes, helicopters, cargo planes, our most expensive expenditures, we'd probably buy anyways due to their necessity, due to their capabilities of being used in rescue operations, for delivering food and water to places.

So, what, maybe we shave off 100 billion a year or so from equipment we otherwise wouldn't have? Rockets, jets, really the biggest cost is in their development.


As far as keeping the U.S. out of foreign affairs. Well, until the U.S. doesn't need to import 65% of it's goods, until it's impossible for nuclear bombs, anthrax, or hell, just 19 guys with plastic pieces of s**t to get on a plane and kill 3000 people, we don't really have the option of ignoring them.

Believe me, I'd love to, hop on another plane, go live on mars, go to the moon. But you know that the terrorists or whoever else would just try to follow us there, and there'd always be bad people.


I'm pretty sure practically all people oppose murder, and genocide, and torture. It's basic human empathy.

Whether you're a republican or a democrat or a Christian or a Muslim hardly anyone agrees that innocent people dieing is good. Imposing "our will", as if we're the only people who believe in basic human rights? lol

[Aporeia]

Michael Noire

i never said anything about foreign engagements. I was talking about domestic residents having the capacity to defend themselves. But this is what I'm thinking with regard to foreign invasion. Genocide is always a viable reason to invade and wage a righteous war with a foreign power. When a political party, military, or government starts mass slaughter torturing/prison camping large numbers of people in its own borders, that country has failed and those people need to be protected, as a humanitarian obligation of the most obvious kind. Everything else is up to debate and the normal default should be "mind your own business".

For example, if Fantasystan decided to start gathering people with dump trucks and people scoopers and throwing them into giant vats to boil alive to then feed to the armies of Fantasystan, you better believe I would be among the first to sign up to start an invasion of Fantasystan.

Nearly our whole nation is up to their eyeballs in debt, nearly a million are homeless, people can hardly live on a minimum wage, and we live in a nation where the hoarders would like nothing less than to leave the poor to fend for themselves.

Are you telling me that it's my humanitarian obligation to pull a Tyler Durden?

[God Emperor Baldur]

I have no sympathy for the people who want me dead.

[The Herald of War]

pockybot

For years it was difficult trying to get the average right wing conservative to see what a horrible, immoral waste of money and human life unwarranted military action was...especially under Bush and the neocons. But a funny thing happened. Obama became president. The guy who not only aggressively escalated the war in Afghanistan but launched covert and proxy conflicts in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, etc. Now all the sudden, conservatives are thinking wait a minute...this guy wants to ban our guns yet bring in the age of big brother predator drones?

What age of big brother predator drones? As far as I heard, there were just rumors they were going to use drones to LOCATE someone wanted for murder and planning to kill mroe people. No worse than searching in any other way.

Quote:

And while I don't necessarily agree with the "gub'ment gonna take our guns" meme, I do find it refreshing to see more and more conservatives now opposed to war, drones, torture, civil rights violations, etc as so much of the left continues to support Bush policies because it's under a hip law school talking "Democrat".

Right, not seeing them do that.

Quote:

Yes, many of us tend to roll our eyes when right wingers go on about the "we need guns to defend ourselves against the government someday"...but when you look at this drone situation, and how they may have wanted to use drones against that ex cop running amok in Los Angeles...it makes you wonder. Allegedly tens of thousands of drones will be patrolling American skies in the next few years according to FOIA's regarding FAA and government/corporate plans.

They may have wanted to use them to TRACK him.

Allegedly the world was supposed to end a couple months ago. Anyone can allege something.

Quote:

I am more or less a "liberal" and am not a gun person, but if the government is hunting down US citizens with drones and wanting to one day impose martial law...it seems like a moral counterbalance for Americans to be able to defend themselves.

You're on a side of your own, pocky. The side of conspiracy nuts.

And what a leap, wanting to one day impose martial law.

[l_Shamrock_l]

False Dichotomy

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

Their projection of power is limited if we occupy their land. They continue to attack us, but we have a means of limiting their attack and containing it. What you're suggesting is that we allow them to attack civilian populations on a large scale instead of men and women who are trained to handle and contain the attacks.

[Aporeia]

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

Their projection of power is limited if we occupy their land. They continue to attack us, but we have a means of limiting their attack and containing it. What you're suggesting is that we allow them to attack civilian populations on a large scale instead of men and women who are trained to handle and contain the attacks.

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

[l_Shamrock_l]

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

Their projection of power is limited if we occupy their land. They continue to attack us, but we have a means of limiting their attack and containing it. What you're suggesting is that we allow them to attack civilian populations on a large scale instead of men and women who are trained to handle and contain the attacks.

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

I understand the ideal, but it's not realistic. What you're imposing is that we allow the war to be fought on our own land. This would lead to our own civilian casualties, damage to our own economy, damage to our own infrastructure as a whole and is just a completely short-sighted assertion.

[Aporeia]

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

Their projection of power is limited if we occupy their land. They continue to attack us, but we have a means of limiting their attack and containing it. What you're suggesting is that we allow them to attack civilian populations on a large scale instead of men and women who are trained to handle and contain the attacks.

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

I understand the ideal, but it's not realistic. What you're imposing is that we allow the war to be fought on our own land. This would lead to our own civilian casualties, damage to our own economy, damage to our own infrastructure as a whole and is just a completely short-sighted assertion.

Us being over there doesn't stop them from coming over here. Us being here already does.

We don't need a military presence over there to prevent them from coming to us. We need a defense here, which we already have, and already works. They're far away; if they want to come get us, they have to send in troops by air or sea; if they attempt that, they will die horrifically because they can't contend with our military on that level. In this day and age, I don't think they'd even make it overseas.

[l_Shamrock_l]

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

Their projection of power is limited if we occupy their land. They continue to attack us, but we have a means of limiting their attack and containing it. What you're suggesting is that we allow them to attack civilian populations on a large scale instead of men and women who are trained to handle and contain the attacks.

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

I understand the ideal, but it's not realistic. What you're imposing is that we allow the war to be fought on our own land. This would lead to our own civilian casualties, damage to our own economy, damage to our own infrastructure as a whole and is just a completely short-sighted assertion.

Us being over there doesn't stop them from coming over here. Us being here already does.

We don't need a military presence over there to prevent them from coming to us. We need a defense here, which we already have, and already works. They're far away; if they want to come get us, they have to send in troops by air or sea; if they attempt that, they will die horrifically because they can't contend with our military on that level. In this day and age, I don't think they'd even make it overseas.

I don't think you quite grasp who we're up against. For the most part, they are terrorists. Terrorists operate in small cells, typically estranged from one another and have little, if any contact with each other. I want you to watch the movie, which is a true story, "Act of Valor" (Fun fact: The .50 Cals used by SWCC in the emergency extraction are using live rounds instead of those cheesy blanks that sound like crap compared to the real thing in most movies). I want you to watch this movie with an open mind, as well.

And having served in the Navy, I'm well aware of what powers we have at hand to prevent a large-scale attack. We're not fighting an army. Believing otherwise is probably where this major delusion you have stems from.

[Aporeia]

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

Do you honestly think fighting wars in their countries is stopping them from attacking us? Internal guard. Stonewall them from attacking us. We're already doing it, all we need to do is pull out.

Leave the middle east to fight amongst itself. Physician, heal thyself.

Their projection of power is limited if we occupy their land. They continue to attack us, but we have a means of limiting their attack and containing it. What you're suggesting is that we allow them to attack civilian populations on a large scale instead of men and women who are trained to handle and contain the attacks.

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

I understand the ideal, but it's not realistic. What you're imposing is that we allow the war to be fought on our own land. This would lead to our own civilian casualties, damage to our own economy, damage to our own infrastructure as a whole and is just a completely short-sighted assertion.

Us being over there doesn't stop them from coming over here. Us being here already does.

We don't need a military presence over there to prevent them from coming to us. We need a defense here, which we already have, and already works. They're far away; if they want to come get us, they have to send in troops by air or sea; if they attempt that, they will die horrifically because they can't contend with our military on that level. In this day and age, I don't think they'd even make it overseas.

I don't think you quite grasp who we're up against. For the most part, they are terrorists. Terrorists operate in small cells, typically estranged from one another and have little, if any contact with each other. I want you to watch the movie, which is a true story, "Act of Valor" (Fun fact: The .50 Cals used by SWCC in the emergency extraction are using live rounds instead of those cheesy blanks that sound like crap compared to the real thing in most movies). I want you to watch this movie with an open mind, as well.

And having served in the Navy, I'm well aware of what powers we have at hand to prevent a large-scale attack. We're not fighting an army. Believing otherwise is probably where this major delusion you have stems from.

We're not fighting an army, no. They don't have the ability to get to us en masse. That's my point.

The only things they can do are try to commit acts of terrorism. So we kill them when they try. Us being over there hasn't stopped the threat of terrorism, if anything, it's solidified it. You can't kill them all, stop trying, just go back home and defend yourself.

[l_Shamrock_l]

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

I understand the ideal, but it's not realistic. What you're imposing is that we allow the war to be fought on our own land. This would lead to our own civilian casualties, damage to our own economy, damage to our own infrastructure as a whole and is just a completely short-sighted assertion.

Us being over there doesn't stop them from coming over here. Us being here already does.

We don't need a military presence over there to prevent them from coming to us. We need a defense here, which we already have, and already works. They're far away; if they want to come get us, they have to send in troops by air or sea; if they attempt that, they will die horrifically because they can't contend with our military on that level. In this day and age, I don't think they'd even make it overseas.

I don't think you quite grasp who we're up against. For the most part, they are terrorists. Terrorists operate in small cells, typically estranged from one another and have little, if any contact with each other. I want you to watch the movie, which is a true story, "Act of Valor" (Fun fact: The .50 Cals used by SWCC in the emergency extraction are using live rounds instead of those cheesy blanks that sound like crap compared to the real thing in most movies). I want you to watch this movie with an open mind, as well.

And having served in the Navy, I'm well aware of what powers we have at hand to prevent a large-scale attack. We're not fighting an army. Believing otherwise is probably where this major delusion you have stems from.

We're not fighting an army, no. They don't have the ability to get to us en masse. That's my point.

The only things they can do are try to commit acts of terrorism. So we kill them when they try. Us being over there hasn't stopped the threat of terrorism, if anything, it's solidified it. You can't kill them all, stop trying, just go back home and defend yourself.

You can't "Kill them as they try". It requires information gathering. It requires projection of power. It requires organization. It requires raids. It requires gun fights. It requires the ability to move freely to your destination. It requires too much that you know nothing about. What you're asking is to limit resources and cut preventative measures and bring the enemy closer to home. That's counterproductive in every feasible way.

[Aporeia]

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

l_Shamrock_l

False Dichotomy

No, what I'm proposing is we pull our troops out of the cesspool, defend our nation from inside, and spend our money on something that doesn't equate to imperial dominance.

I understand the ideal, but it's not realistic. What you're imposing is that we allow the war to be fought on our own land. This would lead to our own civilian casualties, damage to our own economy, damage to our own infrastructure as a whole and is just a completely short-sighted assertion.

Us being over there doesn't stop them from coming over here. Us being here already does.

We don't need a military presence over there to prevent them from coming to us. We need a defense here, which we already have, and already works. They're far away; if they want to come get us, they have to send in troops by air or sea; if they attempt that, they will die horrifically because they can't contend with our military on that level. In this day and age, I don't think they'd even make it overseas.

I don't think you quite grasp who we're up against. For the most part, they are terrorists. Terrorists operate in small cells, typically estranged from one another and have little, if any contact with each other. I want you to watch the movie, which is a true story, "Act of Valor" (Fun fact: The .50 Cals used by SWCC in the emergency extraction are using live rounds instead of those cheesy blanks that sound like crap compared to the real thing in most movies). I want you to watch this movie with an open mind, as well.

And having served in the Navy, I'm well aware of what powers we have at hand to prevent a large-scale attack. We're not fighting an army. Believing otherwise is probably where this major delusion you have stems from.

We're not fighting an army, no. They don't have the ability to get to us en masse. That's my point.

The only things they can do are try to commit acts of terrorism. So we kill them when they try. Us being over there hasn't stopped the threat of terrorism, if anything, it's solidified it. You can't kill them all, stop trying, just go back home and defend yourself.

You can't "Kill them as they try". It requires information gathering. It requires projection of power. It requires organization. It requires raids. It requires gun fights. It requires the ability to move freely to your destination. It requires too much that you know nothing about. What you're asking is to limit resources and cut preventative measures and bring the enemy closer to home. That's counterproductive in every feasible way.

If you think for even an instant that removal of troops would necessitate loss of information gathering, you're wrong. That place is swarming with CIA and FBI.