Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:46:29 AM · by Uncle Chip · 124 replies
The Daily Mail Online ^ | April 23, 2013 | Daily Mail Reporter
Do citizens have safegurad against government abuse?
bs....
It is a moot point, and, frankly, a pointless interjection into the scope of events. The facts are that the ‘authorities,’ whoever that might be were using infrared detection (FLIR?) from a helicopter (or suitable platform). Makes no difference, manned or not in this case.
Sure appears to me that a drone WAS used for inspecting the boat.
Your only safeguard is your weapons. That is the way it has always been and the way it will always be. There are those that shuffle on the train and those that will never do that. It has always been that way as well.
Are reporters really this dumb? (Rhetorical)
He was found a half mile from the shootout his brother died at. Maybe a bloodhound would have been useful. Have they all been phased out by technology?
Like everything else it starts out being used to aprehend criminals and ends up being used for surveilance on citizens.
Like the speed camera’s They started being used to slow down traffic, and then started being used to raise money.
The Afghans have automatic rifles which are not crippled to three-shot-burst like civilians in the US are allowed to have. They also have anti-aircraft missiles, MANPADs and the like. And still, they cannot do anything against the drones.
Remember this, and you’ll see what a truly slippery slope it is when a government can wield combat drones against its own population.
A true reading of the Second Amendment cannot allow for restrictions against what a free citizen can possess to check the balance of power against the government. Even if that means private ownership of combat jets.
In that case, what’s the difference between a drone with FLIR and a manned police helicopter with FLIR other than where the pilot and observers are sitting?
}:-)4
Hot pursuit is pretty cut and dry and the only question is when to break off surveillance after they lose the perp. I don’t think we need or want drones flying for weeks while some perp decomposes in a shed or parties in Mexico.
how many swat teams were needef to catch oswald or the ut sniper?
They had helicopters with advanced optics. What would a drone have added?
Boston revealed that in an emergency the police, FBI, and ATF will trample civil rights, aim weapons at innocent Americans, and accomplish relatively nothing, and do it soo Boston Strong that your arse will hurt for days.
The people of Boston could have been yanked without warrants from their homes and then led onto trains to concentration camps and those idiots would have thanked the Feds for the free ride... Boston Strong!
The good news is that I no longer fear a Federal martial law. There is no way in hell they could deal with that and there is no way in hell it would work. The stupidity and disorder would have been 10X worse the other night if you had a remedially-trained fire team in the area shooting at those officers instead of one, pathetic terrorist.
Plus, there’s no money to pay for the overtime.
I would just like to point out that at any given time, somewhere in the US there is a "killer on the loose in a neighborhood". It may even be a mad man more dangerous than some 19 year old bleeding coward terrorist puke.
So logically I guess we should have drones flying patterns 24/7 in all populated areas. Or they could just stop infringing our 2nd amendment, rights and let us take care of ourselves.
Some day soon, they’ll be tossing U.S.-born citizens into Gitmo as enemy combatants, and we’ll all sit around wondering how we got there.
The Technology "was" used in Boston, but because it was connected
to a helicopter it's ok I guess.
(Transcipt) PAUL: "Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities."
What Ed at Hot Air showed is 1:49 long. Cut off just before my emphasis in Paul's response. WHY?