| Author |
Message |
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans  Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:10 am |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4749
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
kidhawk wrote: SilNWest wrote: Also the DOHS has been stockpiling ammunition for quite a while now, a large number of them hollow point bullets. I've heard counts of up to 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition. The department of agriculture, social security department, department of education, and the IRS have all been ordering bullets like crazy over the last 3 years or so. I honestly have no idea as to why, but I doubt it could be a good reason. It's especially puzzling when you learn that the use of hollow points in war violates the Geneva convention. Check the facts yourself please. Quote: While our government leaders talk about gun control, I am astounded that there has been virtually no mention of the stockpiling of ammunition by our own government. Total ammunition being stored for various federal agencies totals 1.4 billion rounds, with 450 rounds being hollow point shells so destructive to the human body they are banned by Geneva Conventions. So why would our government need all this ammunition that would equate to more than three bullets per person? http://articles.mcall.com/2013-01-23/op ... ug-cartelshttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/48898365/#.URFQ86V9LoIhttp://www.examiner.com/article/feds-ex ... -questionshttp://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-gover ... guns-ammo/There are quite a few articles about this you can find, just search whatever news site or channel you watch followed by stockpiling of bullets and you can find many of them confirming this. Sorry to sidetrack from the debate of drone use on Americans, but when reading the article linked above from NBC, it talked about Social Security buying 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets. It said they totaled about 590 per agent they have to investigate fraud and other illegal activities associated with the agency. They go on to add that most of these rounds will be fired at the firing range. Now, I don't have a problem with the purchase of bullets for officers, but why expend the more expensive hollow point rounds at the range? You'd think with the sheer amount of bullets purchased for law enforcement across the nation, that it would be "penny-wise" to purchase a cheaper bullet to use in the ranges and save the hollow points for use when actually on duty. It's important to understand the ballistics of what you're shooting. A 170 grain full metal jacket bullet is going to handle differently than a 155 grain hollow point. I think it's important for officers to train with their duty ammunition, though they're probably paying between 50 cents and $1 per round for it.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:32 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1713
|
kidhawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: You can punish them before the fact. That's what this whole thread is about. If you seriously believe that a person can and should be punished before they do anything wrong, then I think we are done here Drones are being sent to kill people in "anticipatory self-defense," I would call that punishing before the fact. So we can and are, I didn't say it was right. Sailor, when did you officially become the snarky mom of PWR? SilNW, even the NRA Institute for Legislative Action thinks the government ammunition purchasing is much ado about nothing. Link
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:36 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 10271
Location: Anchorage, AK
|
12evanf wrote: kidhawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: You can punish them before the fact. That's what this whole thread is about. If you seriously believe that a person can and should be punished before they do anything wrong, then I think we are done here Drones are being sent to kill people in "anticipatory self-defense," I would call that punishing before the fact. So we can and are, I didn't say it was right. Sailor, when did you officially become the snarky mom of PWR? SilNW, even the NRA Institute for Legislative Action thinks the government ammunition purchasing is much ado about nothing. LinkAlthough it's still a gray area, the drones are not killing Americans who are innocent of wrong doing. There is an issue of due process here, but let's not pretend that the killings are taking place before the crimes are committed, they are merely mean to prevent further crimes from being committed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6185
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
|
Finally. I've had these drones in my basement for a long damn time, and now I can use them on my bitchy neighbors!
_________________  Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SilNWest
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:56 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:51 am
Posts: 608
Location: Auburn, Wa
|
kidhawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: Drones are being sent to kill people in "anticipatory self-defense," I would call that punishing before the fact. So we can and are, I didn't say it was right. Sailor, when did you officially become the snarky mom of PWR? SilNW, even the NRA Institute for Legislative Action thinks the government ammunition purchasing is much ado about nothing. LinkAlthough it's still a gray area, the drones are not killing Americans who are innocent of wrong doing. There is an issue of due process here, but let's not pretend that the killings are taking place before the crimes are committed, they are merely mean to prevent further crimes from being committed. The NRA doesn't really speak for everyone, and they tend to take any comment on guns and ammunition as an attack on the second amendment. Quote: If you take the number of agencies that will be using this ammunition – CBP, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), ICE, the U.S. Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, the DHS police force, and all the guards that protect the various buildings these agencies are housed in, and spread that out over 5 years, you start to see that 450 million rounds really isn't that large of an order. Especially considering it is used for training purposes like firing range and live fire exercises, on-the-job use (though that is very limited), and to shore up their supplies. In fact, there are 65,000 – 70,000 law enforcement personnel at DHS who would be covered under this … ammunition contract. If DHS were to purchase all 450 million rounds over 5 years, then that would equate to only about 1,384 rounds of ammo per year per law enforcement [officer] … assuming the lower estimate of only 65,000 law enforcement personnel at DHS. Considering those agents go through training exercises several times per year, that is not a lot of ammunition. Link1384 rounds of ammo per year over the next five years per officer (65,000) of them. That sounds like quite a bit to me... the number of DOHS officers, the amount of training exercises they go through with live ammunition, and the fact that all 450 million rounds were hollow points. I recognize the fact that you need to train some with the caliber you'll be using in the field, but that still seems like a large expense that isn't required. Also, I thought you were anti-gun rights evan? Why are you defending the governments rights to bear "assault rifles" (on American soil) while against a private citizen having the same? Kid, sure these memo's and the laws they mention are probably benign, but they are worded so loosely as to be on an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we have the right to due process, how do you know drones aren't used to kill Americans without any proof of wrongdoing? Without due process, we can't be sure. I'm not worried so much about drone strikes going down on innocent American's tomorrow, but these laws and this memo make that possible and even legal. Maybe twenty years down the road or less, but once the government gets a power granted them they don't ever turn it back over, they just continue to expand upon it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:17 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 10271
Location: Anchorage, AK
|
SilNWest wrote: Kid, sure these memo's and the laws they mention are probably benign, but they are worded so loosely as to be on an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we have the right to due process, how do you know drones aren't used to kill Americans without any proof of wrongdoing? Without due process, we can't be sure. I'm not worried so much about drone strikes going down on innocent American's tomorrow, but these laws and this memo make that possible and even legal. Maybe twenty years down the road or less, but once the government gets a power granted them they don't ever turn it back over, they just continue to expand upon it. Let's be straight here; I have not picked a side of this drone issue. I'm not totally against using them, but I believe we have to be extremely careful the processes we go through before the decision is made. I fully believe in the rights of American citizens to due process, but I also wonder if we can't somehow work within that process here. A guy like Al Mawaliki (sp?) who traveled using foreign passports, lived outside the US and basically did everything he could to disavow his citizenship, should be looked upon different than a person who is an active American citizen. I would also say that there needs to be a process where there is a preponderance of evidence before someone is targeted like this. No one man, not even the president should make this decision.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:26 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1713
|
SilNWest wrote: Also, I thought you were anti-gun rights evan? Why are you defending the governments rights to bear "assault rifles" (on American soil) while against a private citizen having the same?
Kid, sure these memo's and the laws they mention are probably benign, but they are worded so loosely as to be on an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we have the right to due process, how do you know drones aren't used to kill Americans without any proof of wrongdoing? Without due process, we can't be sure. I'm not worried so much about drone strikes going down on innocent American's tomorrow, but these laws and this memo make that possible and even legal. Maybe twenty years down the road or less, but once the government gets a power granted them they don't ever turn it back over, they just continue to expand upon it. I'm not "anti-gun rights." I'm pro-public safety. There's an overflow of idiots with guns and innocent people are being killed. Hadiya Pendleton and the Alabama bus driver are two prominent examples in the last week. More guns and more stray bullets are not the answer. I posted the NRA link to show that the tin-foil hat theory of the governement preparing for slaughter is a tin-foil hat theory. Due process is outlined in the constitution, again Article 1 Section 9 "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The framers' intent pretty clearly shows that public safety can supercede the right to a fair trial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DTexHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:28 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 3280
|
12evanf wrote:
Due process is outlined in the constitution, again Article 1 Section 9
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The framers' intent pretty clearly shows that public safety can supercede the right to a fair trial.
What a novel idea, following the constitution. 
_________________
That's weak sauce!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:47 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 10271
Location: Anchorage, AK
|
DTexHawk wrote: 12evanf wrote:
Due process is outlined in the constitution, again Article 1 Section 9
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The framers' intent pretty clearly shows that public safety can supercede the right to a fair trial.
What a novel idea, following the constitution. As long as it's convenient 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeekHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:01 pm |
|
| US Navy ET Nuc |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 3066
Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:04 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 10271
Location: Anchorage, AK
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sports Hernia
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 5424
|
|
I don't think drone strikes on Americans in America by their own government is really THAT far away. Notice how I didn't say legal/illegal in that first sentence. I think when drone technology improves and this country's political climate gets worse I can see "some political/activist hits" taking place if they think they could get away with it. Especially if a "nut" gets elected president.
_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:06 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
Drones are technology, new technology will always get put to use if it can in our everyday lives.
Not worried, not scared.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:33 am |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4749
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SilNWest wrote: Also, I thought you were anti-gun rights evan? Why are you defending the governments rights to bear "assault rifles" (on American soil) while against a private citizen having the same?
Kid, sure these memo's and the laws they mention are probably benign, but they are worded so loosely as to be on an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we have the right to due process, how do you know drones aren't used to kill Americans without any proof of wrongdoing? Without due process, we can't be sure. I'm not worried so much about drone strikes going down on innocent American's tomorrow, but these laws and this memo make that possible and even legal. Maybe twenty years down the road or less, but once the government gets a power granted them they don't ever turn it back over, they just continue to expand upon it. I'm not "anti-gun rights." I'm pro-public safety. There's an overflow of idiots with guns and innocent people are being killed. Hadiya Pendleton and the Alabama bus driver are two prominent examples in the last week. More guns and more stray bullets are not the answer. I posted the NRA link to show that the tin-foil hat theory of the governement preparing for slaughter is a tin-foil hat theory. Due process is outlined in the constitution, again Article 1 Section 9 "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The framers' intent pretty clearly shows that public safety can supercede the right to a fair trial. If you really were pro public safety, you would choose one of hundreds of threats more serious than individual gun rights.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:36 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
Just because there things that are more/just as dangerous as guns doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:48 am |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4749
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
SonicHawk wrote: Just because there things that are more/just as dangerous as guns doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. Perhaps, but not under the guise of protecting public safety as it's just a poorly concealed farce.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:33 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
SmokinHawk wrote: SonicHawk wrote: Just because there things that are more/just as dangerous as guns doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. Perhaps, but not under the guise of protecting public safety as it's just a poorly concealed farce. 11k murders by firearms each year is not a farce. Name another object that is used to commit murder more than this.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:44 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 10271
Location: Anchorage, AK
|
SonicHawk wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: SonicHawk wrote: Just because there things that are more/just as dangerous as guns doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. Perhaps, but not under the guise of protecting public safety as it's just a poorly concealed farce. 11k murders by firearms each year is not a farce. Name another object that is used to commit murder more than this. You act like gun murder has become some sort of epidemic, when in reality, we are at a 30+ year low for gun homicide rates. Lower than when we had an assault weapon ban.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:52 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
kidhawk wrote:
You act like gun murder has become some sort of epidemic, when in reality, we are at a 30+ year low for gun homicide rates. Lower than when we had an assault weapon ban.
No. I don't. You keep on trying to act like I believe gun violence is at an all-time high or that it's getting "out of control". No, not at all. The point is that gun violence is consistent and a threat that can be removed. It will not end violence. It will not cure all. But it's a step in the right direction.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DTexHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Legal drone strikes on Americans Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:01 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 3280
|
SonicHawk wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: SonicHawk wrote: Just because there things that are more/just as dangerous as guns doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. Perhaps, but not under the guise of protecting public safety as it's just a poorly concealed farce. 11k murders by firearms each year is not a farce. Name another object that is used to commit murder more than this. From a Clarence Page opinion piece: "But the NRA is also correct when it points out that murderers killed fewer people with rifles, according to FBI statistics, than with knives, hands, feet, clubs or hammers." http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130205-clarence-page-gun-laws-far-from-complete-solution.ece?action=reregister*The statement above does not include or refer to handguns. So why more restrictions on rifles?
_________________
That's weak sauce!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
