A bill was introduced to prevent some drone killings of Americans on US soil.

I don't see a time where drones will be in the sky above us looking to take out Americans as they travel our highways.

I could see them coming into play in a Waco-like situation. Or if one has a bunch of whacko militia-type folk held up in some type of fortified compound.

(03-09-2013, 05:49 AM)thekid65 Wrote: Waco

I watched a documentary about that recently. While I hesitate to diss LE they sure did look like the keystone cops. What the hell were they thinking. They seemed ill prepared and like they didn't know what they were doing.

That was 20 years ago....man time flies. I think a lot ended up being learned on how to handle shit properly.

Waco was a long time ago. The feds certainly looked bad with the whole deal.
I am kind of 2 minds on the drone strike on us soil thing.
One one hand I can see it as a valuable tool in case there were some kind of an attack from terrorists or something, But I also have a hard time detailing exactly what that kind of an event would look like, the attack I mean.
On the other hand, knowing our government and how the feds do things in general, there is no fucking way.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, Obama.....

I wouldn't mind if they bombed all the "projects."

(03-09-2013, 06:33 PM)Sphincter Cop Wrote: I wouldn't mind if they bombed all the "projects."

Me too.

Nooooooo! There are kids with hoodies in there!

This country hasn't been this divided since the last trouble with the uppity blacks. Not a good time to be throwing away any Constitutional protections...

(03-10-2013, 06:30 PM)Cracker Wrote: Nooooooo! There are kids with hoodies in there!

I think its safe to say, that they are quickly and easily replaced. I've been to the stores on the first of the month; their broods are falling out of the carts because there is so many.

I have a HUGE problem with high density, low income housing. Whose stupid idea was that? Let's take the poor, the criminals and shove them into a 50 unit building on a few acres and see what happens. Instant slum.

We have 3 or 4 in our city and not surprisingly, they're hotbeds for crime, drugs etc. The state wants us to build more. Fucking idiots.

(03-10-2013, 08:23 PM)username Wrote: I have a HUGE problem with high density, low income housing. Whose stupid idea was that? Let's take the poor, the criminals and shove them into a 50 unit building on a few acres and see what happens. Instant slum.

We have 3 or 4 in our city and not surprisingly, they're hotbeds for crime, drugs etc. The state wants us to build more. Fucking idiots.

What are we supposed to do with them then? I don't really want them integrated into my neighborhood.

Then you better hope nobody has a foreclosure because the new families you see moving in with no cars and 12 kids are probably Section 8 nogs.

At least if you keep them on one side of town you can avoid going there.

Has anyone ever played with a toy drone and a 1950's ham radio that uses the higher frequency that has been banned for civilian use?

I remember that there was some talk (media gossip, really) that a drone could be used to target the cabin that Christopher Dorner occupied in his final stand-off with police in Big Bear, California last month. If drone technology allowed for smaller and more cost-efficient weapons in the future, I could see them having viable applications on US soil against US citizens. An unmanned drone with precise targeting could accomplish the same goals perhaps as a full SWAT or ATF team with less risk and loss of life in some types of cases, like that of Dorner.

I don't think such an application of drone weaponry is likely to happen soon, but when it does, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that US drone use would be primarily for law enforcement purposes. I don't think drones should be able to be launched at US citizens at the President's sole discretion and I do believe that the situations under which drone strikes would be allowed should be clearly spelled out. If I understand the bill correctly, this is what Rand Paul and Ted Cruz want specified by law. Maybe it doesn't need to be specified at this time, but why not set boundaries proactively?

Rand and Cruz also, of course, wanna poke Obama and Brennan as hard as possible in the process. They're planning to tack the drone bill onto the budget spending legislation (Pentagon) and Rand agreed to finally vote on Brennan's Secretary of Defense nomination (he'd delayed the voting process for almost 15 hours, IIRC) after getting Atty General Holder to send a letter stating that Obama doesn't haven't authority to launch drone strikes at American citizens in the US. Lots of politics associated with this bill, as usual.

Lotsa "Pork" in Washington, thats for sure.