News:

I hope she gets diverticulitis and all her poop kills her.

Main Menu

Unlimited Ferguson Thread of police state nightmare fuel.

Started by Da6s, August 14, 2014, 07:09:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Nephew Twiddleton

Really what it is, is that there has only been one instance where our rights have been restricted by constitutional amendment, and that was Prohibition. We have the right to own guns since 1789 technological advancements be damned. So it really it's just on us as a people, as individuals, as institutions that we can't have nice things. Americans aren't responsible with guns. We all know this, but that's already a built in freedom, for better or for worse.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Ben Shapiro

Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2014, 06:48:45 PM
I don't think we've ever had any National Anarchists.  Which is probably just as well, as I'd never stop laughing....

This

Cain

Quote from: Hoopla on August 21, 2014, 09:38:59 PM
Whatever happened to shooting to incapacitate?  Wouldn't a bullet in the lower leg down most people, without killing them?

I believe when you're taught to shoot, they generally teach you to aim for the central body mass, as bullet spread and recoil (and a bunch of other factors besides) can throw off what might otherwise be an on-target shot.  A designated marksman or sniper might be able to take such a shot, but they're generally not useful except in situations where the target is already limited to a small area and usually not presenting an immediate threat (think: bank robbery with hostages, for example).  And even then a headshot is probably easier to carry off, given the size and limited movement in comparison with a limb.

Plus, even if they were shooting at the legs, it could still end up being a fatal shot.  Break a bone, the leg collapses, the bone punctures an artery, the suspect stumbles forward and smashes their skull etc etc.  Guns are generally not useful as nonlethal weapons.

Cain

Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on August 22, 2014, 03:41:46 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 21, 2014, 06:48:45 PM
I don't think we've ever had any National Anarchists.  Which is probably just as well, as I'd never stop laughing....

Is that even a thing? If so, how is that possible?

Unfortunately yes.  And by virtue of mashing the values fascists hate in with the state, basically.  Which is a very convenient way to make anything into an anarchist philosophy, for budding theorists out there.  The state supports dolphins, therefore I am a Pro-Human Anarchist.  Etc etc.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2014, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 21, 2014, 09:38:59 PM
Whatever happened to shooting to incapacitate?  Wouldn't a bullet in the lower leg down most people, without killing them?

I believe when you're taught to shoot, they generally teach you to aim for the central body mass, as bullet spread and recoil (and a bunch of other factors besides) can throw off what might otherwise be an on-target shot.  A designated marksman or sniper might be able to take such a shot, but they're generally not useful except in situations where the target is already limited to a small area and usually not presenting an immediate threat (think: bank robbery with hostages, for example).  And even then a headshot is probably easier to carry off, given the size and limited movement in comparison with a limb.

Plus, even if they were shooting at the legs, it could still end up being a fatal shot.  Break a bone, the leg collapses, the bone punctures an artery, the suspect stumbles forward and smashes their skull etc etc.  Guns are generally not useful as nonlethal weapons.

Oh, they do teach you that in carry class, if you decide to apply to carry here in Oregon.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

By which I mean, you can own and shoot a gun with zero training here, as long as you don't mean to open carry. I mean, it's Oregon!
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Cain

Yeah, it's what I was taught when I did some firearms training with the Royal Engineers, so I expected it was a standard.  Though the Royal Engineers generally don't rely on guns anyway, they have C4 all over the place and a practical approach to mixing chemicals.  Guns are kinda frowned upon.

Fortunately for the rest of us, no country has yet legalised C4 either for self-defence or open carry.

Junkenstein

Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2014, 08:55:13 AM
Yeah, it's what I was taught when I did some firearms training with the Royal Engineers, so I expected it was a standard.  Though the Royal Engineers generally don't rely on guns anyway, they have C4 all over the place and a practical approach to mixing chemicals.  Guns are kinda frowned upon.

Fortunately for the rest of us, no country has yet legalised C4 either for self-defence or open carry.

I kind of want somewhere to do that just to see what happens. Wasn't there a town in the US where it was compulsory to be be armed at all times? This is just the logical extension of that.
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

von

Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2014, 08:55:13 AM
Yeah, it's what I was taught when I did some firearms training with the Royal Engineers, so I expected it was a standard.  Though the Royal Engineers generally don't rely on guns anyway, they have C4 all over the place and a practical approach to mixing chemicals.  Guns are kinda frowned upon.

Fortunately for the rest of us, no country has yet legalised C4 either for self-defence or open carry.

Technically speaking, US self defense laws dont reference specific weapons...they reference "lethal force" and situations wherein which it is legal to use it.
C-4 and other high explosives can be legally possessed by obtaining a permit from the ATF and maintaining an explosives magazine that meets specific standards (and this isnt unreasonably expensive; the permit is $200 and a magazine can literally consist of a cinderblock outhouse surrounded by packed earth and set X number of yards away from a standing structure)

So, technically speaking, if you could ever find yourself in the rare circumstance that using an explosive would be practical for legal self defense, its not illegal by statute. A jury will probably find you guilty of using unreasonable force, but on the books, theres literally nothing wrong with explosives as self defense weapons.

LMNO

Yes, it's Slate.  Still interesting, though.

More than just the First Amendment being smashed in Ferguson.

QuoteA number of superb articles detailing the dangers of suppressing speech and dissent have illuminated the problem of police crackdowns on the First Amendment. And this week the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law published a joint letter calling for the end of the curfew in Ferguson because it "suspends the constitutional right to assemble by punishing the misdeeds of the few through the theft of constitutionally protected rights of the many."

Far fewer articles describe the other constitutional violations taking place on the streets of Missouri, and those violations are every bit as urgent as the infringements on speech and assembly. We've seen very little coverage of the use of tear gas and rubber bullets as constitutional violations. But the due process clause bans the police from using excessive force even when they are within their rights to control a crowd or arrest a suspect. And tear gas is in a category all its own. Not only is unleashing it into a crowd an unconstitutional exercise of excessive force, but its use is banned by international law.


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: von on August 22, 2014, 09:32:18 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2014, 08:55:13 AM
Yeah, it's what I was taught when I did some firearms training with the Royal Engineers, so I expected it was a standard.  Though the Royal Engineers generally don't rely on guns anyway, they have C4 all over the place and a practical approach to mixing chemicals.  Guns are kinda frowned upon.

Fortunately for the rest of us, no country has yet legalised C4 either for self-defence or open carry.

Technically speaking, US self defense laws dont reference specific weapons...they reference "lethal force" and situations wherein which it is legal to use it.
C-4 and other high explosives can be legally possessed by obtaining a permit from the ATF and maintaining an explosives magazine that meets specific standards (and this isnt unreasonably expensive; the permit is $200 and a magazine can literally consist of a cinderblock outhouse surrounded by packed earth and set X number of yards away from a standing structure)

So, technically speaking, if you could ever find yourself in the rare circumstance that using an explosive would be practical for legal self defense, its not illegal by statute. A jury will probably find you guilty of using unreasonable force, but on the books, theres literally nothing wrong with explosives as self defense weapons.

They are specifically banned by federal law, and almost all states have additional laws concerning explosives being used on people.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Bruno

Formerly something else...

Raz Tech

Quote from: Emo Howard on August 22, 2014, 11:34:41 PM
What about flamethrowers?

I think they're considered "any other weapon" and are legal pretty much anywhere but California and a few other states.

Fun fact, a hand-cranked gatling gun is technically semi-automatic, and doesn't require any special permits to own.

Nephew Twiddleton

Quote from: Raz Tech on August 22, 2014, 11:54:53 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on August 22, 2014, 11:34:41 PM
What about flamethrowers?

I think they're considered "any other weapon" and are legal pretty much anywhere but California and a few other states.

Fun fact, a hand-cranked gatling gun is technically semi-automatic, and doesn't require any special permits to own.

MA is probably one of those states. I think nunchaku are technically illegal here.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS