Assault weapons and bomb-carrying robots.....

[Obiwan]

Damn, I haven't seen the OP for a while...

I hope he didn't buy out the fireworks store to cure his "Gnat problem"!!!

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[blackhawk]

Does anyone here realize that the weapon the Dallas shooter used according to reports was an SKS semi automatic rifle? Even if we still had the assualt weapon ban signed by Bill Clinton this rifle as I understand it would not have fallen under it,

 

[waltky]

But that's the whole idea behind usin' robots - to reduce risk to personnel...

Killer Robot Used by Dallas Police Opens Ethical Debate
Jul 09, 2016 | When Dallas police used a bomb-carrying robot to kill a sniper, they also kicked off an ethical debate about technology's use as a crime-fighting weapon.

In what appears to be an unprecedented tactic, police rigged a bomb-disposal robot to kill an armed suspect in the fatal shootings of five officers in Dallas. While there doesn't appear to be any hard data on the subject, security experts and law enforcement officials said they couldn't recall another time when U.S. police have deployed a robot with lethal intent. The strategy opens a new chapter in the escalating use of remote and semi-autonomous devices to fight crime and protect lives. It also raises new questions over when it's appropriate to dispatch a robot to kill dangerous suspects instead of continuing to negotiate their surrender. "If lethally equipped robots can be used in this situation, when else can they be used?" says Elizabeth Joh, a University of California at Davis law professor who has followed U.S. law enforcement's use of technology. "Extreme emergencies shouldn't define the scope of more ordinary situations where police may want to use robots that are capable of harm."

Dallas police respond after shots were fired during a protest over recent fatal shootings by police in Louisiana and Minnesota​

Dallas Police Chief David Brown defended his department's decision. "Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger," he said. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings applauded Brown for making "the right call" and said he would have no qualms about resorting to the same strategy in the future. "When there's no other way, I think this is a good example," he said. "The key thing is to keep our police out of harm's way."

ROBOTS, SOLDIERS AND POLICE

Police have been using such robots for decades to dispose of suspected bombs and in hostage standoffs and fires. Meanwhile, militaries around the world have come to rely on their robotic friends to disable improvised explosive devices -- a need that only increased with the U.S. occupation of Iraq following its 2003 invasion. Many of the robots joining police forces are coming from a U.S. Department of Defense program transferring surplus equipment from the military. These exchanges have provided law enforcement agencies with robots such as Packbot made by Endeavor Robotics, the Talon from QinetiQ and the MARCbot made by Exponent.

But military experts said ground-level robots are rarely used to kill the enemy. Their main purpose is to detect and defuse bombs to save lives. Military robots are "fairly clunky and used best for reconnaissance rather than the offensive," said Tom Gorup, an infantry veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who's now an official at the IT-security firm Rook Security. Airborne robots are another matter. The U.S. military has sent remotely piloted drones to kill hundreds of people, including civilians, in counterterror attacks launched overseas since 2009, based on estimates released last week by the Obama administration.

HOW IT (PROBABLY) WORKED

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that's the whole idea behind usin' robots - to reduce risk to personnel...

Killer Robot Used by Dallas Police Opens Ethical Debate
Jul 09, 2016 | When Dallas police used a bomb-carrying robot to kill a sniper, they also kicked off an ethical debate about technology's use as a crime-fighting weapon.

When it comes to criminals, I say use whatever works and F the political correctness that's ruining our country.

 

[paulitician]

Maybe we should start asking if it's right for our Police to have so many diabolical weapons. I don't argue that average Citizens should have them, but i'm not sure i'm comfortable with law enforcement having them either.

I mean, now we're talking armed drones, robot bombs, and technology that can see through walls into your home. Citizens with their puny firearms don't stand a chance against that stuff. So there's no need to disarm them. And it is their Constitutional right.

 

[Brain357]

Bombs and nukes fall under other rules idiot.
Bombs and nukes are NOT firearms.

The 2nd says nothing about firearms.

 

[Brain357]

Define the word assault slut.

here, moron....some definition for you to take apart and show how macho you are:

An assault weapon is semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that can be changed in 2 seconds in case Bambi decides to shoot back at you........Satisfied???? LOL

A selectable fire weapon would be considered an "Assault Weapon" . What you just described encompasses several styles of hunting rifles and handguns none of which are selectable fire. You need to stop listening to the "limp-dicks" and start getting your information from people who know.

Well we know a semi auto rifle with detachable clip can kill 49 and injure over 50 in minutes. It can also kill and injure many police in a single shootout. Call it what you will, it is a mass killing weapon.

 

[PredFan]

No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.

However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:

The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......

If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .

He didn't use an assault weapon, dipshit.
No moron, a bomb cannot be called a defensive weapon. You don't use a bomb to defend yourself, though I wish you would.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Define the word assault slut.

here, moron....some definition for you to take apart and show how macho you are:

An assault weapon is semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that can be changed in 2 seconds in case Bambi decides to shoot back at you........Satisfied???? LOL

A selectable fire weapon would be considered an "Assault Weapon" . What you just described encompasses several styles of hunting rifles and handguns none of which are selectable fire. You need to stop listening to the "limp-dicks" and start getting your information from people who know.

Well we know a semi auto rifle with detachable clip can kill 49 and injure over 50 in minutes. It can also kill and injure many police in a single shootout. Call it what you will, it is a mass killing weapon.

Car crashes can kill dozens, bombs hundreds, box cutters and airplanes killed thousands.

 

[PredFan]

Just weeks ago you right wing morons were arguing that you needed assault weapons to fight off "government" forces if you needed to.......using the same weaponry as they may have.....Are you now DENYING this?

I deny it. Show me where I said that. Show me or admit you are the idiot we all know you to be.

 

[PredFan]

No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.

However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:

The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......

If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .

You really do not know anything about weapons . A simple RC car could be a bomb carrying robot.

It's the basic common thread that links all of the idiot gun grabbers together. They just aren't very intelligent and they refuse to learn anything.

 

[PredFan]

Sweet Jebus this is a stupid thread

That it is, and it's typical of the left.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.

However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:

The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......

If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .

too bad it wasnt an assault rifle

held ten rounds

wood stock not black

magazine non detachable

 

[PredFan]

No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.

However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:

The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......

If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .

Needless to say rightwing ‘rationale’ is idiocy.

The types of firearms the military, law enforcement, or any other armed government entity might have has no bearing whatsoever on the right of individuals to possess firearms.

The right of citizens to possess firearms is separate and apart from the types of weapons government might possess – there is nothing in the history of the Second Amendment or its case law recognizing ‘quid pro quo’ with regard to how the government is armed:

‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly, bomb-carrying robots constitute weapons both dangerous and unusual, where their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and their prohibition indeed warranted.

Oh look! Not there are two brave soldiers of the left beating on the Strawman now!

Don't you two feel so empowered?

 

[PredFan]

You really do not know anything about weapons

We rely on you limp-dick-heads for all the weapon "knowledge" anyone one needs to know.....LOL.

Trouble is, you idiots don't listen.

 

[PredFan]

No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.

However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:

The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......

If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .

too bad it wasnt an assault rifle

held ten rounds

wood stock not black

magazine non detachable

Your post has truth in it, it is invisible to the OP and the left in general.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No decent American would object to the Dallas' SWAT using a robot with a bomb to blow to kingdom-come the bastard sniper.....good riddance to evil.

However, I have a question based on recent threads on this forum:

The right wing "rationale" against ANY ban of assault rifles being sold to virtually whomever wants one has been that IF the police have such an assault weapon, THEN the average American under the 2nd amendment must ALSO be able to purchase such a weapon.......

If we follow that same mindset, should the average American be ALSO able to purchase a bomb-carrying robot under the rationale that anything that law enforcement may have the average American is also entitled to have? .

too bad it wasnt an assault rifle

held ten rounds

wood stock not black

magazine non detachable

Your post has truth in it, it is invisible to the OP and the left in general.

exactly

however it is important to point out their lies

 

[nat4900]

He didn't use an assault weapon, dipshit.
No moron, a bomb cannot be called a defensive weapon. You don't use a bomb to defend yourself, though I wish you would

Reading comprehension issues....Alas, the bane of right wingers.

 

[PredFan]

Does anyone here realize that the weapon the Dallas shooter used according to reports was an SKS semi automatic rifle? Even if we still had the assualt weapon ban signed by Bill Clinton this rifle as I understand it would not have fallen under it,

Again, your post contains truth, it might as well have been written with invisible ink.