251–260 of 349 posts
Though it's surely very expensive to operate these things, it's also probably cheaper than if the USAF had to do it.
Risky business though.
I don't understand what's the point of having a private contractor instead of say, a dedicated Air Force squadron. A private contractor who effectively has a monopoly is necessarily more expensive, as he needs to make a profit, while an Air Force squadron doesn't. Looks like some sort of elaborate public money scam to me.
> He also mentioned that a jet-black Hornet would be fun to have, just for the heck of it. What a boss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to restrict only the second amendment. I don't see how a slippery slope argument is remotely relevant. There are dozens of liberal democracies in the world that have robust personal freedom and no right to bear arms. In fact, our right to bear arms is a direct descendent of the British Common Law version that existed for centuries and has been almost completely removed in the 20th century with no loss of…
> I would like to restrict only the second amendment. At least you admit it. There are ways to do this. You can get a supermajority in congress to agree with you, or you can get 34 state legislatures to agree to call a convention of states. Then, and only then, you can change the constitution. Barring that, no law or executive order can restrict the second amendment and be constitutional. Fortunately our current pres…
You can also just suspend parts at will during a pandemic.
Sounds like these beasts will be expensive money pits to operate nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Would have." "May have."
his spelling error was "would've" and "may've"
It's quite interesting that Australia wants to let these go in favor of the F-35, rather than maintaining them in a reserve capacity. Letting the F-111 go in favor of the F/A-18 made a lot of sense because they were obsolescent and expensive to operate. In this case, I wonder if they might regret it if they ever face a period of increased military tensions.
As an Australian, this is a concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument you're describing is missing the point. Historically, most government abuse occurs at the local level and this is where a personal right to bear arms becomes relevant. Decades ago, a gun could prevent a lynching by a racist sheriff. Today, perhaps it prevents a rape during a rural traffic stop. Government is a diverse collection of entities. It's a mistake to assume that resisting the government means ov…
If a civil-rights activist can threaten a racist sheriff, what's stopping a criminal from threatening a good one?
I think a better question would be asking how arming either police or civilians changes the policing dynamic. These types of questions also need to be set against the larger cultural context of how a society keeps control of its policing activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it all and while it's great that he has a legitimate reason to own these, it doesn't change the fact that he owns a private air force, heavy weapons and state-of-the-art countermeasures. It's a terrifying legal precedent and he's opened the door for a new market niche that less savory people can sneak into. The US already has ludicrously expansive personal rights to weapons ownership for any reason. We have a…
What exactly are nutjobs going to do with any of these weapons? We've had cases of nutjobs getting their hands on tanks, or building their own armored bulldozers, and going on rampages. It's a pain, but it's not a complete disaster. These vehicles aren't invincible. They generally get stuck somewhere, and then the police break open the hatch and shoot the nutjob. Tanks really can't do much by themselves besides drive…
For those that don't get this reference, this actually happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
RIP Killdozer