Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, parent was saying that it easier for an educated subset of the populace to shoot at the Man than to educate her "inbred, retard" (to use your phrase) peers. Exhibit A: the American Revolution.
Erm, again, not quite. I am suggesting that while the 1st and 4th amendments are very important, they alone are insufficient against jackbooted thugs; moreover, they appeal and are useful only to the relative intellectual elite of a country--if them. The 2nd amendment, by contrast, expands the availability of force to the common man, and in so doing allows even the dullest and slowest hooligan to contribute to the pr…
Has the US become the type of nation from which you have to seek asylum?
361–366 of 366 posts
Re: Has the US become the type of nation from which you have to seek asylum?
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a little harsh. We don't know the reasons why he's not living in NZ or why he's in Spain. Calling that into question and using that as an excuse to dismiss his claims is just wrong. I'm not agreeing with him and I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't think the way you're attacking him is entirely appropriate.
He doesn't live in his own country (his fact not mine) and the one he chose (his fact not mine) has a violent history of torturing innocent animals that continues today. Yet he saw fit to criticize the US.
Re: Has the US become the type of nation from which you have to seek asylum?
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I'm not being snarky or anything either. Just genuinely curious and would like to learn more on the topic. That said, I just looked at your first source and it doesn't support the conclusion that the DHS is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. It says that the US Coast Guard is exempt, and that the US Coast Guard operates under the DHS. But it does not follow from those statements that the DHS is exempt.
I could be wrong, or they could be bound by some other statute, but as I understand it, DHS is not exempt because it is neither a division of the Department of Defense, nor is it an "armed service" like the Marines. The Coast Guard is not bound by Posse Comitatus despite being an 'armed force' because they are members of DHS, and not DoD. The ATF and FBI are not bound by Posse Comitatus also, as they aren't armed for…
My interpretation of that is that it applies to military forces. The Coast Guard is a military force. DHS, I believe, is not. The reason the Coast Guard is exempt from PCA is not due to it being under DHS. (That's a side issue.) It's because the Coast Guard is charged with a law enforcement mission. It says that right in the Wikipedia article.
And that makes sense too. PCA says "don't use military for law enforcement." US Coast Guard has a law enforcement mission, so it must have an exemption in order to fulfil that mission. Likewise, ATF and FBI are law enforcement agencies (not military forces). So it makes sense that it doesn't apply to them as well.
The big question is whether DHS is a military force or not. I don't think they are. I could be wrong.
If they're not a military force, I don't see the problem with them not being bound by the PCA. The PCA is specifically for military forces.
Regarding the rest of your sources, [2,3,5] seem to confirm that DHS is buying a lot of ammo. But I don't see anything nefarious there. Note that [2] is an editorial (an opinion piece).
None of the sources mention that DHS is purchasing hollow-point bullets. The Snopes page [4] mentions that the SSA is purchasing hollow-point bullets, but not DHS. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if DHS was purchasing hollow-point bullets. The reason hollow-point bullets are banned in international warfare is because they increase the likelihood that a combatant is killed rather than just maimed. A full-metal jacket bullet will maim a combatant so that he is unable to continue fighting, but with a lower chance of killing him. Police forces tend to use hollow-point bullets because they reduce the risk to innocent bystanders (less chance of going through walls or ricocheting). Different tools for different jobs.
Regarding the "hestitate no more" targets, the sources [6,7] don't support the claim that DHS is using them. The first source [6], is an opinion piece. First, let's apply Betteridge's Law [] to the headline. The answer is probably, "No, 'DHS [is probably not] training with practice targets featuring children, pregnant woman [sic].'" Looking at the content of [6], all it really says is DHS buys targets from Law Enforcement Targets, Inc, and Law Enforcement Targets, Inc released a product line that features targets that display children, pregnant women, etc. It doesn't follow from those two statements that DHS is purchasing exactly* those products. They could be purchasing a different product line from the same company. The second source [7], just states that Law Enforcement Targets, Inc makes "hesitate no more" targets. It doesn't mention DHS. In fact, a quote from the company says that the product was designed based on requests from police forces.
One point that you didn't provide any sources for is the DHS practising "live-fire drills in and over major cities." Does "over" major cities imply they have military aircraft? I'm not sure what you meant by that.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the particular sources that you've chosen don't support your conclusions. DHS isn't my favorite government agency either, but I see no conspiracy here.
[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Re: Has the US become the type of nation from which you have to seek asylum?
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is true. There are many on the right who detest the ACLU as liberals trying to undermine the country.
Many as in raw # or as in percentage? To be honest I haven't met many of those, all the ones I know are more libertarians then conservatives so they don't take strong issue with the ACLU or EFF.
Re: Has the US become the type of nation from which you have to seek asylum?
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong, or they could be bound by some other statute, but as I understand it, DHS is not exempt because it is neither a division of the Department of Defense, nor is it an "armed service" like the Marines. The Coast Guard is not bound by Posse Comitatus despite being an 'armed force' because they are members of DHS, and not DoD. The ATF and FBI are not bound by Posse Comitatus also, as they aren't armed for…
The Wikipedia page isn't very clear in either direction regarding DHS. Based on the description of the Posse Comitatus Act, it sounds like your interpretation would be correct. It says that Posse Comitatus (PCA) limits the federal government's powers to use federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. My interpretation of that is that it applies to military forces . The Coast Guard is a military force. DH…
Regarding the purchases as being hollow point, that's probably not as 'newsworthy' an item for traditional news agencies, but the actual solicitation from DHS[1] illustrates that the majority of their purchases were hollow point, in 9mm and .40S&W. This was also covered by Forbes[2] and Foxnews[3]. That said, I also don't have a big problem with them being hollow point vs. FMJ as HPs are better in urban environments. Regardless, that does mean that they're dedicated to use in urban environments. The quantity itself might not be alarming to you, but considering that's the same amount of ammo used by the military each year, it seems excessive. I know that Breitbart insisted that the total doesn't account for what they might expend in training, but I've never known any LE or military agency to train with hollow point.
Regarding the "No More Hesitation" targets, the Examiner[4] linked those purchases to DHS, but the only other source I can find that says so definitively is Infowars, which I don't necessarily consider credible without corroboration.
One minor correction, at least from what I saw, is that you say it was requested from _police_ forces, but what I read indicated _law enforcement_ sources, of which DHS is. In one of their (now deleted) Facebook comments, LETargets acknowledged that DHS was their single largest customer, though I agree that is not definitive.
I'll have to come back to the live fire drills because it seems like those are being attributed to the 'military', but I know I saw something that collated that to DHS training, but I can't find it at the moment. This post has sat in my window overnight, so I'm just going to submit it for now.
[1] - https://marketplace.fedbid.com/fbweb/fbobuyDetails.do?token=...
[2] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billio...
[3] - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/29/homeland-security...
[4] - http://www.examiner.com/article/company-selling-targets-with...
Re: Has the US become the type of nation from which you have to seek asylum?
#366> Serious question: Now that he's a US citizen on foreign soil, and an enemy of the state, is it now legal to call a drone strike against him? Not quite by my understanding. He would need to be in an area officially classed as a war zone for that. They could send them to surveil and intimidate him though, but there are less costly ways to do that which won't upset the people in the country he is currently living in n…
Sending drones into Chinese airspace, that is really going to fly!