Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BeAfraid wrote:


You do realize that the reason many police dept.s gave for the need for military equipment was due to what they saw as a threat from an increasingly heavily armed population?

Many of them, particularly those in states that share a border with our southern neighbor were citing the increasing violence AND increased firepower from drug cartels.

We're at Revolution DEFCON?

BeAfraid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Part of the problem may come from many rather questionable statements from the company or Cody Wilson that seem to be rather oblivious to the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

There is no danger of an arms race because there is no need for an arms race. Currently all the guns you could ever need are available at your local store (if you don't have a criminal record) or on the black market (if you do). The only people who feel that the current options are inadequate are a handful of collectors who want a cool toy to have fun with at their local gun range, and a few tinfoil hatters who feel compelled to obsessively stock up on weapons in preparation for a fantasy war that will never happen. The first group is not a danger because the only arms race they're going to participate in is the desire to have a cooler toy than all of their friends, and the second group is not a danger because they're an irrelevant minority that will hide in their pointless survival bunkers and fantasize about how persecuted they are until they finally get bored of it all.

You do realize that the reason many police dept.s gave for the need for military equipment was due to what they saw as a threat from an increasingly heavily armed population?

THAT is an arms race, and one which the population itself will ultimately lose.

And it is one that the government is aware of, and wishes to prevent, so that it will have further reason to de-militarize the police (at least the current administration does. I imagine that a President Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush would love nothing more than to give the police actual Main Battle Tanks to do their job).

Do people ever stop to think that even with the difficulties involved with interagency communication that some amount of such communication does occur?

MB

You're spouting a lot of pretty inflammatory stuff, with nothing backing it up. Lets see some facts.

 Jihadin wrote:
We're at Revolution DEFCON?

Nope... we haven't thrown any tea into any harbors... It's the time-honored tradition in this here country!

 djones520 wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Part of the problem may come from many rather questionable statements from the company or Cody Wilson that seem to be rather oblivious to the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

There is no danger of an arms race because there is no need for an arms race. Currently all the guns you could ever need are available at your local store (if you don't have a criminal record) or on the black market (if you do). The only people who feel that the current options are inadequate are a handful of collectors who want a cool toy to have fun with at their local gun range, and a few tinfoil hatters who feel compelled to obsessively stock up on weapons in preparation for a fantasy war that will never happen. The first group is not a danger because the only arms race they're going to participate in is the desire to have a cooler toy than all of their friends, and the second group is not a danger because they're an irrelevant minority that will hide in their pointless survival bunkers and fantasize about how persecuted they are until they finally get bored of it all.

You do realize that the reason many police dept.s gave for the need for military equipment was due to what they saw as a threat from an increasingly heavily armed population?

THAT is an arms race, and one which the population itself will ultimately lose.

And it is one that the government is aware of, and wishes to prevent, so that it will have further reason to de-militarize the police (at least the current administration does. I imagine that a President Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush would love nothing more than to give the police actual Main Battle Tanks to do their job).

Do people ever stop to think that even with the difficulties involved with interagency communication that some amount of such communication does occur?

MB

You're spouting a lot of pretty inflammatory stuff, with nothing backing it up. Lets see some facts.

Don't you remember the 2854 IED attacks against county and municipal cops in Obama's first year in office that necessitated all the MRAPs going to local LEOs?

Okay, that number may be a bit high, but This Article from April 2013 does show 172 in a 6 month period.

Of course it does go further to explain:

The official shared information in an email that indicated most American IED attacks were small: “Homemade fireworks, childish pranks and other such non-terror related activities.”

Clearly that justifies "The Department of Defense's Defense Logistics Agency is charged with off-loading 13,000 MRAPs to 780 domestic law enforcement agencies on waiting lists for vehicles. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP#U.S._law_enforcement_usage

These police reject the notion of militarization and maintain that an MRAP would be an addition to their inventory to be prepared for any situation,

Clearly, they fear the growing armament of the American people.

An IED is an IED though.

 whembly wrote:
I'll break it down for you...

The information were already public domain information.

The websites owners simply collated them in one easy location.

There's a distinction you're missing...

I don't how many times I have to explain that I don't give a gak about the specifics of this case, and I really don't care about the internet's opinion on whether these people are actually doing anything illegal.

My point, simply, is that whether or not these people are legally in the right, the way they are going about this is idiotic.

I'll just give a simple example - there is a man who has spent a lot of time on the internet, building up an 'internet expert' level of knowledge in to the police, and what legal powers the police have, and what the man's own legal rights are. One day he is approached by a policeman who says to him him 'Stop, I need to to talk to you'. The man replies 'You can't stop me walking where I want' and then breaks in to a sprint directly away from the officer.

The simple and basic reality is, no matter what the officer wanted to stop that man for, the man's response was fething idiotic. The officer might have been about to attempt an illegal stop and search procedure, or he might have been just been wanting to tell the man he had toilet paper hanging out the back of his pants. The man never found out before he set about escalating the situation with a combative response.

And that's exactly what this, a needlessly combative response.

And so that's what I posted - and what I've got in response is an extremely useful statement that freedom of speech is totally an American thing that I couldn't possibly understand, and lots of people giving their own legal opinions on this specific case (shockingly enough all the people who are in favour of gun rights have decided that the law is in their favour!). None of which has any relation to the point I've made.

 djones520 wrote:

These police reject the notion of militarization and maintain that an MRAP would be an addition to their inventory to be prepared for any situation,

Clearly, they fear the growing armament of the American people.

Frankly from all I see discussed on reddit the police seem terrified of unarmed people, let alone armed.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'll break it down for you...

The information were already public domain information.

The websites owners simply collated them in one easy location.

There's a distinction you're missing...

I don't how many times I have to explain that I don't give a gak about the specifics of this case, and I really don't care about the internet's opinion on whether these people are actually doing anything illegal.

My point, simply, is that whether or not these people are legally in the right, the way they are going about this is idiotic.

I'll just give a simple example - there is a man who has spent a lot of time on the internet, building up an 'internet expert' level of knowledge in to the police, and what legal powers the police have, and what the man's own legal rights are. One day he is approached by a policeman who says to him him 'Stop, I need to to talk to you'. The man replies 'You can't stop me walking where I want' and then breaks in to a sprint directly away from the officer.

The simple and basic reality is, no matter what the officer wanted to stop that man for, the man's response was fething idiotic. The officer might have been about to attempt an illegal stop and search procedure, or he might have been just been wanting to tell the man he had toilet paper hanging out the back of his pants. The man never found out before he set about escalating the situation with a combative response.

And that's exactly what this, a needlessly combative response.

And so that's what I posted - and what I've got in response is an extremely useful statement that freedom of speech is totally an American thing that I couldn't possibly understand, and lots of people giving their own legal opinions on this specific case (shockingly enough all the people who are in favour of gun rights have decided that the law is in their favour!). None of which has any relation to the point I've made.

Apples to oranges my friend. The key point here is that these guys were told they had to submit their document for approval before they could publicly release public information...... So they did what the government asked, instead of being rewarded with a relatively quick to average response. The US Government SAT on the document until they could come up with a legal ruling that would make it impossible to post the information. Maybe I missed something in the article but that seems a bit fething ridiculous to me.

 CptJake wrote:
You clearly don't understand what is going on in this case nor what I typed. Which is fine.

The Gov't has the resources to delay and harass, and is using them. There is no 'fair' bargaining table or negotiation being offered, to think there is naive.

There's probably nothing more over-used and boring than claims of harassment. I've been accused of harassment for telling a tenant they need to pay their rent on time. Vague complaints of harassment are pretty much one of the best signs that someone is taking up a needlessly combative position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Apples to oranges my friend. The key point here is that these guys were told they had to submit their document for approval before they could publicly release public information...... So they did what the government asked, instead of being rewarded with a relatively quick to average response. The US Government SAT on the document until they could come up with a legal ruling that would make it impossible to post the information. Maybe I missed something in the article but that seems a bit fething ridiculous to me.

Yeah, they submitted, the Federal govt made it's decision (albeit over a really long time, but this is government, slowness is not evidence of anything but it being government), and Defence Dist understandably doesn't like that decision. But the next step is simply to return to the table, get a clear statement of what parts of their blueprints are in breach, and figure out if there's a way to get around this. The next step isn't to lawyer up, and it certainly isn't to lawyer up in such a ridiculous, showboating way that names John Kerry in the suit.

To expand my analogy, it's like if the cop said 'stop, I want to talk to you', the man said 'why?, and the cop responded 'just stop, I want to talk to you'... and then the man ran off shouting 'you have no power over me, policeman'.

 whembly wrote:

You read that right: the Obama administration demanded that a pro-Second Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech, consisting of publicly available information, to the federal government for approval prior to publishing.

For nearly two years, Defense Distributed tried to comply with the State Department’s demands. The organization submitted its data for pre-approval. Then it waited. And waited. And waited. After asserting a lawless requirement that the government must pre-approve speech by Defense Distributed, the government refused to do anything but sit on its hands.

Reading the complaint, it seems like Defense Distributed got a form letter. Hell, the complaint even notes that the State Department has received thousands of commodity jurisdiction requests; making the "We're being singled out!" argument tenuous on its face.

 whembly wrote:
According to a complaint it filed in federal court last month, the organization began to make its data, compiled entirely from publicly available information, available for free on the Internet in December of 2012. Just a few months later, in May of 2013, Defense Distributed received a letter from the State Department alleging that the group was illegally exporting technical data. The federal government then demanded, in contravention of long-standing policy dating back to 1984, that Defense Distributed submit its proposed speech to the federal government for pre-approval.

You read that right: the Obama administration demanded that a pro-Second Amendment non-profit submit its proposed speech, consisting of publicly available information, to the federal government for approval prior to publishing.

A: No change was made to the law. The author knows this as he specifically referred to the proposed change as one related to rules in the sentence prior to the bit you highlighted. He used the word "law" to rope in idiots.
B: The proposed change is just that, proposed (The State Department is accepting comments until August 3rd). The author moved from relatively honest discussion to bombast in order to, again, rope in idiots.
C: Nothing in the proposed change would make it retroactive, or affect any pending litigation. The author is pulling those claims directly from his ass.

I think I just saw the back of my head.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
. . . From the inside.

I wonder how many people who are supporting the gun site here were against the gay couple who sued about the wedding cake.

 skyth wrote:
I wonder how many people who are supporting the gun site here were against the gay couple who sued about the wedding cake.

The feth does this have to do with anything?

 Desubot wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I wonder how many people who are supporting the gun site here were against the gay couple who sued about the wedding cake.

The feth does this have to do with anything?

Well personally, looks to me like someones;

 Desubot wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I wonder how many people who are supporting the gun site here were against the gay couple who sued about the wedding cake.

The feth does this have to do with anything?

It's the same thing. Activists do something that they know will be refused and then immediately sue instead of trying to talk things over.

 skyth wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I wonder how many people who are supporting the gun site here were against the gay couple who sued about the wedding cake.

The feth does this have to do with anything?

It's the same thing. Activists do something that they know will be refused and then immediately sue instead of trying to talk things over.

Did you bother reading the article?

They tried to publish information to da public,

Proceed to be told that it was illegal and needed to be "pre approved by the government"

And when they complied proceeded to be ignored for a long time. so they decide to file.

How does that even remotely tie into the cake insanity?

People with a political axe to grind picking a fight.

 skyth wrote:
People with a political axe to grind picking a fight.

A group trying to publish technical manuals on the manufacturing of guns. that did what the government said to do after being accused by the government of illegal exportation (data) and got completely bureaucraced and so decided to take legal actions is a political thing?

I think you need to adjust your tin foil.