By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - I #standwithrand to protest drone killings (TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK VIDEO)

snyps on 09 March 2013
mai said:

Hey, it might be stupid question but are MANPADS legal in the US? I mean if you have drone problems what is the best and affordable solution you have? :D

If they are illegal after all, try to use these. Tested by Taliban and Mali jihadists -- it works:


Nope- illegal.

[but I haven't ruled out building one - and that isn't all that hard for motivated engineers (1 amateur rocketeer, 1 electrical engineer, 1 year)]

(Hi to the Secret Service, the BATFE, and DHS. I do not own one of these weapons, I have no desire, need, or want to procure one of these weapons, nor do I know anyone that does. Please don't burn my house down.)


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332g

§ 2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

(a) Unlawful Conduct.—
(1) In general.— Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—
(A) an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to—
(i) seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
(ii) otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;
(B) any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or
(C) any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Nonweapon.— Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.
(3) Excluded conduct.— This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or
(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.
(b) Jurisdiction.— Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—
(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;
(4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or
(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section.
Criminal Penalties.—
(1) In general.— Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life.
(2) Other circumstances.— Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life.
(3) Special circumstances.— If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.
(d) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “aircraft” has the definition set forth in section 40102 (a)(6) of title 49, United States Code.

Go here (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html), search for "missile"

 

 

 

I researching this as another viable solution at the moment.. 

 

The UAVs have two alternative systems for communication.

Line of sight radio :
In the military C-Band 500 - 1000 MHz that can be jammed with simple spark-gap radio

Satellite communication :
In the Ku-Band between 10.95 - 14.5 GHz, and the satellite can be jammed.
The Uplink-Band to the satellite is 13.75 - 14.5 GHz
The Downlink-Band from the satellite is 10.95 - 12.75 GHz
And you should jam the Uplink frequencies with a jammer directed at the satellite.


http://privat.bahnhof.se/ wb907234/pics/skygrab.pdf

http://privat.bahnhof.se/ wb907234/killuav.htm

http://privat.bahnhof.se/ wb907234/pics/specs.pdf

If Iran can drop 'em, so can American's.

 


@Mai -  whats that woven mat in the photo used for?



Around the Network
SwansVanTerif on 09 March 2013

I love the people not willing to face reality, calling anyone who can, a conspiracy theorist. Such character that must take.

This has been a fact since the NDAA was signed. At this point, it takes very strong denial and willingness to accept the most preposterous propaganda, to not see that things are not as they should be, and that you are being filled with nothing but lies.



Screamapillar on 09 March 2013
BasilZero said:
leatherhat said:
theprof00 said:
arent we at war?


With Iraq and Afghanistan. No other conflicts have been Congressionally approved.


I like how you ended that sentence, so much irony xD


We haven't had a declared war since WWII.  Vietnam, Korea, Iraq... none of those are considered 'wars' as we've never declared war with any of those countries, we merely use certain passages from the War Powers Act and use Congress to vote for funding... but none of it is Constitutionally-authorized.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

Mazty on 09 March 2013

Sadly collateral damage is part of war. Drone strikes are essential and the future of warfare.



sc94597 on 09 March 2013
spaceguy said:
sc94597 said:
spaceguy said:
spaceguy said:
sc94597 said:
spaceguy said:
people under 40 are overwhelmingly to the left or progressive or whatever you want to call it. These words mean something different to each person. Actually the libertarians have more in common with the progressive's or should I say Democrates than they do the republicans. However the word has been ingrained into their head. i wouldn't see Rand Paul as a libertarian. He's a Tea Party with a small Libertarian. You see what I mean, someone can read what I wrote and completely think different of my definitions.

 

Two things: libertarians are conservatives, their views pre-date progressivism in the United States and adhere to classical liberalism (what the rest of the world calls liberalism.) Democrats and neo-conservative Republicans have more in common than libertarians have with  either; however, Republicans have far more libertarian values, at least by rhethoric, (excluding social conservatives) than Democrats. As for Rand Paul, he is quite obviously philosophically libertarian. If the libertarian party were viable, it'd be almost certain that he'd fit best there. He does try to appeal to the republican party though, and he moderates some of his views for the reason of maintaining electibility. 


Fair enough but I think the new base the Democrates/progressives have way more in common. They don't want to take away the right to choose(Womans rights). The Op post is totally a problem with the base of Dems, The banking system is a major problem. I can go on. I'm telling you progressives and libertarians should get together and take over both parties or the democratic party. The republican fear their base and the democrates hate theirs. LOL


I also do not think Libertarians are conservatives but these words mean nothing. It should be issue by issue. Taken away a right to choose is not being conservative in the meaning of the word. Thats big gov. telling people what to do.

Conservative means to follow a traditional means of doing things. The primary philosophers to the libertarian movement in the U.S were 18th century liberals. Hence, libertarians are conservative. As a libertarian, my biggest concern with progressives is the massive bloating of the government's control over people's lives they promote in anything that doesn't cause social revolution (via marxist techniques of a group vs. society.) Progressives treat woman's rights as a special interest that takes precendence over individual rights, for example. A libertarian says that all people are equal under the law and deserve equal rights. A libertarian would be opposed to something like affirmative action, for example, because it acts as a special interest in order to artifically change the position of a group in society. A libertarian would say somebody has the right to discriminate on their own private property, as they have sovereignty over their own property, where as a progressive believes greatly in government intervention in this case. A libertarian believes in the free-market and some even believe in laissez-faire, a progressive more likely than not is left economically. Overally, the paleo-conservatives are the closest things to libertarians without actually being one. 

 

Edit: This doesn't mean that libertarians and progressives can't work together. It means that libertarians aren't likely going to try to co-opt the democrat party though. Especially since there isn't much room left in the democrat party anyway. 


Affirmative action happened because of the amount of "The White mans hate". I have seen it first hand. I have family in the south. These people are horrible to black people. The Law makes the rights of blacks just as important to people who are overwhelmingly guilty of the racism they use in power in their day to day life.

To not see that white people hold massives amount of power and use it to undermine black people all the time is not being honest and putting your self in their shoes. Look at the election, Only areas that took 8 hours to vote was the minority and low income areas, heavily African American. This was done on purpose and they have been doing it for years. Racism is far from gone and I see that some Republicans as being just that. The White race that can't handle the change. It wasn't that long ago that blacks couldn't use the same bathrooms and horrible laws that where just horrible. Those white people are still around and witnessed it and Liked it.  These same people are in my family and is very much alive however are dieing off. The ways of the past are broken and we should progress. It's like saying this machine from 1950 is slow as sh-t and we are losing money but lets not get the machine that can do what this does in a month.

I have arguments against afirmative action beside philosophical ones, but I'm not going to go there. I'm just telling you one of many philosophical differences between libertarians and progressives. 

 



Around the Network
sc94597 on 09 March 2013
spaceguy said:
sc94597 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
sc94597 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
My thoughts:

It was political grandstanding as part of his run up for election in 2016. I think he's running a fantastic campaign, and ticking all the boxes. This was the start of his move to:

While I do agree that Rand is doing it very much to benefit his 2016 campaign, I also think he believes in these things as a libertarian. His voting record and rhetoric are libertarian by the book. If he looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck then he's a duck. Frankly, I'm glad he's more politically minded than his father, because then he (and people like him) replace those who would do harm and he will leave us (the population) alone. 


Obama went around quacking like an anti-war and pro-constitution duck before 2008, also. Like I said in my post, men lie.

Does that mean I think Rand is lying? No. I would cast Rand under the "libetarian" umbrella, but he is so far from his father. I've seen many debates as to whether Ron was a closet Anarchist, with a fair amount of evidence supporting that claim. Nobody could possibly think that of Rand.

He's a beltway Libertarian like Reason, CATO, or Freedomworks. He'll get rid of the TSA, let you drink raw milk, and let people use whatever lightbulbs they fancy... but on the /real/ issues, it's still up in the air. Will he tackle the industrial military complex? Will he end the War on Drugs? (I'm guessing he'll just leave pot smokers alone in the states that legalize it... that's a fair step, but again, far from the ideal). What of the Federal Reserve?

Not that I'm attacking Rand Paul. As it currently stands, I'm a British citizen with Hong Kong residence, I have about as much the right to vote as somebody who was caught with a joint in Virginia 15 years ago (in Virginia and Kentucky... convicted felons lose the right to vote for life). If I could vote however, it would be for Rand Paul in 2016, unless the Dem  candidate was somebody like Kuchinich, or the Libertatian party had a chance of winning my state... so, yeah I'd vote for him.

That, coming from me, says a lot. I've sworn off voting in the UK, the only exception being any form of succession vote: leave the EU, break up the UK, whatever. So, to say that I'd vote for him at all, is a major step. Would I donate to the campaign or go out and caucus for him? Hell no. Might have done with Ron.

 

I don't really know why my post went in the direction that it did, but oh well.

Was Obama ever really "pro-constitution?" Maybe in some matters, but certainly not in everything or even most things. From the beginning Obama was a social democrat, and social democrats promote the degregation of property rights and civil liberties for the "greater good." One just has to look at his voting record as a senator to see the signs. The only people tricked by Obama were the ones not looking close enough. 

Rand Paul (like his father) is a proponent of state decisions on drug-usage and has recently tried to legalize industrial hemp.  He also has taken the tradition of introducing the "Audit the Fed" bill his father would introduce every year. And he's ALWAYS talking about military spending cuts and reform. 

"Q: In August you said about drug abuse in Kentucky, "I don't think it's a real pressing issue." You also said drug enforcement should be funded at the state level."

 

"One of my first actions in the U.S. Senate was to introduce legislation allowing for a full audit of the Federal Reserve. This legislation, S. 202 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, is a Senate version of similar legislation long-championed by and introduced this session in the House of Representatives by my father, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, will eliminate the current audit restrictions placed on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and mandate a complete audit of the Federal Reserve to be completed by a firm deadline, finally delivering answers to the American people about how their money is being spent by Washington.

We must take a critical look at the Fed's monetary policy decisions, discount window operations, and a host of other things, with a real audit - and not just pay lip-service to the idea of an audit. At a time when we're seeing great volatility in small Euro-zone economies like Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, it is more crucial than ever that we have real transparency at our own central bank."

 


Your so sure of your assumptions. Great way to spin it. Social Democrates take a look at natural monopolies and put those as commons that we all own. Natural monopolies give corporations and people way to much power and actually effects the rights of others.

Democratic socialists and socialists are not the same thing and your blending them to your favor your assumptions. Obama is a Moderate Republican in the eyes of the base of the democrates.  He uses a lot of Republican Ideas from the 80's and 90's. So for you to call him a socialist is really funny.

I didn't call Obama a socialist, and even if I did, that doesn't mean it should be a bad thing. That would be his belief, albeit I don't agree with such an authoritarian, populist, and statist belief. I called Obama what he is, a social democrat along the lines of the ones we see in power in Western Europe. And what I stated is not inconsistent with what they do. They take 50% of people's pay checks and "spread the wealth." I consider that thievry and slavery. They don't respect privacy rights with massive survellience states, and neither property rights with their total annihilation of any semblance of home or land ownership with things like permits, regulations, and the rule of emininent domain (without compensation), and there are so many evidences of this. They believe people should rely on the state for defence, healthcare, education and just about everything. It isn't state socialism, nor is it marxism, but it certainly is collectivism. 



Mr Khan on 09 March 2013
Mazty said:
Sadly collateral damage is part of war. Drone strikes are essential and the future of warfare.

Nobody's arguing that. We're arguing the slow but certain creep of "the enemy" to include our citizens on our land.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mazty on 09 March 2013
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Sadly collateral damage is part of war. Drone strikes are essential and the future of warfare.

Nobody's arguing that. We're arguing the slow but certain creep of "the enemy" to include our citizens on our land.


Why would that happen? And either way has there not always been enemies of the state homegrown?



sc94597 on 09 March 2013

The issue is that no president can "just say" somebody is a terrorist and kill them. ALL persons in the U.S fall under the law of the constitution and in that constitution there is an old common law concept of due process, which guarantees a positive right to a legal procedure before any punishment, let alone capital punishment. Rand Paul clearly specified the matter of a non-imminent threat (meaning a non combatant) but rather people whom might assist terrorists as well, which according to the NDAA is fair-game for many things, such as indefinite imprisonment by a military entity.



Mr Khan on 09 March 2013
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Sadly collateral damage is part of war. Drone strikes are essential and the future of warfare.

Nobody's arguing that. We're arguing the slow but certain creep of "the enemy" to include our citizens on our land.


Why would that happen? And either way has there not always been enemies of the state homegrown?

Yes, but enemies on our own land have always been dealt with under our legal system, except for gray areas like the Native Americans (who have a nominal degree of sovereignty, and so lack certain protections that full-on citizens would have had.

To give an example, what's going on here would be like if the Air Force had called in an airstrike on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, instead of having it dealt with by ATF as it was.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.