There will be armed drones over the US no matter what we are told. The one and only thing that will stop them would be for our leaders to witness 4 or 5 of them over time getting hacked and going after them. The drone wouldn’t need to fire to be effective.
No, they can be stopped with small arms fire and will be! Whahooo look at em fall!
February 5, 2013 at 10:07pm
The threat of drone strikes on Americans is the mile that will allow them to take the inch they want. Just like on the list of proposed banned guns and the limits on magazine sizes, they throw in gun registration as a lower goal when gun registration is their goal.
My guess would be that they will say they need the drones because they can’t rely on the local police to secure the “terrorist”. They will say that the CIA, FBI, or DHS don’t have the desired response time. They will then propose a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military. They will say that this will be a force that will be the first responders against our enemies. (They won’t say “terrorist” this time). People will hear that the drones will not fly over the US and go back to sleep. Later, the news outlets will declare that the textile industries are back to work making the uniforms of all the brave paid volunteers that have signed up to help keep America safe. We will hear of all the stories of people being saved from poverty by signing up to do nothing more than look out their front window, while thousands of others are quietly being trained to …………..?
They are proposing things that are clearly unconstitutional in the hopes that we will compromise and settle for a little less tyranny than what they propose.
January 24, 2013 at 1:26am
Some of the men I saw while watching it live reminded me of Alfalfa gushing over Darla. Smiling that stupid smile and having that weird look of worship. I had to turn it off.
January 17, 2013 at 7:38pm
I don’t recall the NRA advocating for the arming of teachers before the recent shootings. The response they gave “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun” is correct, but the statement and the recommendation to arm people at schools was only that, a recommendation.
January 16, 2013 at 10:35pm
Mary, Mary quite contrary and quite ignorant as well. The ad did not mention a fed program to provide security to the rich. It was pointing out that the rich and the powerful already have armed security and that they are trying to restrict that same basic right to all but those that can afford it.
Question: If one of the guards at one of these elite schools flips out and shoots a student, do you think the school would get rid of all the guards to prevent a second incident or would they say that it was a rare occurrence and that the school was much better protected even with the possibility of this happening again?
January 16, 2013 at 9:28pm
Wolf doesn’t question if the proposed laws are constitutional or not. He is following the script of trying to make the guy look extreme. “Strong views”? His comments seemed very reasonable to me. Wolf is one of the old liberal elite. Elite in that his wealth insulates him from his liberal ideas currently being put into place and old in that he will die of old age before any of it catches up to him.