The U.S. military has developed an energy-beam ray gun designed to help disperse unruly crowds. Effective up to 500 yards, the invisible ray makes people feel like their skin is on fire, but reportedly causes no lasting harm.
Is this a step toward a more humane and nonlethal crowd control in places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Or are its effects akin to torture?
If it saves American and civilian lives, many will be ready to deploy the new weapon. But could it be misused or have unintended consequences?
What do you think, bloggers?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
144 Comments
“Is this a step toward a more humane and nonlethal crowd control in places like Iraq and Afghanistan?”
Yes.
“Or are its effects akin to torture?”
No.
“But could it be misused or have unintended consequences?”
Yes.
“What do you think, bloggers?”
When do we start using it for crowd control here?
Interesting.
Proceed with caution? If it can save lives that’s fantastic.
I only worry that it were used to squash all demonstrations of dissent, it would incite fear and loathing from innocent civilians and that can’t be good.
As for using it over here…I dislike the idea because we’re not running around with explosives and AK-47s, and I shudder to think of the possibilities of it being used to squash our 1st amendment rights.
Besides, you mostly see hippies at US protests…hippies wouldn’t hurt a fly :)
In a war zone bullets seem both cheaper and more effective, as brutal as that sounds thats war
Tom,Wouldn’t it be nice to at least give the appearance of trying to protect civilian lives?Shooting off a round of bullets into largley civilian crowd because it’s cheaper doesn’t seem to convey the message “America cares about your people”…
Using the term “war” as an excuse to murder Arabs is getting a bit old and tiring.
Especially tiring as being the Israeli excuse for murdering Arab children, under the “slogan” of “Israel has a right to defend itself” against rock-throwing children{ or “herself” when much more sympathy translates into much more money as the true object }.
The best way “to help disperse unruly crowds is to make them not unruly by not being outrageously mean to them day in and day out.
Saves money too.
And by the way it does burn the skin using ultraviolet radiation { a known carcinogen }.
A ray gun sounds alot like a bad Austin Powers movie.
But Nathan and his war buddies are ready to use this new weapon because it is another ‘big gun’.
I have to question if Nathan and his war buddies would be so quick to use this ray gun weapon on an abortion protesting crowd? After all, if it is used for crowd control, then we could certainly use it here around Tiller’s clinic.
Let’s see -
we can accomplish the objective of crowd control – a crowd that insurgents use to hide in and use for cover while they attack innocents (that’s real bravery there, hiding behind the women and children, but that’s typical of the “brave” terrorist types), without killing anyone.
or
We can fire into the crowd, certainly meeting the objective of clearing the crowd and taking out the bad guys, but likely killing many innocents in the process.
Duh. When available, it’s kind of a no brainer, isn’t it?
And the “gun” isn’t exactly inconspicuous, is it? You’d only have to use it once or twice, past that, the mere appearance of the apparatus would likely do the job.
Why are we even having this discussion?
“Why are we even having this discussion?”
Posted by: GMC70 | August 31, 2007 at 08:49 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh… you were serious?
If you developed a device that turned child rapists in to tree huggin bunny lovin philanthropists, someone here would have a problem with it.
Deploy the damn thing already. It does not in fact cause cancer. Do some research Ed.
I am wondering about its robustness. Could a few AK47 rounds disable it? It looks kinda pricey.
But if you fire into the crowd with a ray gun that burns, does the ray gun only single out the ‘bad guys’ to burn?
Again, we will have innocent people getting just as burned as the bad guys and we will still be judged for using such force.
To counteract Iran’s support of the insurgents, then maybe we need to get out of the way and let the Iraqis themselves fight for their own freedom. I’m sure our occupation of their land and our quest for the control of their oil is not faring well with some of the Iraqis. To win a war, we must win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. This war has been so badly mishandled from day one that I fear no matter what the US does, it will look bad on us.
“Again, we will have innocent people getting just as burned as the bad guys and we will still be judged for using such force.”
There are no lasting effects. Just a burning sensation.
I say mount 1,000 of these bad boys on OUR border with Mexico.
This is what I need when I go pheasant hunting.
Something that will make the damn things flush instead of running ahead for miles . . .
What ever happened to tear gas for making crowds disperse?
“What ever happened to tear gas for making crowds disperse?”
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 31, 2007 at 09:27 AM
You can pick up the canisters and lob them back from whence they came.
CapnA- If you get the settings right, the thing will also cook the birds in flight!
Yeah, I have my doubts about the ray gun too, Sol.
What about a big aluminum dish that focuses the burning rays back on to the driver of the ray vehicle?
After many hours of exhaustive testing Dow Chemical has assured that Agent Orange has no lasting effects on humans.
Shoulda had ray gun at Kent State.
Gster–
Hehehe.
It looks like crowds can easily run from that, I think its a stupid idea, what wrong with bean bags, and rubber bullets, and tear gas.
I hear the first one going to Iraq will be installed at Abu Graib.
“It looks like crowds can easily run from that”
Uhm, that is the point.
I sure hope “Deadeye” Cheney doesn’t get his hands on this… who knows what havoc could be wraught?
wraught = wrought
In a magazine article I read about it, the burn effect was like picking up a hot bowl of soup fresh out of the microwave. One could barely hold it and wanted to set it down immediately.
Except that it would be the entire body.
So it makes one leave the area of the weapon immediately.
I’m not sure about the effectiveness of making people scatter.
The original intent of the device was access denial system. It was built to protect areas. Secondary is crowd control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFRoMUorNEc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6297149.stm
If you feel you are on fire, be assured you will flee the area. No brainer.
I saw a program on TV about this thing. It’s just another step in crowd control.
“….what wrong with bean bags, and rubber bullets, and tear gas.
Posted by: Ohcot | August 31, 2007 at 09:40 AM
Ohcot, believe it or not, bean bags and rubber bullets DO injure and kill people on occasion.
Yes, this weapon affects everybody it’s aimed at, but it’s apparently not lethal. I can live with that. The idea is to disperse a crowd, and this sounds like a prety good way to do just that.
It is an area defense system. Active denial. Think about this at the check points in Iraq. Defending embassies. Defending troop encampments and mess halls.
This has a plethora of applications. The crowd dispersal is but a small part.
One issue they have had (don’t know if it has been addressed) is wet skin and reflective surfaces. Read sweat and glasses.
“Active denial” is just the right phrase; that’s what a mine field is designed to do – deny your opponent the use of a particular area.
This does that, without the mines, without the carnage, without blowing innocents up.
And that’s bad just how? Again – why are we even having this discussion?
The robustness of the technology is a good point; often there are low-tech defenses to these kinds of high-tech gadgets. Don’t know what a round, or an RPG, etc. might do to it, or whether this gadget has enough effective range to keep those kind of threats away, etc. I’m sure there’s much we don’t know. I’m also sure that those issues are not without consideration by the commanders who may use this devise.
Like tasers and tear gas, it’s just another weapon designed to combat freedom of expression. If a government does the will of the people then such instruments aren’t necessary, but they are needed to protect corrupt politicians who are controlled by greedy corporations like what happened in Miami.
freedom of expression Doug?
LMAO!
Yeah, the right to pull back the action on your AK-47 while hiding behind women and children.
ROFL!
Oh the troll has rambled on about something pointless. Big surprise. Public demostrations and marches aren’t violent acts but naturally you’d treat anyone using their Constitutional rights as violent criminals. Typical.
Doug, isn’t the gun supposed to be deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I mean, it’s not like they are going to deploy the weapon in D.C. against a bunch of “Code Pinks.”
“Like tasers and tear gas, it’s just another weapon designed to combat freedom of expression.”
Doug, you have gone over the hill and are moving quickly down the other side. This applies directly to you…
“HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh… you were serious?
If you developed a device that turned child rapists in to tree huggin bunny lovin philanthropists, someone here would have a problem with it. ”
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 31, 2007 at 08:56 AM
Nathan gave away the game upthread by asking “When do we start using it for crowd control here?”
We all know this is the real goal. But introducing the ray gun in Iraq is innocuous and more likely to go unnoticed here. Also provides a place to perfect its use before employing it here.
Welcome to American Fascism, hi-tech Fundo style. The future is here and it sucks.
Yeah, isn’t the government only supposed to use military in foreign countries (yes, but they don’t)? Isn’t the government supposed to get a warrant before wiretapping (yes, but they didn’t)? Isn’t U.S. spy satellites supposed to not be used over American soil (yes, but it is anyway)? Isn’t the government not supposed to round up civilians off the street because of the skin color and put them in concentration camps (they did in 2001)? Isn’t the Bush regime not supposed to remove habeus corpus rights from citizens (but they did)? Isn’t the Bush regime not permitted to torture American citizens (yet they did)?
The Bush regime does a lot of things it isn’t supposed to do so we should just assume they won’t turn this weapon on protesters like they have done in the past (Kent State, Seattle, Oklahoma, Miami, etc.)
Sol, gotta love how naive you are. Did you happen to miss the numerous protests were people were shot with tear gas and wooden pellets? Dock workers were shot merely for being at work and doing their jobs. People were shot just for holding signs. You must be really ignorant to just believe that none of this happened, or else intentionally stupid.
Kent State incident involved the Ohio National Guard, ordered by the Governor of Ohio.
Why wouldn’t they use Satellites over the U.S.?
Border Patrol? Detection of unauthorized aircraft.
Or does Doug worry about his pot smoking party in his backyard being caught on Surveillance?
heh heh
“We all know this is the real goal. But introducing the ray gun in Iraq is innocuous and more likely to go unnoticed here. Also provides a place to perfect its use before employing it here.
Welcome to American Fascism, hi-tech Fundo style. The future is here and it sucks.”
Are you guys freakin INSANE? You see conspiracy and … what? The government removing your first amendment rights with a defensive devise.
OK, I guess I missed the serving of kookaide you guys swilled.
So how has the gov’t removed your freedom with the weapons already in place? Rubber bullets, tear gas, tazers? I see you still running your “mouth’s” here. But that heat ray (wich may save many American lives) is your demise. Un-freakin-believable.
CF, this applies to you too…
“HAHAHAHAHAHAHAOh… you were serious?If you developed a device that turned child rapists in to tree huggin bunny lovin philanthropists, someone here would have a problem with it. “Posted by: SolDevVB | August 31, 2007 at 08:56 AM
“Why wouldn’t they use Satellites over the U.S.?”
Way to just change the subject. Satellites are used for such things as weather forecasting and geological data gathering. The issue is spy satellites. Try to stay on subject. You may have missed a part in the Constitution about the government not being allowed to spy on people without a warrant but that’s just an old piece of trash to a troll such as yourself.
Doug -
Try to keep your paranoia wrapped up in the tinfoil, thanks.
Is this technology able to be abused? OF COURSE!! Is there ANY technology NOT able to be abused? None that I know of.
So – if we’re gonna abandon any technology that any gov’t MIGHT use in any oppressive way . . . well, just how far back do you want to go????
Meanwhile, we have troops in combat in Iraq. Whether they should be there, whether they should have been sent is beside the point. They’re there. And let’s see – we have a technology which holds out hope of being able to secure areas, much as a minefield does, and do so without killing anyone, without leaving any ordinance lying around. And the left is OPPOSED to it!!!!???
Someone explain this to me.
Doug, Sol’s got you about right on this one. You too, CF.
GMC70,
The use of such weapons is sure to generate LOTS of unintended consequences in an environment such as that of Iraq. Imagine a Sunni government turning the weapon on a Shiite neighborhood–or vice-versa.
I don’t see that it would have any such ability to secure areas in a non-lethal way, such as when you claim it could displace the use of mines. How does one substitute a non-lethal weapon for a lethal one? It’s a mystery to me.
The only thing this weapon is good for is crowd control or neutralizing mass attacks. But in an insurgency, when the enemy precisely is not where you expect him to be, or where he melts away when he sees you coming, such a weapon is of limited usefulness.
I could MAYBE see using to guard border crossings and the like, since these are fixed targets that one will obviously have to defend.
But if one brings it in country, it becomes yet another weapon that will fall into the wrong hands and exacerbate the already boiling sectarian conflict.
And, of course, if you or Sol want to discredit my legitimate concerns about the domestic usefulness of this sort of fascist instrument, I refer you back to Nathan’s post. He’s practically drooling in anticipation of turning the ray gun on groups he doens’t like.
Ever heard of the part of the First Amendment that guarantees the right of assembly? This new technology is catastrophic.
“Sol, gotta love how naive you are. Did you happen to miss the numerous protests were people were shot with tear gas and wooden pellets? Dock workers were shot merely for being at work and doing their jobs. People were shot just for holding signs. You must be really ignorant to just believe that none of this happened, or else intentionally stupid.”
Posted by: Doug | August 31, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Maybe I did. When and where did all this happen?
“Nathan’s post. He’s practically drooling in anticipation of turning the ray gun on groups he doens’t like.”
Way to put words in his mouth. You have gone from an intelligent (though misguided) poster to one of the biggest tinfoil hat wearing lunatics I have had the misfortune to come across.
The right to assemble. And just how do you feel about those that practice their rights in front of abortion clinics?
Oakland 2003, during a peaceful anti-war demonstration. You can see the lovely effects:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm
Dock workers were shot simply for going to work. Other cities included Seattle (1999), Miami (2003), and so on. Often times protesters are shot, beaten or arrested after an undercover police agitator tries to start something violent. Of course I guess I’m paranoid since all of this has actually happened and I’m supposed to just watch what the corporate run media tells me to believe, not the actual videos from the protests.
Sol,
Oh, if we’re going to call names, then you’ve become the most servile, proto-fascist suck-up apologist to regularly post on the WeBlog–in addition to the title you already hold, that of Blog Racist.
Nathan asked when the ray gun could be used on crowds in America. He said it. No words needed to be put in his mouth.
As for your final question, the fact that EVERYBODY gets their share of the public space is what I love about America.
Doug,
Indeed. And here’s the police riot during the Houston “Justice for Janitors” non-violent demonstrations.
Doh: link is here.
http://libcom.org/news/janitors-civil-disobedience-ends-in-police-brutality-18112006
“beaten or arrested after an undercover police agitator tries to start something violent.”
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
Ok hold on. I’m trying to look up the events, but I’m laughing too hard. Does the tinfoil hat get hot after you wear it for a month straight?
CF
If the gov’t wants to eliminate the right of assembly, they don’t need this new toy to do it; they can do it now. If your concern is that gov’t tends to restrict freedoms, well, yea, that’s what all gov’ts do, given the opportunity (which, BTW, is ultimately the reason for the 2nd amendment – but I digress). This toy doesn’t change that. Does it provide a new tool for doing so? Sure, but so does ANY new technology. Gov’ts can be plenty repressive (and have been, historically) without this new toy.
As to replacing mines, that’s exactly what this sort of technology is about. Minefields aren’t intended to kill people, surprisingly. They are designed to prevent an enemy from using an area by placing the deterrent of being blown up there; that’s why minefields are often clearly marked. If persons actually go into the minefield, it has failed it’s purpose, in a real sense. It intended to create a cleared area, and lets defenders focus their defense on limited areas, creating choke points for fields of fire. This technology does the same, without the left-over nastiness of land mines. That, of course, is just one application, but a huge one. Imagine being able to keep people back from our installations in Iraq without having to shoot them? As the father of one who has had to do just that, I’d say that’s a good thing.
I’m sure it has its bugs. Like any new weapon or new technology, there is (or will be) a defense ot tactic developed in response. It has always been so. But if we’re gonna oppose any and all new technology because gov’t might abuse it, we might as well give up all our technology now.
Gov’ts will kill, if they feel they must; they always have. Ultimately, all gov’ts govern at the point of a gun (including ours) when it comes down to it – Mao was right, in that respect. Unchecked gov’ts are the worst, which is why so many checks our built into our system.
But the goal for centuries – the “magic bullet” if you will – has been to be able to accomplish legigimate government objectives – control of areas, supressing mobs or riots, capture criminals and suppress crime – without killing. We are now beginning to develop a means to do exactly that. I am at a loss to see how that is a bad thing. And I am flabbergasted that the left, of all the political spectrum, is opposing it.
Duh -
substitute “or” for “ot”
“are” for the first “our”
. . . gotta edit better.
Why torture when you can just turn up the wattage and evaporate em out of their misery ….. no mess to clean up and nobody left to whine. Crank it up and put them out of their misery …. it’s the humane thing to do!
The new “cancer causing machine” is suppose to be less cruel than the “old methods” { and yes Sol, I did the research about how UV Radiation causes cancer, which even an idiot like you should know off hand }.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm
“Most of the 500 demonstrators were dispersed peacefully, but a crowd of demonstrators was blocking traffic on private property near the port and fail to disperse after police warnings. Oakland Police Chief said demonstrators also threw objects and bolts at them, and said the use of weapons was necessary to disperse the crowd. He indicated non-lethal projectiles were used to respond to direct illegal action. The longshoremen were caught in the crossfire.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7,_2003
They failed to leave private property. Also, this is the local police, not the military – you know them, the one with the Active Denial system?
Where was the “undercover police agitator” in this story?
**************************************************************The only thing I could find on the janitor issue was that they used horses. That is pretty common to patrol large groups on foot.
What is the difference between 1,000 people peacefully demonstrating and a mob ravaging a city? About 30 seconds. Would you want to be a cop on foot, or on horseback? No brainer.
The Dollar Store has those tin foil hats for sale. I’ve seen them! ;)
https://www.jnlwp.com/Resources/Briefs/DE_London_Jan06_final.pdfhttp://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/03/inside_the_navy.htmlhttp://vault.galeropia.org/files/activedenial/usaf.htmlhttp://www.non-lethal-weapons.com/sy02abstracts/V23.pdfhttp://www.videsignline.com/news/197000964
Does
Not
Cause
Cancer
From what I’ve read, you must have the complete outfit!
I would love to post here but I sent my tinfoil uniform to the cleaners.
Thanks Sol for once again proving how ignorant of the facts you are. Uncover police have been caught as agitators in Quebec and New York but these are facts, don’t let them actually change your rose colored view of the world.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070823200123746
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html?ex=1292907600&en=dcbf3b5bf7ffee9b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“Sol,Oh, if we’re going to call names, then you’ve become the most servile, proto-fascist suck-up apologist to regularly post on the WeBlog–in addition to the title you already hold, that of Blog Racist.Posted by: CF2K | August 31, 2007 at 12:14 PM
**********************************
O…..K…..
Servile? Whom do I serve?
Proto-fascist? While I back the strongest constitutionalist running. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Suck-up apologist? To whom am I apologizing and for what?
Racist? I called terrorists “RAG HEADS” Whoopie shit.
Can you back any of this up or is your tinfoil hat giving you a headache?—–
Sorry Sol, the video shows that the protesters were on public streets and weren’t doing anything violent.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449728655681175825
Oops, more facts, I guess that means I need a tinfoil hat.
Doug,
Don’t really care about Quebec. The only thing in the other article says that there are cops in the crowds. Nothing about “police agitators”.
The video is 27 min long. Back after that.
So you refute that there were protesters on private property that were told to disband from that area and refused to comply?
Wow….
CF2K and Doug can turn just about anything into some conspiracy around here.
Only one we are missing is CapnAmerica and the circle of tinfoil hats will be complete.
They were blocking private property. It was a peaceful protest and those who block do so for the intent on getting arrested. Operation Rescue does and did the same thing in Wichita. The response is not to use people as a shooting gallery and target anyone in the area, the proper response is to arrest them. The police were the only ones who used violence that day but I guess a little bloodshed is acceptable for a fascist.
Nathan, what have I said here that wasn’t backed up by facts? Am I lying about something then present it. Of course you won’t, you are a known liar who loves violence.
BTW Sol, New York isn’t in Canada. However your point was that police agitators are not used and you have been proven wrong, again. Since you’ve been wrong every time should I just assume that you’ll produce another error in your next post?
Doug,
Did you miss this:
“Oakland Police Chief said demonstrators also threw objects and bolts at them, and said the use of weapons was necessary to disperse the crowd.”
Real peaceful huh?
Woudn’t be surprised if this device doesn’t have the GITMO seal of approval on it.
Wouldn’t should be would.
It is a waste of tax payer’s money.It can be taken out with a sniper’s 50mm armor piercing bullet.Besides they forgot to build their force shields to protect it.
Let me see Doug, comments you made which indicate you are wearing a tinfoil hat:
” …it’s just another weapon designed to combat freedom of expression.”
“…but naturally you’d treat anyone using their Constitutional rights as violent criminals.”
“…we should just assume they won’t turn this weapon on protesters like they have done in the past (Kent State, Seattle, Oklahoma, Miami, etc.)”
Yeah Nathan, the police said that but that’s not backed up by what really happened. So who was arrested for throwing these objects? Was it actually someone in the demonstration or was it just a cop who wanted to resolve the peaceful protest by starting something violent as has happened before? Show me the facts Nathan, but you probably can’t.
The weapon was designed as an ALTERNATIVE to rubber bullets and tear gas.
Both rubber bullets and tear gas are already used in America and both can be lethal in extreme circumstances.
This new microwave technology is better than those devices as dispersing an unruly crowd.
Doug,
Last time I checked, when police witness an event, it is a fact.
Do you have any facts to prove the Police chief is a liar?
Let’s see Nathan, your first post was your eagerness to see this used on Americans so that covers your second claim. The first claim is resolved by the entire purpose of the weapon, to disperse crowds. The third claim is verified by historical fact. So where’s the conspiracy? Oh wait, you are just telling lies again like the typical fundy you are.
“BTW Sol, New York isn’t in Canada. ““Uncover police have been caught as agitators in Quebec and New York”
Uhm, get that screw tightened.
“However your point was that police agitators are not used and you have been proven wrong, again.”
“Police Agitators” Yeah, about that screw? It said police were in the crowds. Did not say that the police agitated anything.
“Since you’ve been wrong every time should I just assume that you’ll produce another error in your next post?”
That seems to be your forte today Doug.
So does that lose screw hold ON the tinfoil for you?
Good point Nathan, cops are never wrong. You are such a joke.
Yeah Sol, you can really validate your points if you never read anything. Go back to the NYTimes article I referenced. Perhaps you’ll see this comment,
“At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.”
You are either ignorant or a liar, take your pick.
Doug,
Do you believe that there could ever be a harmful, violent, or unruly crowd which should be dispersed?
Here’s another video for the deniers of reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GdzuzQKs8M
Cops just get their orders to break up the crowds and start shooting. No reaction from the police as if anything was being thrown, no video of people throwing anything. Anyone here claim to back up their claims other than me? Nah, we only got fascist liars justifying brutality and violence against peaceful protesters.
Isn’t it funny how no one here is mentioning that since the release of tear gas, rubber or wooden bullets, fire hoses, that there have been exactly zero demonstrations? Isn’t that odd.
So if the police use these to take away freedom of speech, why are there still demonstrations?
BTW, if you haven’t noticed, this is a military weapon. When was the last time you saw the military break up a protest?
And of course lastly, this system was developed for the military and under the military’s specification. Notice the title of the weapon Active Denial System. DENIES subject’s ACCESS to an area. The press has blown this up as crowd control.
Whoops, one more. The torture thing. Why would they go to all this expense when water is damn near free?
Target is having a sale on Reynolds Wrap. Y’all run along now and buy it up.
The first video was 27 min of nothing. It was AFTER the first demonstration.
Doug,
I didn’t say cops are never wrong. I am asking if you have any FACTS to say this police chief is a liar?
“At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.”
And that lead to? Boy if I had paid him to agitate, I’d have fired his ass.
Doug,
Do you believe that the government is hiding an alien spacecraft in area 51?
Be honest Doug.
Give it up Nathan, you said this,”Last time I checked, when police witness an event, it is a fact.”
Like it wasn’t difficult to scroll up the screen to find this. You lie so often you can’t keep your lies straight.
Face it Nathan and Sol, you have been proven wrong on a number of occasions. You two are a waste of time. Thankfully there are brave people who will continue to protest this war and stand up for American freedoms while you fascists are more than happy to see this country slide towards fascism.
Another pointless video. I heard two tear gas grenages fired. So… what was the point again?
And it would seem that these people, as stated in the article, were told to disband and didn’t. So as long as you protest, you can disobey law enforcement?
Alien spacecraft? WTF are you talking about? Sheesh, not only are you a liar you need a straightjacket. You are a waste of time you lying, fascist loon.
Get an education Sol. Turn off Fox and read a paper.
Buy stock in Reynolds wrap Doug.
Unless the voices told you not to.
Doug,
How is this a lie?
“Last time I checked, when police witness an event, it is a fact.”
A police officer does have a certain amount of credability as a witness.
I am not too worried about facism, because I have the means to defend myself from it.
If the Democrats had there way, we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves from the government at all.
Now who is the fascist?
It’s called “free speech” sol….
Should I go to a school in Quebec, New York Doug? That where you went?
Doug,
Don’t rpetend like you don’t know what I am talking about.
You have been down to Roswell to watch for the aliens, havn’t you?
It’s ok, we already know you wear tinfoil hats.
Be honest with us, are the people who go down there to see the alien ship as wierd as you’d think?
Free speech does not grant you the right to break laws Ed. Free speech away, just don’t do it on my front lawn.
Can I demonstrate on your front lawn Ed?
Doug,
Where do you live?
I am going to get a group of friends together and sit in front of your door and refuse to let anyone enter or leave your house.
Free speech right?
“the right to assemble… the right to address the government for grievances…the right to petition the government….
Sol, we’re not Palestinians.
OK, Nathan, we can have an Israeli fund raiser on Ed’s front lawn.
Sol,
My best friend in Iraq was a Jew. He was supposed to be headed back to Israel this year too.
Really good guy.
I could call him up and we could make it a big ol’party!
Outstanding. I have a good source for Kosher brats. Might as well make it a BBQ.
I could bring out the projector and we could play clips of the Israel military’s greatest raids into the gaza strip on the side of Ed’s House!
AAAHHHHH MAN!!!! We could make it an all nighter !!!!
Since it is free speech do you think the neighbors will mind all the noise after 10pm?
Even the most seemingly benign technologies can be put to bad uses. This one isn’t particularly benigh.
No tinfoil headgear is required to consider the very real possibilities. Just look at the dystopian things that having been going on with marvelous digital technology, e.g., the electronic sweatshops.
And hollow tip rounds. Shredder rounds. Nuclear technologies. The list goes on and on. Quick find a cave, it is the only safety left in the world !!!
Nathan,
Who cares if they are offended? It’s my right to free speech !!!
You know if they can get this kind of technology in a more compact system it could lead to an alternative weapon for CCW.
Ed, Nathan, do you realize those extended, sacarstic rants just make you look silly? Satire is only effective if it has some logical connection to what’s being satirized.
It takes a parsec leap in logic to compare peaceful protest to camping out on someone’s front porch.
The people referenced by Doug were protesting on private property. Therein lies the relevance.
Sol, Nathan, I meant (Ed was being satirized, along with Doug. . .)
Rage — I dont seem to have your email addy…. CapN has mine though… if that helps you any…
Nathan, SOME could interpret that as a type of threat…
Chas,
I am sure as soon as your pal WS Clark gets here he will notify the sheriff and threaten to call my work.
If by some, that is who you meant, well I can’t do much about that.
Nathan, while I’m sure you’re not intending any sort of threat, some here certainly could interpret it as same. Stating you’ll show up a someone’s house, however appropriate that may be in light of the conversation, is not appropriate.
That’s one statement you should retract. It would demonstrate the point, however. . .
BTW – Wiseman: you refered to a “sniper’s 50mm armor piercing bullet.” (1:38 post). Do you know of such a bullet? Any idea just how large a caliber “50mm” would be? Take the usual 9mm pistol round – X 11.
Know any “sniper” round that would shoot that? I don’t. It appears, sir, you know not of what you speak.
GMC70,
In the context of the discussion, it is OBVIOUS that it is only to make a point about how absurd Doug is being.
I am not worried about it being precieved as a threat.
I mean seriously…
Yes, 50mm would be large, would like to see the rifle. I have a 40mm casing and it does not fit any rifle I know of.
I think it still stands; the longest “snipe kill” was done with a .50 cal sniper rifle. So maybe it should be cal instead of 50mm.
Hud:
I’m aware, of course, he probably meant .50 caliber, not 50mm. It demonstrates, however, that Wiseman is apparantly not wise enough to understand what he’s talking about. I wonder if he understands the difference.
Such firearm ignorance is common in the MS media, for example. I routinely hear nonsense like referances to “automatic” weapons when they clearly are not, or idiotic statements like claims that pistol grips, such as seen on an AR-15, are there to make possible “shooting from the hip.”
Similarly, I have no doubt that many of those decrying this weapon have no real idea what it does either. I’ve already seen claims it “causes cancer” or that it’s just a “tool for repression.” P-lease.
Now – would a .50 cal. round disable this “ray gun?” I don’t know. I’m fairly certain, however, that the military has considered that possibility before deploying it.
The largest caliber sniper rifle I know of is Barrett’s new XM109 25mm sniper rifle:
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM109,,00.html
Nathan:
Very cool. Just who do I have to call to get one?
Yeah I know the difference (.50 cal. = 1/2”dia. to 50mm = 1.97”dia.), but I have never been in the military (you know they won’t allow deaf people in) so I don’t always call it right, but you got the point.To me the V-shape arm is a weakness; once it is knocked out of alignment it becomes useless.
I believe “some” was not identified… I had no one in particular in mind, Nathan… Dont know why you thought to add a name to where there was none!
This is a great idea for use here in the USA on unruly sports fans who like to riot and destroy things after games. I think we should try it ASAP. Just flip the switch and burn the piss outta the unruly drunks. Turn it to “extra crispy”.
Another good idea is border security. Why not set these up along the border 500 feet apart to repel people sneaking in?
Turn it to “extra crispy”.
Somebody has worked in “fast foods.”
It’s so funny. Nathan is so scared of facts that he has to resort to physical intimidation. How nice of the U.S. military to let the uneducated and ex-cons to carry guns. Nathan, you are whiny ass bitch so come on over and let’s see how tough you are. Bring some of your skinhead buddies along too, I’m sure the people in my neighborhood would love to meet them.
I think doug is trying to provoke a fight by threatening Nathan.
“Comments policyAlthough we are not responsible for the content of the comments on this blog and have no obligation to monitor them, we reserve the right to remove any comments that are threatening, libelous, obscene or otherwise objectionable.”
Sorry troll, he’s the one who threatened to come to my house. But go ahead and report me, they’ll just kick Nathan out of here.
No he didn’t Maggot Breath. Nathan gave an example of right to assemble.
You are provoking a fight.
Much, much different.
vomit punks dot com
Doug,
What did I threaten to do?
According to you it is free speech to block the entrance on someones private property.
So according to you, I have threatened to peacefully assemble on your front porch and exercise my freedom of speech by blocking access to your home.
According to you that is my right, not a threat.
Seems that a front porch is a bit beyond the entrance to property… It would be at my house…
Democrats have porches
Republicans have verandas. :)
Porch or veranda, it is still a good ways beyond the “entrance” to property…
Chas,
It doesn’t matter if I’m on your porch or at the entrance to your yard. It is Freedom of speech!
Fraid not… If you on my porch, then you are trespassing!! If you not in my yard, then it might be free speech… MIGHT be…
Yea, if not on my property, then I would support the free speech idea… But not if you come on to the property…
I’m not going to argue the legalities of trespassing… too late for that now… Time to have a beer, and go to bed… Nite!!
Whats that Chas?
You are going to oppress my freedom of speech on your porch?
You Fascist!
Only if he lingers is it trepassing.
I can go on anyone’s porch as long as there are no locked gates or signs saying I can’t.
I just can’t stay there very long or if asked to leave.
Just in case you guys missed it, I am making fun of Dougs stance on what freedom of speech is and right to assemble is by being VERY sarcastic…
Obviously I can’t come on your property and I would hope it was obvious to you that I can’t block access to your property either.
However, Doug needs a bit of help in the obvious department…
Kansas… suppose you cant read, or read the language that is posted?? Then you could argue that you didnt know what it said…
You cant just go hang out on somebody’s porch.. I believe thats one of the legalities of tresspassing laws..
Argue it out with yourself all nite… It’s Miller Time now!!
Only if he lingers is it trepassing.
Actually, this raises a very interesting issue. This was not someone’s front yard, or even,say, a clothing store. It was a meeting of “north american leaders” i.e. governments–and petition the government for redress of grievances lies at the heart of the First Amendment.
The multinational New World Trade Order crowd has found itself increasingly unable to hold meetings without those pesky protesters showing up, so their practice has been increasingly to use private venues in inconvenient locations.
Yeah, private property is private property, but it’s not that cut-and-dried: there are important interests competing here.
If think I’m blowing smoke, great: I’ll make sure and have the next evangelist who knocks on my front door arrested for trespassing! /sarcasm
P.S. Those of us who know who Doug is ALSO know that he is QUITE familiar with the woes of disorderly protests on private property. . ..
Rage, I note the sarcasm, however, if you live in a town/city that has the Green River Ordinance in effect, you actually could have the evangelist arrested, for violation of the Ordinance, which prohibits door-to-door sales/doorkocking
Not exactly, Chas:
“These types of ordinances have been ruled unconstitutional when they prohibit religious or noncommercial door-to-door solicitation. The U.S. Supreme Court on June 17, 2002 by a vote of 8-1, invalidated a Stratton, Ohio ordinance that required canvassers to register and obtain a permit from the mayor’s office before going door-to-door promoting any cause (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton). The Court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment as it applied to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.”
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Legal/nuisances/nu-pedIntro.aspx
Rage,
The protest was not the problem.
The problem was when the protestors were illegally blocking access to and from the property.
They were asked to disperse, refused, and started throwing things.
That is no longer free speech.
In that case, Nathan, the OR folks had better watch out when they picket at Dr. Tiller’s clinic.
All of you guys are welcome to stand in my front yard, just don’t mind me mowing the sparse amount of weeds growing on top of sand mounds.