DHS Drones to determine if person is armed and to intercept cell phone signals

[SPEMack618]

I would express those same concerns if a B-52 or Apache was being shoehorned into a domestic role, yes.

[overhead]

We use the unarmed equivalent of those planes now, don't we?

I thought, and it could be that I just lost track of the conversation, that we all pretty much agreed armed drones were a bad idea flying over US soil. I thought the issue that people were debating was the unarmed drones used for surveillance.

I do not want any type of armed plane, manned or unmanned, being used by law enforcement at any level in the US. As far as I know there are not any being used now, though I suppose the military planes certainly could be turned in that direction if someone really wanted to use them.

[SPEMack618]

Yeah, I may have been lost too, I was refering to the use of armed drones mainly, even though I still see various 4th Amendment concerns with domestic use of even un-armed surveillance drones.

That being said, I would like to reiterate my view that the use of drones by CBP is completely acceptable.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by overhead

Our bomber crews during WWII certainly were not directly exposed to the results of fire bombing crowded cities.

True, but bomber crews generally had extremely high casualty rates: The death rate, overall, for RAF Bomber Command crews, for example, was around 44%. That for American crews was lower, but still substantial. So the crews were well aware that it wasn't a game.

Using drones that are capable of being armed, even for surveillance, sets a truly bad precedent, IMO.

[overhead]

How about we get a chance to take pot shots at the drone operators from time to time? Yes, I know, that is not really funny, but I have an odd sense of humor.

On a more serious note, I am aware that bomber pilots over Europe were in danger and I certainly did not mean to imply that they were not or to insult them or their family members in any way.

I understand why people are nervous about this, I really do. It warms my heart to see so many people questioning governments use of power, the day we stop doing that will be the day our liberties disappear. In this particular instance I am just not that worried.

[JimDandy]

I'm not concerned the plan is to do anything with these supplies- the bullets, the MRAP's, or the Drones But I think the fact that DHS has them is worrisome.

[mrbatchelor]

Using drones that are capable of being armed, even for surveillance, sets a truly bad precedent, IMO.

This is the biggest caveat in my mind. The fact that the weapon isn't there is good. The fact that the carrier won't be demil'd is bothersome in the extreme.

[pnac]

overhead said:

I understand why people are nervous about this, I really do. It warms my heart to see so many people questioning governments use of power, the day we stop doing that will be the day our liberties disappear. In this particular instance I am just not that worried.

I mostly agree, overhead, except for the last part. All we are is placeholders for future generations. If we are not vigilant today and fight to maintain our rights, future generations, our children and their children, might well pay the price.


A good example of something that happened over 40 years ago, although it's not about gun control, is going to be used for the present administration's agenda:

Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change

While the Obama administration’s guidance could be easily rescinded by the next administration, the court rulings that stem from these cases will live on as precedents, Mannina said.

Link to the article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...te-change.html

[ltc444]

There have been a number of threads on the DHS bullet stockpile, Drones, armored vehicles, the Presidents desire to have a Security Force comparable to the DOD and the attacks on the 2nd Admendment. Until I ran across the following article, I had not seen a consolidated article which discussed all aspects.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/why-does-...llion-bullets/

It is a good explanation and is authored by a fairly neutral author.

[sigcurious]

which article are you referring to? The link brings up list from a search.

[ltc444]

Sorry the link did not transfer. It is the 1.9 billion rounds.

try this link"

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/why-does-...llion-bullets/

[sigcurious]

Looks to be the same alarmist disinformation stuff pushed by stockholders of Alcoa so they get rich on all the tinfoil hats(Yes, I know they're not really in cahoots with Alcoa ). Do people really think that Americorps and Peace Corps are some how going to be transformed from volunteer do-gooders to jackbooted ne'er do wells? Or how is it that even after it gets debunked over and over, people keep repeating the $1.6 billion ammo number like it's gospel? How about the MRAPs, turned out to be a whopping 10-20 of them(not to mention the purposeful mislabeling them as "tanks").

[ScottRiqui]

That's what I thought when I read the article, too. Rather than being an actual discussion of the issues, it's just a re-telling of them. And either the author is extremely biased, or she did no additional research at all, because several of the rumors she repeats have been thoroughly debunked long ago.

[MLeake]

sigcurious, MRAPs are obviously not tanks. However, at gross weights of 35-45 thousand pounds, with heavily armored bodies and the ability to mount heavy weapons (M2HB .50, Mk19 GL, etc), they are nearly in the same class as light tanks or armored scouts.

And what, exactly, does DHS need with one of those, let alone 10 or 20?

[sigcurious]

And C-130s can be configured as spectre or similar gunship variants, should we panic that those are widely used both in C-130 and L-100 formats? Humvees can also mount m2s and mk19s, so can a variety of light trucks. Just like the UAVs, just because they have the potential does not mean they are or will mount these things. In the end it comes down to people executing orders, if the federal government were conspiring they already have a vast array of already armed things to use if people are willing to follow orders. It's premature to claim or imply the government is conspiring just because they have something that could be armed, when they already have tons of things that are armed.

What does DHS need MRAPs for? IIRC they stated purpose was serving high risk warrants. I don't know if they need them, but given the vague details of how they got them, it seems better that they reused something available than spent more money on something similar. Beyond that, once again, DHS is a huge agency, is it really that out there to think that perhaps customs and border protection wants something sturdy in case of an eruption of cartel related violence on the border? Or heck I imagine the coast guard has at least a few land vehicles, maybe they have use for them.

In the end the journalists who write these articles are just stirring the pot for their own benefit by combing disinformation, exaggeration and emotional ploys.

[ltc444]

It is the first article which consolidates the full effort in one location. Combined with other reports which are off limits to this forum it should be a concern to all Constitutionalist.

[Come and take it.]

i would be interested on an opinion from one of the skeptics on here with an explanation pertaining to the unusual paper targets that dhs purchased.

[sigcurious]

You may see my opinion in the thread about those targets, but while you're at it you might want to verify that they actually purchased them...because there is no evidence to say they did.

[MLeake]

sigcurious, I am familiar with AC-130 gunships. (A lot of my friends are Spectre guys.) They are not easily made from stock C-130s, but require a whole lot of modification. Your example doesn't support your argument.

[sigcurious]

MLeake, you stated it's the ability to mount weapons to something that made it suspect with no mention of ease. You can add qualifiers all you want, but that does not refute the core of the argument, or the other examples given. The potential for misuse does not equal misuse, nor should it be considered an indicator of intended future misuse. If the reverse were true, the anti's would be right in claiming people shouldn't have guns, after all they could be and have been misused.

[thallub]

Yep, theres that link to worldnetdaily: Hardly a credible source of news.

Those ammunition contracts are IDIQ; indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery, not to exceed a certain number of rounds.

The conspiracy crowd has made much of the 450 million round contract with ATK. This contract will not exceed 450 million rounds: Given the present budget crisis, it will probably be fewer.

This is the ATK announcement of the contract for .40 ammunition:

http://www.atk.com/news-releases/atk...investigation/

[I'vebeenduped]

"the ability to mount weapons to something that made it suspect with no mention of ease. You can add qualifiers all you want, but that does not refute the core of the argument, or the other examples given. The potential for misuse does not equal misuse, nor should it be considered an indicator of intended future misuse."

The reverse is also true. The current lack of misuse doesn't make it clear that it will not be misused in the future. When the balance of power is tipped so far, tyranny will just be that much more enticing. Do I think our current administration is trying to become a monarch? No. I like to think that the playing field, for the legal average citizen should be level and remain so.

What does DHS need MRAPs for? IIRC they stated purpose was serving high risk warrants. I don't know if they need them, but given the vague details of how they got them, it seems better that they reused something available than spent more money on something similar. Beyond that, once again, DHS is a huge agency, is it really that out there to think that perhaps customs and border protection wants something sturdy in case of an eruption of cartel related violence on the border?

This would be an acceptable set-up in my mind. Regular police agencies with this stuff? Sorry, I don't agree. My Sheriff has a Howitzer or something similar. I don't agree with that on any level. Besides, transporting and maintenance on it are a waste of my tax dollars...

[sigcurious]

The current lack of misuse doesn't make it clear that it will not be misused in the future.

And there's a saying about that kind of statement, argument from ignorance. To predict that future events/intent will occur based on a lack of evidence for said events/intent is a fallacy.

When the balance of power is tipped so far, tyranny will just be that much more enticing. Do I think our current administration is trying to become a monarch? No. I like to think that the playing field, for the legal average citizen should be level and remain so.

Which ignores the earlier point, if tyranny were the goal or people were so enticed by objects, does it really matter what branch of the federal government has the objects? The federal government already possesses...tanks, bombers, fighters, armed UAVs, self-propelled howitzers etc, etc etc. You speak of the level playing field as if it weren't for DHS having a handful of X and Y, we'd be on equal footing. What you're basically asking for is a complete disarmament of the military in order to ensure people aren't enticed by inanimate objects.

Given that we do not live in a fictional one state, one faction world, one of the double edged portions of the social contract is that the government will have some objects which can potentially be misused which are restricted from general public possession. (Although in the case of a decommissioned self-propelled howitzer or similar armored vehicle you too could have one if you had the cash)

Theoretically, do I believe that people should have access to the same things as the government? Yes. However, in reality, and therefor practically speaking, this is not the case. To fear the same objects that one branch of the government has just because they were given to another, is illogical when premised on some potential tyrannical misuse.

[JimDandy]

And there's a saying about that kind of statement, argument from ignorance. To predict that future events/intent will occur based on a lack of evidence for said events/intent is a fallacy.

And yet, you live with a felon, and leave your gun on your bed, in your room with the door closed but not locked and he never ever touches it, you still gave a felon possession of a firearm, and you both are in trouble. Its the same argument with different details. If it works for the government in that case, it should work against them in this case.

[sigcurious]

It's not even close to the same argument with different details. In the case of a prohibited person, it is illegal for them to possess firearms. The law defines unfettered access as possession. Hence, there is evidence that they have done something illegal. It is not what they may do with a firearm that gets them in trouble, but it is what they have done. You may take issue with the law, but it is not the same argument.