The irony is that the Bushmaster these RBKA fanatics claim to die to keep is already obsolete

[MightyMopar]

Already i hear the RBKA fanatics whine it wouldn't be right for the government to use drones on them! Hell, papparazzi are chasing celebrities around with drones. Greenpeace is using an observation one on the Japanese whaling fleet. They're already using robots in combat. Google has won the right to remotely drive cars in several states. In a short time they'll have a robot tank in a bad guys driveway and it will release little antlike nanobots into your house and they'll make you surrender or come out your guts like shotgun. All this can mostly be done by remote control


The Turner Diary dream of fighting the government is almost dead! Sorry gun nuts your time is almost over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future nanotech weapons will disable, not kill

By Dick Pelletier

When scientists discovered that sickle-cell anemia could be cured by using nanotech to relocate a single amino acid in the blood that had erroneously wandered out of place, researchers from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency took notice.

DARPA scientists realized that nanobots – launched in the form of invisible, odorless, "space dust” – could alter a single amino acid in an enemy’s spinal cord rendering him temporarily incapacitated. Our soldiers (or robots) could then win battles without firing a shot.

In addition, researchers believe DNA-specific devices could be created that would target only a single person. Osama bin-Laden, for example, could be located by showering an entire country or region with billions of nanobots searching only for his DNA. On contact these ‘bots would alter his brain creating an irresistible desire for him to surrender.

Military strategists believe these futuristic weapons will change the face of war forever. Rather than risking lives by attacking an enemy who could respond, soldiers will simply wait for their adversary to fall "asleep” before moving in. Future war tactics, experts say, will no longer focus on which buildings to destroy, but which individuals to incapacitate – with virtually no collateral damage.

Eric Drexler, the "father” of nanotechnology, had this to say: "It is my hope that we gain such an overwhelming advantage that we dominate our adversaries in combat without causing anyone serious harm (beyond extreme frustration).”

http://positivefuturist.com/archive/24.html

[Warren DeMontague]

1. We will shrink your penis EVEN MORE, Rush!

Muahahaha

http://gawker.com/5945289/penis-scientist-rush-limbaugh-blames-small-penis-size-on-feminazis

[cantbeserious]

2. Yes - The Dream Of Defiant Gun Owners Standing In Stoic Opposition To Government Is Dead

eom

[MightyMopar]

3. Unfortunately, not for the stupid, i'm afraid they'll beg for a demonstration

[AgingAmerican]

33. So be it

America is tired of being held hostage by them.

[cantbeserious]

35. Can We Buy Tickets At A Sporting Arena - It Would Be Like Ancient Rome All Over Again

eom

[bluestate10]

47. That dream was dead a long time ago, so was the idea of happily farming and living off the land

as survivalists.

[Romulox]

4. We lost a war to stone-age goatherds in Afghanistan. "Total dominance" may be some time off... nt

[MightyMopar]

5. We beat a nation of 32 million with just enough guys fill to a large football stadium

If you'll give up your good life for a weapon one step away from being a sword, then you're dumb as a 'Bagger. Afghanistan has nothing protect except Kabul and poppy fields.

[Romulox]

6. We LOST in Afghanistan, and racked up so much debt it almost destroyed the world's economy.

I'd love to join you in your "Zero Dark Thirty" fantasies of an invulnerable military, but the fact is, we LOST.

[MightyMopar]

7. You'll have a hard time getting people to live like Taliban and they'll know they'll be no 72virgins

Your Teabagger allies will desert when you run out of junk food

I'm sure the government already knows all about "Romulux" and they'll find you even with Apple maps.

[Romulox]

10. You're obviously nothing more than a crappy disruptor trying to stir up divisions here. nt

[MightyMopar]

18. A majority of Democrats are for stronger gun laws and Obama is introducing them

A large minority of Dems want to ban semi and a whole bunch on this website would ban even more.

SUPPORTING OBAMA HARDLY A MAKES ME A DISRUPTOR.

[Romulox]

24. Your argument still doesn't make any sense.

SUPPORTING OBAMA HARDLY A MAKES ME A DISRUPTOR.

Nope. It's your posting style that does it.

[NYC_SKP]

56. MightyMopar has been banned.

[msanthrope]

25. 3-3 to leave yr post...nt

[Romulox]

27. "You takes your chances!". nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Yyyyyyyup. +Infinity.

Claims to be a staunch death penalty supporter too. So much so that he'd pull the lever himself.

[jmg257]

13. Yep - light up a few 'don't tread on me freedom fighter' militias with designating

lasers for the hellfires to focus in on, think the cause against We the people would melt away fairly quickly.

Military Bug drones flying in and tagging their ass 1 by 1 would be pretty effective too.

Are keeping a few extra types of guns, and/or hi-cap mags really worth dying over (or even going to jail)??
Crazy!

Have fun storming the Castle!

[Romulox]

14. Another bizarre dose of word salad. Two logins much? nt

[jmg257]

22. Was it that hard to understand? Hmm...seemed easy enough to comprehend.

1) bubba militia
2) Laser Designated
3) hellfire missle
4) boom

1) bubba militia
2) Military Bug Drones
3) zzzt

No more resistance.

'Pry this AR from my cold dead hands' = (because you are dead)

Not very confusing at all.

[Romulox]

23. Log back in as Mopar. This name is too hard to remember. nt

[jmg257]

26. Isn't Mopar a car part? nt

[Hoyt]

52. Problem is that the only people today's gun cultist patriots can defeat are innocent citizens.

[Romulox]

54. The second amendment doesn't say anythign about who someone "can defeat". Try again. nt

[Hoyt]

55. No, but gun cultists like this plan to be in control when revolution comes. I'd prefer they aren't.

Michigan Militia

[sylvi]

8. Your celebration of the invincible power

Your celebration of the invincible power of the authoritarian oligarchy, and the futility of resistance against it, is noted.

You may now crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.

[MightyMopar]

9. A smartphone is more of a weapon against the state than a Bushmaster

Israeli soldiers have said they're more scared of Palestinians with cellphones than Palestinians with guns. Guns aren't the only way to fight.

[Romulox]

11. Reality has proven you wrong, to the point you have to pretend we won in Afghanistan. nt

[MightyMopar]

16. Yeah, if you want give up your nice home and family to fight for an obsolete weapon

If you call living like Taliban a victory, then have your sad victory. Oh, yeah and you'll need the Pashtuns in Pakistan to smuggle weapons and aid for you as well as give you a safe haven, you'll have to use superhuman powers though to swim over there.

The other thing is acknowledging that technology is making your gun fast obsolete makes me less of patriot I find quite offensive.

[JVS]

12. A smartphone is a weapon against the state like a leash is a weapon against a dog's owner.

If the East Germans had been able to come up with smartphones and facebook , the Berlin wall would still be standing. They are voluntary self surveillance devices.

[sarisataka]

20. I would fear the phone too

they are very useful for detonating explosives.

Who is the most well armed soldier? The radio operator.

[slackmaster]

15. The bulk of my gun collection consists of obsolete weapons

I guess there is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles, then.

[MightyMopar]

17. One can still kill family and neighbors with obsolete weapons but tanks and drones, not so much

[Fumesucker]

19. What could possibly go wrong?

Hoocoodanoed?

Amirite?

[ileus]

21. I agree, piston powered AR's are the way to go.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. Now they'll justify wanting to own one as a collector's item.

[jp76]

29. DARPA....LMAO

This article had to come out of a tabloid, or Popular Mechanics. Oh, I see at the bottom...positivefuturist.com...point made.

DARPA is the one logistics branch of the DoD that has 100% approval to fail. It's the place where really, really smart people take new science and try to make science fiction reality, with the understanding from the very start that it's okay to fail, they just have to try. DARPA probably has the lowest success rate of any institution in existence.

Its successes ARE really cool, but are almost guaranteed to be the most expensive military projects ever fielded.

Don't hold your breath waiting for guns to be replaced with "space dust".

[MightyMopar]

30. Pointing out that Busmasters are obselete fighting government makes you an unpatriotic wimp

but rooting for the brutal Taliban and their Pakistani allies in war that's still up in the air with American soldiers on the ground is considered patriotic by some. Strange thinking to me.

BTW, DARPA INVENTED THE INTERNET YOU'RE USING.

[jp76]

31. I don't follow.

I don't get the jump you made from DARPA to the Taliban. Did you reply to the wrong post?

As for the Internet...I never said DARPA was never successful, I said they had a low success rate. Projects like this (the space dust) are why...DARPA has a license to fail in order to breed innovation and invention. For every project like the creation of the Internet, they have a couple dozen projects like robotic spy squirrels, invisible cars, and Harvesting Power From Flying Insects.

[oneshooter]

38. They did not, could not.

Everybody knows that Al Gore invented the internet!!!

[bluestate10]

48. Micro Drones are a reality. They can navigate and perform tasks. They have not been programmed

to disable a target, but that is being worked through. Keep thinking you can sit up with your guns and reams of ammo on your isolated farmland (ala Beck). Good luck with that.

[Remmah2]

32. Pro RKBA people have been under attack by drones for years.

Ya sons of bees...........................

[R_Flagg_77]

36. I disagree, the civillian small arm would stand up just fine against tanks and drones...

Because the tank, the drone, the helicopter, bomber, body armor, so on and so forth are not all powerful. They're machines, and machines require fuel, men, and ammunition to operate effectively. So should there be a civilian uprising, using primarily the sort of small arms commonly available on the market, and improvised explosive devices; the civilians would hold their own if they use their arsenal correctly. Note the emphasis there.

Lets examine the tank... Heavy armored vehicle, tracked, armed with a variety of cannon and machine guns, communications systems; it's an excellent weapons system in it's niche. It's not a 'one size fits all' machine, it's best used against other armored vehicles, and in a supporting role for infantry operations. Most of them have large diesel engines, though the M1 Abrams family has a gas turbine engine.

With that sort of protection, armament, and mobility only a damned fool would stand up and fight one head to head. Even in another tank, you don't want to go head to head if you can help it; to say nothing of infantry or light-skinned vehicles like technicals or jeeps. But a tank has weaknesses, even the current generation of main battle tanks. A tank is a thirsty machine; it likes its fuel, it likes spare parts when it throws a track or gets dinged up on maneuvers. The tankers inside like food, they like sleep, they eventually have to answer the call of nature. A tank can be stopped, and this would apply just as much to an Apache attack helicopter as it would to be a B-52 bomber, a field howitzer, mortar, crew served machine gun, or anything else you care to mention. All these wonderful weapons systems require several times their numbers in the field in terms of trucks and support vehicles of all varieties; along with men trained in support roles. For every man fighting, there's something like three men supporting him with food, fuel, and ammunition.

You don't shoot the tank with your rifle... You kill the truck driver with your rifle. To field tanks, artillery, aircraft of any variety, it all requires a strong logistics system. Thats why the Wehrmacht got bogged down when they paid Uncle Joe a visit in 1941; the panzers ran low on gas, and the men got cold and hungry. You go after truck drivers, mechanics, pilots, cooks, medical personnel, anybody that keeps the fighting men in the field or in the air. I've examined military cargo trucks many times, and they're not much different than the trucks you see riding up and down the highway. A little sturdier maybe, but not much more so.

Besides, most of us have a glass bottle, a little gasoline for the lawnmower, a rag... You can stop a truck with that. A chain saw, steel cable, and a creative mind could slow down a convoy long enough to share your political disagreement with people in the vicinity. So hell, guns really wouldn't even be needed. Plenty of non-violent methods of stopping the flow of supplies to military operations.

Note, if you will, this is not a 'how to guide', nor do I advocate violence against my fellow man. I simply wish to share my thoughts.

[MightyMopar]

37. Take a poll of Al Quead aand taliban leadership how they like those drones

Oh, you can't, not even a big enough sample for Gallup

[dairydog91]

39. You aren't seriously advocating drone use against Americans on American soil?

That is, you're advocating the CIA or FBI, based on intelligence info, fire missiles from drones at targets which they think have hostile people in them? What happens when they make a whoopsie, as they already do in Pakistan? Do you think an American president wants to go up and explain to voters why he, totally by accident, is occasionally blowing their kids into smoking chunks?

[MightyMopar]

40. paparazzi using them right now to spy on celebrities, technology marches on, your gun is obsolete

The guns are on their way to being obsolete for use fighting the government, soon to be swords. Just warning any would be rebels who would kill our police, who want to water the the tree of bullshit with blood, it will be their blood.

Personally I like the stuxnet virus and the nanobots that just make the bad guys surrender.

[dairydog91]

53. And here I thought militaristic fantasies of the unbeatable uber-army were a right-wing thing.

Drones remain crappy tools for fighting a home insurgency for the exact same reason that a military fighting such a conflict should not send out jets armed with guided bombs. Dropping bombs in any environment except a very isolated target is massively destructive. Using bombs in suburbia, or urban areas, is about as close as you can get to tactical insanity if you're fighting an insurgency. Any "shock and awe" terror you inspire in the insurgents is cancelled out by the sheer level of public horror inspired when the bombs inevitably start hitting completely innocent people.

Personally I like the stuxnet virus
Good point. I'll be sure to tell the right-wing crazies across the street to turn off their uranium-refining operations.

the nanobots that just make the bad guys surrender
Which exist as a DARPA dream at the moment. And if, in your hypothetical scenario, the military is fighting with weapons that don't actually exist in working form, why can't our hypothetical insurgents fight back with nonexistent weapons? You'll never stop Glenn Beck once he starts up his Star Destroyer.

[R_Flagg_77]

41. Drones are often operated by pilots on American soil.

So we have that advantage. Most drone pilots simply report to a base within the United States, and work a shift flying sorties with drones on the other side of the world. They telecommute to work in a sense.

That changes nothing that I said... If those pilots are here in the United States, a rebel could still knock that drone out of commission. Even more since the drone operating here in the United States, would be based well within the reach of a civilian insurgency. Sure you couldn't blast it out of the sky with a shotgun, but while it sits on the ground it is as helpless as a newborn baby.

The pilot would be vulnerable as well; he goes to work, does his thing flying sorties over Nebraska, and clocks out. All you've got to do is a little surveillance, pick out the man most likely to pilot a drone. Learn what car he drives, what roads he takes home, where he lives. Then do what you must to let him know of your differing political stance. Rinse and repeat as needed.

Taking out a drone pilot would be better than taking out the drone itself. You can build a drone in a comparatively short amount of time... 19 years from birth to completion of training is what it takes to get a pilot; usually longer. You cannot replace a trained human like you can a machine. Nor can you totally automate combat; you'll still need a button pusher at some point down the line.

So allow me to reiterate myself sir, civilian small arms are quite useful against a standing military force.

[MightyMopar]

42. Now that's a fantasy, Next you'll be attacking area 51

[R_Flagg_77]

43. How so sir?

I seem to be making an honest attempt, and writing valid explanations for my thoughts whereas you seem to be offering nothing but gibberish.

Nothing would be as easy as what I say, but the tactics would be valid. Its easier to kill a human operating or supporting a weapons system with any civilian firearm than it would be to face the weapons system itself. It is well document fact that you can indeed kill a human with gun. Nor is it inconceivable to stop a light skinned vehicle, such as a fuel truck, with improvised means.

[MightyMopar]

44. Now if you can get Rambo, Swartzeneggar, Chuck Norris, theRock, to wear socks over their heads

Oh, that's right they already made that action movie..................

[R_Flagg_77]

45. If you please sir...

You're contributing nothing to this discussion, which I find to be a bit insulting. You're the one who stated the premise that men cannot overcome machines, and I simply wish to argue to the contrary.

What do you find to be so humorous? My instance that the human capacity for ingenuity and brutality can best any sort of technology in a guerrilla style conflict (an insurgency of civilians with small arms against a standing army on American soil in this instance); or that I'm actually trying to hold a conversation about something I presume is of mutual interest.

[MightyMopar]

46. But will you wear socks over your head while you do all this?

Hopefully we can overcome the machine that is killing and maiming so many Americans and our Mexican neighbors every year which the rest of the civilized world has mostly gained control over. I don't have any more to talk to you about.

[jmg257]

51. I say, what about the standing army's level of brutality & ingenuity?

Think the professionals, like the Seals, Marine Recon, Delta, Rangers, etc. etc., might have something to add the mix?

In the long run, or short run actually, some rinky-dinky civilian bubba militia "insurgency"ain't gonna do shit.

[MrScorpio]

49. Do you mind if I ask, do you have any direct experience with the USAF "drone" program?

Just curious.

[bluestate10]

50. Well. Solar powered Drones get past all of your stoppers. The issue ordinance is being worked out.

No need to go into that, but suffice that a rag tag bunch won't end up being anything but neutralized instantly.