Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 10998" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>JT's non lethal weopon...</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't mean that you would, you yourself. I meant the "you" generally, in the conversational sense. </p><p></p><p>By the way, who makes the decision to start using the weapons on those who aren't really trying to harm anyone? To use them on a crowd, in which it is impossible to isolate the actual troublemakers? Is any of that a political decision?</p><p></p><p>Who institutes the new policy, when it comes, to expand the use of such weapons to <em>potential </em>criminals? Do you think that it must pass through a legislature? Is your chief of police qualified to make a quick decision about who deserves to be a target? </p><p></p><p>This is the age of the preemptive rationalization and the rationalized preemptive strike. "We will not wait to be attacked." This rationale is seeping into civilian life, and the division between military and civilian is constantly being blurred, especially in the field of law enforcement. In "combat," the enemy nowadays is frequently lurking in a slum or suburb and not wearing a uniform, and in "crime fighting" nowadays, the SWAT teams look like paratroopers from the movie <em>Brazil </em>and the criminals are wearing team colors and insignia.</p><p></p><p>The police and gangsters carry weapons in America traditionally which come straight off the battlefield. A lot of this has to do with the need to market surplus weapons when a war suddenly ends, as with the Tommy guns in WWI, which had to be sold to farmers in the Midwest, who were told they were good to eradicate rats in the barn. Instead, the weapons ended up in the hands of Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger.</p><p></p><p>The LA police department a few years ago received a shipment of bayonets under a federal grant.</p><p></p><p>These are some of the reasons why the founders of the country wanted to restrict and contain the military, and wanted to rely on a folk army of militia. They knew that a standing army would eventually seep into the community and militarize life, and didn't want mercenaries confiscating their homes and overtaking civil rule.</p><p></p><p>We are a nation of laws not soldiers.</p><p></p><p>We are not in a state of war. No war has been declared. No nation has declared war against us. We are involved in an international police action attempting to impose U.S. law on foreign nationals in their own countries. Part of this effort involves the putative effort to arrest Osama Bin Laden, a recognized international mass murderer. The federal government has used this campaign as a cover to suppress fundamental Constitutional rights. To succeed in doing so, it will need to arm the nation's police into a branch of the U.S. military.</p><p></p><p>Is there any sign that it has not done so?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 10998, member: 42"] [b]JT's non lethal weopon...[/b] I didn't mean that you would, you yourself. I meant the "you" generally, in the conversational sense. By the way, who makes the decision to start using the weapons on those who aren't really trying to harm anyone? To use them on a crowd, in which it is impossible to isolate the actual troublemakers? Is any of that a political decision? Who institutes the new policy, when it comes, to expand the use of such weapons to [i]potential [/i]criminals? Do you think that it must pass through a legislature? Is your chief of police qualified to make a quick decision about who deserves to be a target? This is the age of the preemptive rationalization and the rationalized preemptive strike. "We will not wait to be attacked." This rationale is seeping into civilian life, and the division between military and civilian is constantly being blurred, especially in the field of law enforcement. In "combat," the enemy nowadays is frequently lurking in a slum or suburb and not wearing a uniform, and in "crime fighting" nowadays, the SWAT teams look like paratroopers from the movie [i]Brazil [/i]and the criminals are wearing team colors and insignia. The police and gangsters carry weapons in America traditionally which come straight off the battlefield. A lot of this has to do with the need to market surplus weapons when a war suddenly ends, as with the Tommy guns in WWI, which had to be sold to farmers in the Midwest, who were told they were good to eradicate rats in the barn. Instead, the weapons ended up in the hands of Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger. The LA police department a few years ago received a shipment of bayonets under a federal grant. These are some of the reasons why the founders of the country wanted to restrict and contain the military, and wanted to rely on a folk army of militia. They knew that a standing army would eventually seep into the community and militarize life, and didn't want mercenaries confiscating their homes and overtaking civil rule. We are a nation of laws not soldiers. We are not in a state of war. No war has been declared. No nation has declared war against us. We are involved in an international police action attempting to impose U.S. law on foreign nationals in their own countries. Part of this effort involves the putative effort to arrest Osama Bin Laden, a recognized international mass murderer. The federal government has used this campaign as a cover to suppress fundamental Constitutional rights. To succeed in doing so, it will need to arm the nation's police into a branch of the U.S. military. Is there any sign that it has not done so? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top