120 replies to this topic

[OverSword]

From the article:

The promotional video for a surveillance drone now being purchased by law enforcement bodies across the country with the aid of DHS funding shows a UAV spying on a private gun sale, falsely depicting the scenario as a criminal activity.

It is important to emphasize that private firearms sales without background checks are not illegal under current law in the United States, although gun control advocates are feverishly trying to change that with new legislation. The government claims that 40 per cent of all gun sales are conducted without background checks.

More propaganda war against citizens by government agencies, depicting law abaiding citizens as terrorists and criminals IMO.

http://www.infowars....ivate-gun-sale/

[Kafkaesque]

OverSword, on 25 February 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

From the article:

The promotional video for a surveillance drone now being purchased by law enforcement bodies across the country with the aid of DHS funding shows a UAV spying on a private gun sale, falsely depicting the scenario as a criminal activity.

It is important to emphasize that private firearms sales without background checks are not illegal under current law in the United States, although gun control advocates are feverishly trying to change that with new legislation. The government claims that 40 per cent of all gun sales are conducted without background checks.

More propaganda war against citizens by government agencies, depicting law abaiding citizens as terrorists and criminals IMO.

http://www.infowars....ivate-gun-sale/

The DHS is a joke.

[AsteroidX]

First American shoots one of them down or hacks it down is going to be a Folkhero.

[AsteroidX]

[MichaelW]

Eonwe, on 26 February 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

The DHS is a joke.

This thread is a joke and anyone that believes anything on Infowars is a clown.

[DieChecker]

OverSword, on 25 February 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

The promotional video for a surveillance drone now being purchased by law enforcement bodies across the country with the aid of DHS funding shows a UAV spying on a private gun sale, falsely depicting the scenario as a criminal activity.

Cool UAV. I look forward to them being used to avert/prevent/fight crime.

This video looks Super Staged. What is the range on this little helicopter? Or, did it just happen to be hovering over a empty abandoned field and fortuitously filmed two guys selling each other guns? Just the actions of these guys would be enough to provide cause to see what they were up to. If they did nothing wrong, then nothing happens. No crime, no time.

I'd rather that the Law followed two legally selling guys and watched them, then that even one in a hundred which was arming terrorists went down. The loss of privacy is a price I am willing to pay.... Just my own personnal opinon. If two guys want to sell guns to each other, perhaps they should meet at a gun store, or a private residence??

Edited by DieChecker, 26 February 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[AsteroidX]

Ill be looking for the amateur porn from your window as well. Dont think DHS is the only one spying these days. Throw your Rights away. But if you think thats what they will be used for..I...Your falling for it. In a bad way.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

AsteroidX, on 26 February 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

First American shoots one of them down or hacks it down is going to be a Folkhero.

Before or after they wake up in Gitmo as a "Domestic Terrorist"?

[AsteroidX]

No need for the commie rhetoric here. You guys were happy giving up your guns and selling your resources to China. Perhaps worrying about your own country would suit you better.

[MichaelW]

AsteroidX, on 26 February 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Ill be looking for the amateur porn from your window as well. Dont think DHS is the only one spying these days. Throw your Rights away. But if you think thats what they will be used for..I...Your falling for it. In a bad way.

Well then, give us uneducated indoctrinated, freedom hating masses an enlightened perspective on what drones are used for.

[hatecraft]

DieChecker, on 26 February 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

I'd rather that the Law followed two legally selling guys and watched them, then that even one in a hundred which was arming terrorists went down. The loss of privacy is a price I am willing to pay.... Just my own personnal opinon. If two guys want to sell guns to each other, perhaps they should meet at a gun store, or a private residence??

I guess you'd be ok with having a drone follow you around all day then?  I mean, you might break some sort of law so the feds will just keep a constant eye on you just in case.

[Babe Ruth]

...arming terrorists.  ROFLMAO

The real terrorists in this country are already armed, and most of them hold public office.

[aztek]

the gvmnt has no idea how many % make up private sales, they just make up the number. there are no records of private sales.

there is no way to know if person A decided to sell his gun to person B and drove to his house to do the buissnes, how will dhs know person A has intention to sell his  gun to anyone, when it will happen, and were, so they can send a drone there.

i don't belive this is physicly possible, the article is a B.S.

this looks like another reporter's "make good stuff up" to get hits on the website.

they really should use those drones to enforce "pick up after your dog" law, there is so much sh..t in nyc alone, from dog owners that don't pick up. nyc has $250 fine for that, the drones can  pay for themselves in a month if used to get these as...les. there are litterealy millions in dog sh...t on the streets of nyc.

[rashore]

Well that was funny and very staged... And really silly. I mean, come on, how many illegal people trade off guns in that way?
The implications aren't very funny though

[Stellar]

Asteroid: you should have no problem with this, given your stance on privacy that you expressed when I wouldnt tell you what country I'm from.

Don't you consider "driving into the middle of nowhere" at least as "dishonest" as someone not giving you private information, and therefore a potential "threat", and so infringing on their privacy is ok by you?