Yes, people should be able to have the same weapons their local police have. If a weapon is too powerful for the public to have, the cops don't need it either. If the shit gets too hot, call in the national guard. As far as spawnflagger saying active military or SWAT owning an AR15, why wouldn't they just train with it and keep it at their department? There's no need for them to own it themselves to be able to use it.

A big part of any overthrow of government is getting the police and military to defect or refuse to fire on the resistance. Peaceful revolutions work much better for this than armed ones, although it seemed to work in Ukraine.

These actions seem to be quite typical from ANTIFA. Those NAZI were peaceful until mixed together with ANTIFA and BLM in Charlottsville..

Looks like America traded a white mask for a black bandanna.

These anarchist asshats are liberals . they might the far left but they are liberals.


But who are going to stop ANTIFA?
If TRUMP calls out the national guard then is dammed ...

Liberals and Democrat leaders won't stop this or risk being being called a sell out to the system.

College leaders calling the cops to stop and disband these groups will only cause more burning of buildings.



I did last night see a video TYT of a guy firing into ANTIFA. Not cool.


Now that the guns are out only the true believers will show op to protest.

The crowds should get smaller but the violence should get greater.

They were playing with the police the entire time, pretty much all of those bikes could outrun even the police helicopter if they wanted to. (not exaggerating)

If the police took to more aggressive stopping tactics, the riders would simply give it all the beans and disappear as soon as they saw them, instead of goading them like they did in that vid.

They could try and set up a fortified position in their path or take swipes into the crowd but that leads into the big one for me; many of them likely have guns & other weapons! If the police escalate the violence to death and serious injury by ramming & spike traps or back them into a corner, they would be giving the bikers incentive to fight back.

I might argue that escalation of violence would be more dangerous to the public than the anti-social riding.

There was a couple of 100 of them at least. Unless you are going to call in the national guard or some such, no police force is likely to have the manpower to win that fight if it came to it. (these people are demonstrably a bit crazy after all)

The police aren't stupid. Ethics aside, a gang of a few 100 lunatics is just more than almost any police force can deal with when together. That's why they don't scatter, they know that in a pack they are basically untouchable.

Police follow and hope to catch out the ones that fall off or otherwise make a mistake. Beyond that all they can really do is go after the gang in the traditional way; informants, infiltrators, slip ups and so on.

I understand the outrage, but practically speaking there is little more can be done other than subsequent investigations by the gang unit. Very difficult as you can't prove a given bike was involved without plates and chassis numbers. Or for that matter that a given individual was riding it at the time anyway.

I love that idea.
Every citizen gets tested for psychological problems, and those that pass are trained and issued firearms, for which they agree to serve if needed, like the national guard. I would also support an opt-out of that, but those people shouldn't get guns.
With good screening, and good training, we could still not be as "safe" as the Swiss, but we could be incredibly safer and more sane than we are today with no screening and no training.

But, that plan probably wouldn't eat up 1% of the US defense budget. That budget is outrageously enormous and growing (contrary to what the right wing erroneously claims).

The big problem with that is, what to do about the millions of firearms already owned by the unscreened? Perhaps another program to require gun owners to get screened or turn over/sell their firearms? That wouldn't cover the millions of unregistered guns, but would be a start.

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

This idea that you need a gun so the government wont take your gun has to be the stupidest fucking thing these people repeat. Why do you need to be as well armed as the national guard? The statement that citizens face the same dangers as cops is the second stupidest thing ever said on television...who listens to these fucking morons?

WTF? Soros "Funded" the Ferguson and Baltimore riots? That's such an asinine assertion. You don't fund riots, they're free.
Downvote the insinuation that the civil unrest is a scripted liberal fraud. How ridiculous.

Also...Why does the National Guard Humvee have a headlight out? Who's doing maintenance over there?

Certainly you understand that a mayor (or anyone, really) can request that the governor send them in. I didn't see or hear about any of that. It doesn't have to be done in front of a camera, but if it happened it would have been reported that the mayor had requested that the governor send them in...at least that's how it usually happens.

Have they been deployed now? They had not been last night, the last I saw. I can't understand how the city on fire, cops on the run and injured, and thousands of destructive looters on the streets doesn't meet the requirements, that happened early on. Instead of doing something, they announced a curfew for the next (5?) days and basically let the rioters do their thing on day one. Anyone injured is going to have a good case against the police/city/state for not taking action to stop it.
EDIT: I see now, they sent in 160 national guard members this morning (Tuesday) with more to come...zero on Monday or Monday night/Tuesday early morning.

When it's obvious that local law enforcement is outnumbered 10 to 1 or worse, and the "protestors" have become violent rioters attacking police, citizens, cars, and businesses, and lighting buildings and cars on fire, it's time. That was 3pm, and came with plenty of warnings online. There was pretty good indication that there would be exactly that problem, they should have had serious backup at the ready, they did not.

I can't fathom why there wasn't a curfew last night, there was plenty of time to see it was needed. I also can't fathom why the national guard wasn't requested (yes, I'm sticking with that being proper and normal, but not necessary) by the mayor, or why it wasn't sent in by the governor or the fed without being requested.

It really seemed the authorities could have foreseen there would be severe problems (they've been claiming they have serious credible death threats against the entire police force by numerous factions...that's enough right there to call/send in the National Guard yesterday, before the funeral). Waiting for the problems to happen, then allowing it to continue over night is shirking their duty because they're scared, IMO.

EDIT:from http://www.wsj.com/articles/national-guard-deployed-in-baltimore-amid-riots-after-freddie-grays-funeral-1430218096
Protests over Mr. Gray’s death had been largely peaceful until Saturday, when pockets of violence led to 35 arrests and caused minor injuries to six police officers.
Mr. Batts, the police commissioner, said late Monday that 250 to 300 officers assembled in West Baltimore after a social-media message called on high-school students Monday to stage a “purge”—an anarchic protest based on a film called “The Purge” that includes a period of lawlessness—at 3 p.m. starting at the Mondawmin Mall and ending downtown.
Baltimore police also said they received a threat that city gangs would join together to “take down” law-enforcement officers.

I'm not sure on what you mean by being "asked for". The national guard is under the command of the governor in each state. It is up to him/her to order the deployment. In general, it is good practice to see if local law enforcement can handle a situation before you begin deploying soldiers. That probably means that the governor was meeting with law enforcement and city officials to monitor the situation and make a determination of the capacity to restore peace through civilian instead of military means. Once they decided it was not possible, the governor ordered the deployment. Anyone that was in front of the media "asking" for the national guard to be deployed were probably not a part of that decision-making structure which was operating concurrently.

Why have they not called in the National Guard?
EDIT: and why has it not simply been sent in without being asked for?

"Dominic: What do you think will happen?

Finch: What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people *with* guns."

My history teacher in high school was very civic minded. He was a Quaker too, but I believe he converted after serving in the army during Vietnam. I will never forget that he us that protesting is important, but if cops/national guard/ people with guns show up - get away. It creates a dangerous and volatile situation.

I really don't believe that the majority of police or protesters are bad people and want these kind of things to happen. In the heat of the moment things escalate rapidly and get out of control. People make bad decisions - now we capture them and put them on youtube.

Gun control worked fairly well in Australia, no? For law abiding and not, and enforcers too. In England too, where it DID mean 'disarming' the average cop (not all cops, they do still have guns, they just don't wear them on a daily basis for normal contact with the public, so they have far fewer officer involved shootings). Enforced gun control would mean disarming anyone found with an illegal gun, not the law abiding, not just minorities.
As said above, about 90% of Americans said they favor some type of gun control. Gun control does not mean gun eradication, just as car control (speed limits and other laws of the road) does not mean car eradication. Duh, I'm so sick of that insanely wrong 'argument'.
Federal law 'nullified by the states, counties, and even local law enforcement agencies"?!? Wow.
Are you even American, because you have absolutely 0 grasp of the American governmental system (evidenced by your stated position that voting is worse than useless, and you've indicated the same about voicing your opinion to your 'representatives'..."useless". ?!?).
In America, the Fed can't be over-ridden or 'nullified' by the states, it's pretty clear, cut, and dry. It's certainly been tried, but never successfully, because our law says the Fed trumps all other government and they have the national guard and army backing them up. For instance, many states have 'legalized' marijuana, but no where is it actually legal because it's still federally illegal, they simply aren't prosecuting people for small amounts normally...but they are still prosecuting larger marijuana cases and seizing money and property, even where it's 'legal' because the state 'nullified the federal law'. Another good example (better actually) is ending school segregation. How did 'nullification' work out for those states that ignored/contradicted/'nullified' the fed? I'll answer for you...Not so good.
Please take a civics class, or be prepared to be contradicted at every turn until you get how the system is designed and operates.

If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, just google "Alex Jones" "black helicopters". Jones has been warning about the militarization of police and the national guard doing policing for at least a decade. He spews all kinds of other paranoid crap though, so it's hard to take him seriously.

I consider most libertarians to be right wingers, so your definition may be more granular than mine.

Me too. I used to see them all the time when I lived near the US Air National Guard @ http://www.martinstateairport.com/