search results matching tag: missile

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (253)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (16)     Comments (845)   

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Shit.....Fucking Fuck...Fuck

coolhund says...

Well, she surely wouldnt have been unsafer.

And ChaosEngine posting his bullshit again. Too bad guns stop guns from firing. Even nuclear missiles stop nuclear missiles from firing.

notarobot said:

Maybe she would have felt safer if she had a gun in the car. Then she could get out and start shooting herself.

If everyone has a gun, then everyone is safer. Right?

At least that's what the NRA tells me....

shveddy (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Israeli crowd cheers with joy as missile hits Gaza on CNN has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

How exactly do you move wind turbine blades?

Drachen_Jager says...

They could have used this in the '80s when the US deployed Pershing II missiles around small villages in Germany. I know of one case where they got stuck on a tight corner and couldn't move back or forward. After several days they had to pay a farmer so they could demolish and re-build a corner of his house to get the thing free.

I'm not sure if the nuclear warhead was installed the whole time.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

BTW, you can own Bombs/RPGs/Missiles/etc.

Just fill out a form4 to get one transferred to you from a current owner, or a form1 if you wish to make a new one.

If you get a class 7 firearms license, and make sure to make whatever you make available for sale to LEO/military, then you can also make new automatic weapons for yourself (usually by converting semi auto to auto).

You can also own tanks and fighter planes.
There are clubs where folks hang out and drive around in their tanks, and fly around in their fighters, and shoot heavy weapons, etc.

Granted, the expense and paperwork of all of these makes them something only wealthy/organized people can afford. And realistically, anyone who has the cash to play with these sorts of things has his ducks in a row to begin with. (eg. An automatic rifle runs around the 20'000 usd range.) With a median individual income of around 26k per year, practically everyone in the U.S. can't afford such items (or is unwilling to).

Things called NFA items (rockets/artillery/etc) are registered, but not denied. Since AFAIK the mid 1930's, only a dozen NFA item owners have been convicted of a serious crime, and none of those crimes involved any NFA item. Only one shooting involved an automatic weapon, and it was committed by a police officer that lost his mind.

Other than a periodic flashy event like Fla, practically every gun crime is committed by cheap pistols. Crime and lack of wealth go hand in hand. Poor people are less likely to be educated, less likely to be from a stable well adjusted home, more likely to grow up in a strife ridden neighborhood, and less likely to be able to afford more than a cheap pistol. This is why you never hear about rockets/tanks/etc regarding crime - if the typical criminal could afford them, he wouldn't have to be a criminal. Realistically speaking, the U.S. is wealthy as a nation, but as individuals, people are not that well off. Majority of the country lives hand to mouth. TBH, that's the real problem. That's not to do with exceptions/unicorns like Fla - only with the most common/likely case.

As a side note, Swiss civilians are more heavily armed than U.S. civilians. But as a people they have their heads on straighter, so gun attacks are rare.

-scheherazade

ChaosEngine said:

I'm sure there have been any number of legal precedents set. Doesn't change the fact that the major point of the second amendment was not self-defense.

Besides, it's an anachronism. You can have all the guns you want, but you ain't defending shit if your (or another) government decides to go full Hitler.

Look, you're already not allowed bombs or RPGs or missiles or whatever, so your right to bear "arms" has been infringed.

Aside from the raving Alex Jones style lunatics, everyone already agrees that there are limits on the weapons available to civilians. So the second amendment isn't inviolate. It's just a question of degrees.

Besides, pretty sure the constitution has been changed before (14th and 21st most famously).

But again, I'm just glad I don't live in a country where people genuinely believe that they need a gun for home defense.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

ChaosEngine says...

I'm sure there have been any number of legal precedents set. Doesn't change the fact that the major point of the second amendment was not self-defense.

Besides, it's an anachronism. You can have all the guns you want, but you ain't defending shit if your (or another) government decides to go full Hitler.

Look, you're already not allowed bombs or RPGs or missiles or whatever, so your right to bear "arms" has been infringed.

Aside from the raving Alex Jones style lunatics, everyone already agrees that there are limits on the weapons available to civilians. So the second amendment isn't inviolate. It's just a question of degrees.

Besides, pretty sure the constitution has been changed before (14th and 21st most famously).

But again, I'm just glad I don't live in a country where people genuinely believe that they need a gun for home defense.

SDGundamX said:

To understand the wording of the second amendment, you have to take into account the history behind it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American history, but this scholarly article is a great read on the topic, and demonstrates that guns have been kept and regulated (the most important terms of the amendment that often get completely overlooked by guns rights advocates) by Americans for both personal and collective defense since the Colonial period.

It's important to note that the Revolutionary War was literally started at Lexington and Concord when the British government, "Came fer our gunz!" That event informs a great deal of the rhetoric, and it is not at all an exaggeration to say that had the British government successfully disarmed the populace earlier, the Revolution might never have had a chance for success.

Regardless, there are an overwhelming number of legal precedents now that support the notion that the Constitution allows guns to be owned by U.S. citizens for self-defense purposes. That horse has long been out of the barn, so arguing that the constitution does not specifically use the words "self-defense" is a complete waste of time. What is not a waste of time is arguing how far the government (state and federal) can go in "regulating" the sale, carrying, and use of firearms.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

You should read the prince. Look at what people did throughout history, and look at what we and other nations do today.

At some point, you have to realize that nothing has changed. Technology has moved on, but we're still the same monkeys that were around before, and we're still behaving the same way.

Nations don't last. You can be on top for a couple centuries, but afterwards you fall down the totem pole. Most places on earth spend most of their time getting crapped on. It's a special time when they get to crap on others.

Regardless, the 2nd amendment was made with the awareness of the human condition. The perpetual dissatisfaction that drives people to strife. Peace is not everlasting. Even if you behave well, there's always a group that comes along to bring trouble.

A gun behind every blade of grass is the best possible method for national security there is. A nation with a broke government in turmoil will not have an organized military. But an armed people still represent a massive discouragement to any candidate occupier.

The west has had a good run for the past few decades. But it's never lasted before, and it won't last this time. It may not be in our lifetime, but things will eventually go belly up.

Then again, it could be in our lifetime. Europe is getting rapidly nationalistic under immigration pressures. US/Europe are poking Russia in the eye with missile installations and military exercises (maybe to rile them up and get people focused more on Russia and less on the immigrant crisis - common enemies are the best unifiers). You never know. Historically, when things go to hell, they were ~always fine not so long prior.

You don't have to worry about these things. They'll happen when they happen. History doesn't care either way.

2nd amendment can look like an anachronism during a period of quiet. But eventually it will make perfect sense again.

-scheherazade

EMPIRE said:

Look... let's all agree on this...

The american founding fathers did some really great stuff. Wonderful.

But they're fucking human, and the 2nd amendment was unbelievably short-sighted.

The constitution is not something to mess with willy-nilly, but it CAN and it SHOULD be updated from time to time.

Samantha Bee on Orlando - Again? Again.

RFlagg says...

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

Obama Talks About His Blackberry and Compromise

newtboy says...

In most cases, absolutely not, but in a few, yes.
For instance, there was nothing besides nuclear war in either '42 or '62 to compare with climate change as a danger to the planet, and while we still have the threat of nuclear war (although it's certainly not as great a threat today as during the missile crisis, but if we have Trump's finger on the button, that threat level changes), we now also have the out of control issue of the climate destabilizing that threatens civilization itself.
Over population comes to mind as another issue that's far worse.

But I do agree, for the most part, we are in a far less precarious position than we have been in the past on most issues, and so many minor issues are blown out of proportion by the media looking for ratings and money instead of looking to inform.

dag said:

Quote hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I like his point at the beginning that we're actually living in the best time ever. It's counter-intuitive because the of the way media works today and we're getting blasted with so much bad news.

But honestly, do you think the world is in a more precarious situation than say 1942 or even 1962?

Three Humvees Fall From the Sky In Failed Airdrop

Russian SU-24's Fly Within 30 FT of US Warship

Mordhaus says...

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

radx said:

This was off the coast of Kaliningrad. If a Russian or a Chinese guided missile destroyer conducted excercises with the Cuban military (say two years ago) off the coast of Florida, the US military would not sit by idly.

It is a provocation, I agree. But so are military excercises on another nation's doorstep.

As far as I am concerned, I'd very much appreciate if every nation would stop taking their toys out for a spin in Eastern Europe. I'd prefer the Russians not to set up a brand sparkling new tank corps on their western border, and I'd prefer fucking NATO not to deploy hundreds of MBTs all over former Soviet territory.

That said, the sailors aboard the Cook seem to have the proper reaction: a laugh. For politicians (looking at you, Kerry!) to use this incident as an excuse to funnel more money towards the MIC was as predictable as it is despicable.

Edit: if they absolutely need to play war, Paradox is going to release HoI4 on D-Day -- you get to fight Russians for a mere 40€.

Russian SU-24's Fly Within 30 FT of US Warship

radx says...

This was off the coast of Kaliningrad. If a Russian or a Chinese guided missile destroyer conducted excercises with the Cuban military (say two years ago) off the coast of Florida, the US military would not sit by idly.

It is a provocation, I agree. But so are military excercises on another nation's doorstep.

As far as I am concerned, I'd very much appreciate if every nation would stop taking their toys out for a spin in Eastern Europe. I'd prefer the Russians not to set up a brand sparkling new tank corps on their western border, and I'd prefer fucking NATO not to deploy hundreds of MBTs all over former Soviet territory.

That said, the sailors aboard the Cook seem to have the proper reaction: a laugh. For politicians (looking at you, Kerry!) to use this incident as an excuse to funnel more money towards the MIC was as predictable as it is despicable.

Edit: if they absolutely need to play war, Paradox is going to release HoI4 on D-Day -- you get to fight Russians for a mere 40€.

Russian SU-24's Fly Within 30 FT of US Warship

newtboy says...

I don't get why they didn't pop some smoke and jam the radar. Those planes wouldn't come anywhere near if they can't see the water and the ship.

That, and get a solid missile lock on them until they clear out.

WTF kind of provocation is this. If we did this to their ships, they would be crying that it's an act of war and we're trying to start WW3.

I really wish that one had been taken down by a frightened seagull. THAT would have been some good karma.

A brief history of America and Cuba

MilkmanDan says...

Very, very interesting -- thanks for the sift!

I'd love to see more, specifically about the US / Cuba talks and the Pope's involvement. As an atheist, I tend to think of Catholicism / the Pope / organized religion in general as generally having a primarily negative influence on world affairs (Crusades, Inquisition, birth control, anti-condoms, molestation, homophobia, etc.), but negotiating peace and better relations between the US and Cuba is a pretty undeniably positive thing.

I knew Latin American countries were highly Catholic, but I kinda figured that some of the USSR anti-religious stance would have rubbed off on Cuba. I guess maybe it did, but the missile crisis and fall of the Berlin wall / end of the cold war was long enough ago that Cuba has greater freedom to make up their own minds on this sort of thing.

Enough so that perhaps the Pope's involvement was necessary, or at least very helpful, to act as a mediator between the two sides. Props where props are due.

Anyway, all quite interesting.

Fallout 4 – Wasteland Workshop Official Trailer

Payback says...

Really underwhelmed by Automatron. Although having a 'bot that can carry 750 wt, in addition to their laser mini-gun, missile launcher, electroshock body and Mesmertron head is kinda novel.

This doesn't look any better really. Almost seems to be for people with no real life friends.

REALLY hoping Far Harbor is worth the Season's Pass.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon