US to Use Microwave Weapons On America Citizens

Those weapons are old tech. If you familiarize yourself with the capabilities of a magnetron, wich can be salvaged from a $40 microwave at Walmart, you might even build your own. You might even build your own directional radar weapons with a ferrite core and other easily obtainable materials. These weapons are already in the hands of civilians and Mexican drug cartels in Texas. They think they are using them for their own means, but they don't see the bigger picture. As in most scenarios, when you think you're in control, you are being controlled. By the time you realize it, it's too late.

If I should ever learn that the fall and resulting death of a certain individual was caused by such weapons... I'll just say that nonlethal will not be an option afforded to the perpetrators.

This will work until they use this on a actual crowd of people outside a Lab and realize it causes blindness. Way to go government. Crowds of people with blinded boiled eyeballs running around screaming. Like that's a great PR move eh?

OK so now people will be hoarding dish network dishes and tinfoil as a countermeasure.

I wonder...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

Before you try to make a constitutional argument, you should actually understand the Constitution. As I stated, and that you apparently ignore because it doesnt support your false claim, is people are not arrested for protesting. They are arrested for destruction of private property, obstrcting people from entering private buisnesses or residences. They are arrested for blocking a public right of way - City Street, etc.

The Constitution tells the Government the people can protest, regardless of what the government think s about the protest.

What the Constitution does NOT do is allow people to destroy peronal propertry or infringe on the rights of those who are not taking part in the protest while attmepting to hide behind the 1st amendment.

Which by the way, does not allow protestors to destroy anything while protesting.

Funny how that works. Go back to the drawing board for your consitutional argument, and this time, try reading the Constitution, the FEderal boy of Law, in addition to understanding the fact that at the local level, your subject to local / state laws and the State Constitution in addition to Federal.

So unless you can cite a civil rights violation by a person acting under the color of law, your federral argument is mute.

The 1st amendment does not allow for rioting, it does allow for protesting.

While your argument, independent of any real-world example, is spot on, the problem with this argument is that increasingly, it seems, the Federal government, as well as local military...er...police is changing what constitutes a riot.

For demonstrations that do get overboard (destruction of property, as well as destruction of people), these DEWs are relatively humane. The people that get burned by them are standing in the fry-zone too long. They have a narrow beam and moving side-to-side usually gets one out of it.

But at least they're developing ways to not permanently harm people. More people die by tear gas and rubber bullets (both supposedly "non-harmful" than will ever die by microwaves.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Some valid observations. To clarify though the term non lethal is used innapropriately, and usually by the media or people who dont have an adequate understanding of what it is or how it owrks. The term we use is less than lethal, because while the design and intent is as stated, less than lethal, there is still the potential for death to occur.

If people dont understand this concept imagine taking a spoon and jamming it into someones eye socket, pushing it beyond the sockett. A spoon is not considered lethal, but when used innaprpriately it can be taken as a lethal weapon.

Is like when people refor to bullet proof vest, when they are anything but. They are bullet resistant, and police have been killed while wearing a bullet resitant vest.

The intent behind the technology is to use the least amount of force neccissary when dealing with people who violate the law, in compliance with SCOTUS rulings.

Or would people prefer use of deadly force be refined and used against people? The goal of people who get out of control at protests are generally not present to actually protest in the fisrt place. They are present to act in a manner that purposely creates an encounter between the police and the protestors.

The 1st Amendment gaurantees people the right to protest, to speak their mind. It does not gaurantee a persson the ability to destroy private property, nor does it prevent the authorities from making arrests of those who do.

Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The Old American

 

If people dont understand this concept imagine taking a spoon and jamming it into someones eye socket, pushing it beyond the sockett. A spoon is not considered lethal, but when used innaprpriately it can be taken as a lethal weapon.

"Why a spoon, cousin? Why not an axe?"
"Because it's DULL, you twit. It'll hurt more!"



Sorry. I have 4 days off and I'm a bit whimsical. All true enough, though "non-lethal" is used in place of "not harmful". You can't disperse a mob without some major discomfort, either physical or mental. Adrenaline gets going and your pain threshold rises, then they have to step up the pain-givers. Then they resist more, and so on. Peaceable protests can get non-peaceable pretty quickly, unfortunately.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Again, intresting description but your missing the part where people are told to disperse prior to being pepper sprayed.

Secondly those people who are innocent and were present just to protest lawfully generally will disperse or take action to remove themselves from the affected areas.

If it were as simple as cops wading into the crowd and plucking out the trouble makers, we would do that first. However, thats not always practical, or safe.

The requirement is to balance the rights of those protesting against the rights of those who are not. Any new technology that can be developed that lowers the risk of severe injury and or death I think goes to support the argument that the government is not intent on restricing personal freedoms. It does show the government is intent on protecting individuals, including those individuals who are the reason for police inveolvement in the first place.

Guess they got their guinea pigs.

Your article is from 2008

inmate zapping

www.freedomsphoenix.com...

Inmates are lucky. They get to participate in new gadgets and sometimes even help build them.

Inmates Buils Missiles parts

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The Old American

 

Again, intresting description but your missing the part where people are told to disperse prior to being pepper sprayed.

Secondly those people who are innocent and were present just to protest lawfully generally will disperse or take action to remove themselves from the affected areas.

If it were as simple as cops wading into the crowd and plucking out the trouble makers, we would do that first. However, thats not always practical, or safe.

The requirement is to balance the rights of those protesting against the rights of those who are not. Any new technology that can be developed that lowers the risk of severe injury and or death I think goes to support the argument that the government is not intent on restricing personal freedoms. It does show the government is intent on protecting individuals, including those individuals who are the reason for police inveolvement in the first place.

I must not be stating my position clearly. Either that or no matter what I say, for against any of the points you're making, you'll say I'm missing what you're saying, rendering this debate pointless.

I firmly believe in the right of U.S. citizens to protest peaceably. I believe that anyone that doesn't protest peaceably is infringing on the rights of others. I believe that the method of dispersal in the OP, only after verbal direction has been given and ignored, is a good way to get people moving as, while not "non-harmful", is "non-lethal" in normal use.

My problem lies with the mutability of the definition of "riot" that our government and local military forces seems to have, and the abuse of dispersal techniques they use. To them, if a DEW works, tear gas works better. If tear gas works, rubber bullets work ever better than that. All the way up to clubs and live ammo. Increasingly the intermediate steps are skipped over for the final solution.

/TOA

"I love how dicsussions about non lethal weapons translates into you decalring in the title the the US is going to use those weapons. "

What in the world makes you believe they wouldn't??

Non-lethal microwave weapons to disperse crowds and possibly influence people into going home or whatever the people using the weapon want?

Sounds an awful lot like D4rk Kn1ght's post about microwaves used to instigate fear after a holographic display to get the world's citizens into doing what the governments want.

One of the really scary parts of this thread is that we actually had a Secretary of the Air Force who is STUPID enough to make a statement like this in the first place! Not the fact that we might use a device designed for "crowd control" un US Citizens, or more approprately, people protesting/"crowding" in US territiories, but we should use it on our "own" citizens" thereby making it more acceptable to citizens of other countries when we use it on them? Seriously? Isn't this the same concept as "economic justice"? And, why would the Secretary of the AIr Force be recommending what,if any, type of operations be conducted against the citizens of the United States by a branch of the armed forces of the United States? Does he want to employ nuclear weapons on us first before we use them on Iran, for instance? What kind of idiot would suggest something like that.? Apparently, FORMER Secretary Michael Wynne

I wonder if the people could fight back by taking the doors off their microwave ovens and pointing them at any attackers of said microwaves.