E-Mail 'The Survivalist's Odds 'n Sods:' To A Friend

10 Comments

1. Well , there is the American Revolution, probably unfamiliar to most American kids today if they attend public schools. Farmers, shop keepers, stable boys fought the mightiest military (navy, too) in the world. Didn’t win too many battles, but dragged the expensive war on for seven years. It costs a lot of money to fight a war 3,000 miles from home. I suspect it wouldn’t have lasted nearly that long had the Lords in Parliament lived over here.

   The Afghans have no satellites, aircraft carriers, submarines, national laboratories in which to develop new weapons, any species of medical care by our definition. Hell, they don’t even shoes much of the time. But they have rifles.

   “Political power flows from the barrel of a rifle.” Mao Tse Tung

   1. Worth mentioning that rifles had little to do with the US casualties in Afghanistan. Most damage was done by IED`s constructed from old Soviet shells. Point remains valid, but honestly, the 82nd Airborne does not care about your .30-.30.

      1. Docosc, this is the same US military which hasn’t won a war in 73 years.

         Never forget retired career Army officer Bill Buppert’s Law of Military Topography: “Mountainous terrain held by riflemen who know what they are about cannot be militarily defeated”.

2. Again I will be the odd man out. But I see no problem with law enforcement using facial recognition. If it allows them to get more dangerous people off the street I’m all for it.

   1. Doxing ICE? Good.

      I see no problem with Americans keeping detailed records of all the known associations, locations, habits, pictures, and any other facts we deem desirable to record about federal, state, and local dot guv employees, especially police!!! Zero problems, at all. Who do you think is going to be taking the guns and putting you on rail cars, the tooth fairy? Well?

      My only concern is that it’s the leftists who are enterprising enough to do this while the right slumbers on. Sleep well.

3. Anon, the problem that I have with facial recognition is the same I have with father in cell phone data and license plate readers… it’s becoming common practice to aggregate the data and comb over it to look for patterns. Ostensibly this then used to find evidence of criminal activity, however it can be used for so much more. Take, for example, the way that Facebook figures out your political leanings. Even if you join no groups, don’t post, and rarely browse. You only use it for its messenger features… based off of your friends and their activities it can extrapolate a good deal of info about you. Now, what is to stop someone from. building a list of gun owners or local preppers based off of their comings and goings from various stores? Or doing something more nefarious? Targeting people based on religion perhaps? I’m not a fan of giving the government any more power than it already has, and information is power.

   1. You are correct this can be misused and we have seen the government misuse a lot of their power and authority over us. So you are opposed to it’s misuse. But if fear of that misuse keeps the police from using facial recognition it will not keep everyone else in the world from using it and likely misusing it. So all that will be accomplished is the police loose an effective tool to identify criminals and other wanted people.

      Perhaps what you want, than, is to stop everyone from using facial recognition. Pass a law stopping any person, any corporation anyone at all from using it. Can you??? My gut tells me that you cannot. If we stopped big IT/internet companies from using any form of facial recognition I suspect that the ninth circuit court would overturn it. So in the end we will have facial recognition but it can’t be used to keep us safe. Is this a great country or what?

4. The problem has been, and always will be, the uncontested use of power in any form, by any individual, group, or government. To STAND is sometimes difficult, dangerous and may even deadly, but to surrender, is to die without honor.

5. Docosc, the 82nd may not care about my 30-30 or your 30-30 but if there are 30,000 30-30’s they’re gonna start to notice or a 130,000 or 1,300,000. Never underestimate an entrenched indigenous force with a will to resist.

6. “At a minimum, the law should be changed to permit the recordings of meetings if at least one participant knows it is being recorded.”

   This is already the case in many states. In some it requires the knowledge of both parties, in others only one party and in some it’s best to get all parties consent in writing. It’s state by state.

Comments are closed.