Nope! If other nations can do it so can the US. They might be more localized and subtle or maybe they can track traffic on the internet well enough that they would prefer not to.
But it’s not the norm. Power goes out, internet goes out. It’s as likely that too many people using a network can overwhelm it if people protesting are trying to livestream and post a lot
Instead of mandatory military service have mandatory conservation service?
It also works for zippos, chapstick, airpods, pocket watches, meshtastic nodes, hand warmers, dime bags and condoms!
They don’t ride bikes and they don’t see many people riding them for practical uses (work, shopping etc) so for them it’s hard to sell the idea of bike infrastructure (that they think is for mainly recreational riders) making their commute slower and taking up tax money that could be used on other projects.
I get how this is flawed thinking and I want more pedestrian and bike friendly areas, but that is their perspective.
For the vast majority of people that conceal carry a gun, the goal is still to be peaceful and avoid trouble. They want to live life as they normally would just with that extra training and capability. Some do it for personal reasons (stalkers, violent exes and so on) or because their area is generally sketchy. Sometimes it’s just a preference. You usually don’t hear about them because on average they are responsible.
Open carry has a place, like on hikes in the woods for example. But people who open carry in public areas like restaurants are trying to make a statement. To everyone around them the vibe is “don’t mess with me…or else”. It draws tons of attention. People may take photos or alert security/police. And any bad actor knows exactly who to surprise and take out first. That’s why it is generally deemed as a bad idea and counterproductive
Gotta start somewhere, we were all inexperienced once. But yeah this is a case where you should take your time and learn what you’re doing
Right a big selling point for digital was the ability to make a ton of copies and not have to physically store it in a file cabinet or something
Back in the day there was a fire where they stored military records and a ton of “permenant” records went up in smoke
Really you need the ability to have both in case one fails
I agree and I do the same! Like others have said this is for someone who might have just learned the 4 safety rules for the first time and I didn’t want to dive into that just yet
It’s annoying but I take it as a sign that it’s working and marketing money is being wasted on me
Some people think it goes to nukes immediately. I don’t think so. It will stay sidelined like chemical weapons that were used in WW1 but avoided and unused in WW2.
The US does not have the industrial capability that it once had and has struggled with manufacturing of electronic components. Now maybe that can be changed, but maybe not fast enough to matter. But as far as current capability they got combat experience and are the only nation that has proven ability to project military power worldwide. As long as logistics keep up they can kick serious ass.
China makes a ton of stuff already, and that would make a hell of a wartime production rate that can scale too. Their military is untested, but large, new and growing. They are the gorilla in the room. Hell they might think Russia is the easier fish to fry and take them on first.
But there’s also the chance of everything falling apart where most nations desintigrate into a long term state of fracture with infighting and homeland problems overriding any possibility of winning a global fight, and therefore preventing a large world war like we’ve seen in the past. Rand calls it neomedievalism
This is one of the cooler websites I’ve found over the years
The best thing to do right now is to work with others and help build your local community so you have people and resources in case of hardship or emergency. Build and grow things. Be peaceful but have a plan if trouble comes to you.
And you suspect DDG first and not the social media company known for spying on everyone?
Ice isn’t so bad unless you step on smooth rocks
Humans: Lets make EVERYTHING like smooth rock!
For real. 2016 was a whole decade ago! Imagine the gear and skills they could have developed!
I think a lot of people consider it overkill or just a conservative thing. But no it’s for everyone! Just like you don’t need to be a “car person” to use a car or a “tech person” to use a phone, you don’t need to be a “gun person” to have adequate equipment and skills. And just because you have the option to use guns doesn’t mean peaceful change isn’t an option
But just like you can’t expect others to speak or protest on your behalf you can’t just say “everyone else with guns should do something”
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t like how this situation went down.
But I know it’s going to spark a ton of debate on use of force and potential reforms to it’s use. With that in mind it helps if you know what the way it’s supposed to work from a legal perspective. So here’s some basic stuff I found. In this case the person shot being in a vehicle complicates this a bit compared to a face to face encounter.
I might make this a separate YSK post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-force-continuum-and-how-is-it-used/
If you’re an American citizen than you (yes you) have gun rights too. If you feel the need to step up, by all means
Gun rights are rights of ALL American citizens.
If you feel the need to arm yourself, train, and protect what means the most to you by all means do it! It is your right to do so. The same info and equipment is available if you want it.
But like how freedom of religion doesn’t mean everyone is religious, many people opt to not to use that right. And like people in different religions, the people using that same right can differ vastly from one another on beliefs and motivations.
Some people take up guns for fun and competition and nothing else. Others to defend themselves from crime or other personal harm. And some have guns for added community resilience if government cannot/will not help. Like major disasters, civil unrest etc. It can be all the above too.
Gun owners are not a simple neat group or a political party. One can’t control what another does or what tolerances they have any more than you can control what another person says when they use free speech. And following that line of thought, you cannot force someone to use their rights in the way you would prefer.
When it comes to domestic use america’s military is finding themselves in a bind. I don’t think we’ve seen a president that has pushed so hard for military use in relative peacetime. It’s coming into more and more conflict with how the military has been trained and the principles they are held to. I think that internally the military is taking a hard look at what they can and should do about this.
They all took oaths. Enlisted members say this
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Those regulations include the laws of war. All military members get yearly training on this. What is and isn’t a combatant, what is and isn’t a lawful order etc. This includes a duty and obligation to disobey illegal orders, but usually the process is to get clarification from one of their officers. An officer’s oath of enlistment looks like this.
"I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. "
Note there is not a President mentioned there. The enlisted have a duty and obligation to disobey illegal orders, but officers play a key role in leading those units, and they have even greater obligations to their units legally. Enlisted members rejecting an order from some officer is one thing. Officers, or many officers rejecting an order is another.
I think what we are seeing is a careful balancing act. The military is going where they are told to go, but maybe not sending as many or being as aggressive as they administration would like. Stay involved enough to not be outright fired or replaced but try to hit the brakes on this mess and internally pushing back.
deleted by creator