Think about it.

POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I have.

Like I said. I don't condone what either side is doing.

But of you use a military aircraft aggressively as weapons against civilians you are an idiot if you don't think those civilians will at some point respond accordingly and aggressively.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Science!

Also there is this:

Pilots can and do wear eye protection against laser attacks, using specialized eyewear that blocks dangerous laser light while maintaining visibility for flying. These glasses are a standard procedure for many military and some civilian pilots, especially during critical phases of flight like takeoff and landing, and are designed to protect against the bright, distracting effects of high-powered lasers.

It's not like they are defenseless against laser attacks.

Science!

Bars in South Carolina used to be Gun Free Zones.

Republicans changed that, to make bars safer.

#2 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Even in the town sheriffs of the "Wild West" knew better.

Are those helicopters a threat to life, limb, or eyesight?

One just crashed near a beach in Huntington Ca.

If one had crashed into that apt building in the middle of the night a lot of people could have died.

Helicopters can be extremely dangerous.

Game and Fish have used Blackhawks and Drones for years to monitor poaching. And they will swoop in and arrest you.

Do you take issue with that?

#34 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I do not take issue with using whatever resources you need to catch criminals. I do, however, take issue with using military equipment and tactics against innocent civilians.

The innocent mothers and children in that apartment building who were dragged out of their homes separated from their families and zip tied naked and tossed into a van had committed no crimes.

When USans start targeting US government personnel, those personnel have the legal right to respond.

POSTED BY MADBOMBER

When the federal government targets innocent Americans using lethal force and attack aircraft do they not also have a right to respond accordingly?

U.S. federal agents have used Black Hawk helicopters and other military-style tactics during immigration enforcement operations in civilian areas, leading to accusations of treating cities like "war zones". Critics describe these actions as using intimidation and fear against the public.

If you want to create an atmosphere of war and fear in American cities then that's what you will get.

You idiots probably don't understand it, but that's an anti-aircraft weapon.

Call 1800- Whaaa!

Every action has an equal an opposite reaction.

Maybe stop using these aircraft as weapons against civilians?

While I am not condoning any of it if you are using helicopters against civilian populations as an "aircraft weapon" you should fully expect expect those civilians to eventually come up with an anti-aircraft weapon.

A typical Pam Blondi "note".

"No matter what question Shifty Shiff asks, respond with:"

"What about the fires in California, do you care about that, Senator Schiff?"

When Schiff criticized the Justice Department for acting as President Trump's "personal sword and shield" and pointed out that prosecutors had been fired for investigating Trump, Bondi responded, "What about the fires in California, do you care about that, Sen. Schiff?".

Christopher Hitchen's dead.

No no no no he's outside, looking in.

I thought we'd all agreed to disagree on the religion stuff.

#17 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD

Only if you agree that Christ is Lord and there is only one true God. The Christian God. And He rules America like He rules the Universe.

THEN we can all agree to "agree to disagree" on whatever else you want.

It's about time.

I am impressed that Trumpy is not be being all braggadocious about it and trying to take credit for it like it was suddenly all his idea.