Should we ban the US government from doing weapons research that could neutralize civilian firearms?
This is an important question. The 2nd Amendment means that Americans can own personal firearms, and this is supposed to keep the government in check.
But technology is changing this dynamic. I studied some robotics and automated/integrated control systems in college, and we are getting to a dangerous point. Let me explain:
Traditionally, if you want to take out someone with a firearm, you have to deploy human forces. These forces can be attacked, and that’s how tyranny is stopped.
However, we are getting to the point where automated drone platforms and roaming, disguised robotics units can be used instead.
For example, when someone fires a rifle, that creates an acoustic signature, a heat signature, an even an electromagnetic signature. An automated system could use drone platforms to immediately ID and locate the location of the shot, and automatically respond with a missile, or have a robot automatically return fire with computerized accuracy.
Should we ban the US government from developing this type of technology, so that it cannot oppress its citizens?
Does anyone really want this technology in Obama’s hands?
| Print article | This entry was posted by mosotech on July 5, 2010 at 12:35 am, and is filed under Robotics Technology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
![Modern Warfare 2: The Ken Burton Show Part 50: Thermonuclear War (MW2 Gameplay/Commentary) [HD]](http://moso-technology.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-popular-posts/favicon.ico){kind=small}
about 1 year ago
Try to ban them.
about 1 year ago
give them what they want?
about 1 year ago
I don’t know. Maybe one of those things will mistake his teleprompter for a muzzle flash.
about 1 year ago
Your fear is not only unsubstantiated, it’s treasonous. I assume you thought this technology was appropriate under the worst president in US history, George Shrubya Bush. Hypocrite.
about 1 year ago
Owning a gun stops tyranny? You are going to stop a tank with your 9mm hand gun?
about 1 year ago
Yes, I do think it should be banned. We don’t need it. It’s like the matrix theory…. we have to learn where to stop the technology.
about 1 year ago
Catch up, hon. They already have the sound machines that can drop a whole crowd to its knees, so that technology was in Bush’s hands and it’s in Obama’s hands, and it will be in the next president’s hands too.
##
about 1 year ago
No. The Second Amendment doesn’t exist to keep the government in check. It exists to help Americans defend themselves at a time when the country didn’t have a standing army. It also exists to protect Americans who lived on the frontier and needed to hunt to feed their families.
I believe banning the US government from developing this kind of technology would leave our country exposed to this kind of technology. I don’t think it’s in our best interests to willfully lag behind in any area of technological innovation.
about 1 year ago
No. Rather than banning the government from keeping people safe, we should make it a point to allow people access to the same weapons the government uses.
about 1 year ago
While you are correct that this technology is being developed I do not believe it will be available before Obama is ousted. So, I am not concerned about Obama having it. Secondly, there is always going to be something new and fearsome. But it will always have some form of counter response that reduces its effectiveness. Third, how long do you think it will take before citizen militias have the same technology?
Two of my kids are currently in the army. They both expressed doubts that the army would follow Obama if it came to a civil war or serious repression. It seems that many soldiers regard their oath to the constitution as the deciding factor. Mass desertions would happen and with it would be mass transfers of technology and skill sets.
Be honest with yourself. If you were in uniform and the president told you to fire on fellow citizens, would you? If a revolution came, where would you stand? I have a lot of faith in the honor of the military personnel and believe they would take their oath to defend the people and the constitution seriously, for the most part. I think Obama or any other government leader would find themselves with a collapsing army were they to try to repress the civilians.
about 1 year ago
You are forgetting two things.
1) This technology was also under George W. Bush’s hands and will be in the hands of future presidents.
2) What makes you think any Totalitarian regime imposed on the people of the US will be unaimously supported by all political and military forces? The good guys will have that technology as well.
about 1 year ago
Obama is an Idiot, and the people that voted for him are bigger idiots. And put the sinister Dick Cheney in the same category, he made millions off of the current war with his company and their private army, while our solders are suffering, something is definitely wrong, them funds should go to our solders who fought the war are suffering now. We already seen Al Qaida take over our drones, how scary is that. Pilot-less planes are dream with alot of room for invention and error, I don’t think we can depend on drones, piloted planes are much safer in the long run, technology is getting scare, and with all the satellites there is no privacy in the US, that’s against US citizen rights
about 1 year ago
I’m among the many who believe that the government already had more than enough technology to suppress rebellions.
about 1 year ago
“Owning a gun stops tyranny? You are going to stop a tank with your 9mm hand gun?”
Tanks require infantry support to be of much use, a person can avoid the main gun without too much trouble, and the .50 machine gun needs someone to be exposed to use it.
And yes, you CAN stop a tank with a 9mm handgun. Simply take a 9mm round and place it in the barrel of the main gun. The result will not be pretty.
Oh, and to the original question, a private citizen has the right to arm himself at least to the level of a trained infantryman.
about 1 year ago
You forget one thing:
ALL of those weapons are controlled by humans.
Our military generally does not support this President (which is why he hasn’t and never will go to Afghanistan). If there was a civil war, much of the weaponry controlled by the military would be delivered to the opposition, along with the soldiers who operate it.
about 1 year ago
The drone can’t fire the missile until the bullet is already on its way to the target.
A Kevlar jacket would stop the bullet.
That technology has existed for years.
Just look at how effective the Iraqi insurgency is against the U.S. military.
An armed and determined population fighting on home territory can resist and even threaten a modern military.
We the people will always have the advantage over any intruder, foreign or domestic.
They will have to disarm us first.
Oh look, somebody already has that idea.
What a surprise.
about 1 year ago
I wasn’t aware that Obama was president during Hurricane Katrina.