Are robot-mounted machine guns headed towards the battlefields of the world?

[SixFoot]

@conan

Maybe drop off explosive device.

Dallas PD once used a robot to carry an IED over to a suspect and blew him up Mid-Eazy style.

[conan]

Perfect…

[fallenturtle]

@SixFoot

@fallenturtle

where the military has access to weapons that make it such that the civilian population would never stand a chance should they need to fight the government with force.

The US military would decimate you.

[fallenturtle]

@e7alr

Never heard of a robot dog being against the law either.

Robot dogs don’t have the right to bare arms.

[fallenturtle]

@conan

@fallenturtle

Like we’re already at the point that civilians aren’t allowed access to any and all military grade weapons, despite the militia clause, and were very close to the point, if not past it, where the military has access to weapons that make it such that the civilian population would never stand a chance should they need to fight the government with force.

Prepping the battle field to claim guns are obsolete?

If you’d been paying attention to what I posted, you’d note I said advances in military weapons tech wouldn’t negate the self-defense justification for the 2A.

also it wouldn’t be all that hard to take one of em out IMO.

Well thank goodness there’s only one.

[fallenturtle]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@conan

No…robodog.

Oh, okay

You may be correct now, but let’s talk about it again 10 years hence. There may have been an improvement or two.

This seems to always be how these discussions around here go. They refuse to discuss how the 2A will apply to future weapons and act like weapons tech is never going to beyond the point it is now. I mean, I understand why. It inevitably leads to having to admit that perhaps there are limits to what weapons should allow civilians to own. They already twist themselves in pretzels trying to claim that the 2A doesn’t cover handheld grenade launchers.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@fallenturtle

@e7alr

Never heard of a robot dog being against the law either.

Robot dogs don’t have the right to bare arms.

Well, that’s the thing: in order for civies to have gun robot dogs, the robots don’t bear the arm, they are the arm.

So consider the vast amount of virtual ink spilled here over the years explaining how you civilian can’t have, for example, an artillery piece.

The rhetorical pretzel-work to maintain that restriction, while allowing Robot gun dogs will be epic.

[e7alr]

@LeroyBrown

@e7alr

Too cute, there is a difference between garrison OPSEC, which your certificate represents and Battlefield OPSEC and Tactical Deception, which your very pretty certificate does not represent. But again, you are too helpless, inexperienced, or untrained to know the difference.

And you’ve never bought a home in your name, never paid property taxes in your name, never filed for a corporation in your name, etc.

That’s just stuff any old person can dig around and track you down with. Keeping our government from taking a citizen out would also mean they never got a RealID, Passport, well, we could go on but you know this since you have your big boy pants. This is the situation bigestal99 was referring to.

My skill set is different from yours. And if aware of the threat I would use every one of those skills.

[SixFoot]

@fallenturtle

The US military would decimate you.

Spoken like a fanboy with no clue.

[conan]

@fallenturtle

If you’d been paying attention to what I posted, you’d note I said advances in military weapons tech wouldn’t negate the self-defense justification for the 2A.

also it wouldn’t be all that hard to take one of em out IMO.

That’s not what you said.

@fallenturtle

I think there will be a interesting point in the future where military weapons tech has evolved to a point where the idea that the 2nd Amendment exists for any purpose beyond self-defense is moot. Like we’re already at the point that civilians aren’t allowed access to any and all military grade weapons, despite the militia clause, and were very close to the point, if not past it, where the military has access to weapons that make it such that the civilian population would never stand a chance should they need to fight the government with force.

[conan]

He seems excited.

[SixFoot]

I too had silly misconceptions about the most advanced military in known human history, back before I knew better. And this was pre-queerification.

[Bill.in.PA]

It is unlikely that the Russian military would show the newest version. If video is real, it may show an early demo version.

The video may be in response to reports such as these about a western version of a similar weapon.

The Army testing its New Robot Dogs with Super gun Mounted On Their Backs

They’re putting guns on robot dogs now

[fallenturtle]

@SixFoot

@fallenturtle

The US military would decimate you.

Spoken like a fanboy with no clue.

I don’t know what you think I’m a fanboy of, but I don’t need a clue to know if the military wanted to take any US citizen out they could (extra-judicially, of course).

[SixFoot]

METT-TC dependent, but what would you know?

[fallenturtle]

@conan

@fallenturtle

If you’d been paying attention to what I posted, you’d note I said advances in military weapons tech wouldn’t negate the self-defense justification for the 2A.

also it wouldn’t be all that hard to take one of em out IMO.

That’s not what you said.

@fallenturtle

I think there will be a interesting point in the future where military weapons tech has evolved to a point where the idea that the 2nd Amendment exists for any purpose beyond self-defense is moot. Like we’re already at the point that civilians aren’t allowed access to any and all military grade weapons, despite the militia clause, and were very close to the point, if not past it, where the military has access to weapons that make it such that the civilian population would never stand a chance should they need to fight the government with force.

“I think there will be a interesting point in the future where military weapons tech has evolved to a point where the idea that the 2nd Amendment exists for any purpose beyond self-defense is moot”

What do you think “beyond self-defense” means?

[GWH]

Caused me to google black mirror, found out it’s on Netflix and can’t believe I haven’t already binge watched it.

[fallenturtle]

@SixFoot

METT-TC dependent, but what would you know?

I know that if you were to raise arms against the US military they could destroy you. It doesn’t matter how much of a badass you think yourself.

[SixFoot]

“If YoU rAiSe ArMs AgAiNsT tHe Us MiLiTaRy!1!”

[biggestal99]

@fallenturtle

I don’t know what you think I’m a fanboy of, but I don’t need a clue to know if the military wanted to take any US citizen out they could (extra-judicially, of course).

just look what they did to al-awlaki, a citizen and in a foreign country.

death to all terrorists.

Allan