Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: 1984...?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,501

    Re: 1984...?



    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Assuming they do a database pull on every Texan with a ccw license, which is possible, and they compare that list to every driver's license in Texas, which is also possible...then yes, they could know who you are, where you live, what you drive, and what you look like.
    Ok. But if some donk on the other end of a drone and they zoom in on me with their gun carrying abilities, they still don't know who I am. At that point (and until I get into my car, my home, etc) I am just a face on a screen.

    So if I am grabbing a Starbucks and HPD taps me on the shoulder wanting to see my gun and / or CHL, I'll know they had zero probable cause.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,844
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post

    It does not equal that, but it's usually a good shot. The Breitbart link, links to a partially redacted report that says they can monitor cell phone signals.

    I would assume they could get the account info if they really wanted it. But do I think they are doing that? No, could they? I don't see how they couldn't.
    Well, there is a difference (imo) of monitoring vs capturing.

    Monitoring would imply real time listening in on conversations. I think drones with that type of technology (which has been on aircraft for quite some time), then it would basically be capturing cell phone conversations and it would be a lot of conversations all at once...not just one in particular. The only way they could do that is by tapping into a specific cell tower, which is supposed to be "illegal".

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,501

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    It does not equal that, but it's usually a good shot. The Breitbart link, links to a partially redacted report that says they can monitor cell phone signals.

    I would assume they could get the account info if they really wanted it. But do I think they are doing that? No, could they? I don't see how they couldn't.
    Of course they "could". They could get a warrant issued for my account info.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,844
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post

    Ok. But if some donk on the other end of a drone and they zoom in on my with their gun carrying abilities, they still don't know who I am. At that point (and until I get into my car, my home, etc) I am just a face on a screen.
    I think you misunderstood me.

    If you were approached by Houston PD to check and see if you were "properly" complying with ccw laws and you thought that it was a drone that spotted you and tipped you off, they could just easily say your nuts and and all they did was what I suggested.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,844
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post

    Okay, we're getting pretty hypothetical, but if someone comes up to me and asked me to see my weapon - For what reason?
    Whatever they wanted.

    why would they care if a law abiding citizen was carrying if it is in a state that allows ccw?

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,501

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I think you misunderstood me.

    If you were approached by Houston PD to check and see if you were "properly" complying with ccw laws and you thought that it was a drone that spotted you and tipped you off, they could just easily say your nuts and and all they did was what I suggested
    They still have to tell you why they are stopping you.

    They don't know you're a CHL holder just by looks and they cannot randomly approach you, even if they know you're a CHL holder, and ask to see your license / weapon. They have to have probable cause.

    So no, given the scenario you presented, they still don't have a means to identify you unless they approach you.

    So again, if I am out and about, no identifiers around me (such as my car, home, etc) and the police decide they want to see me gun, that leaves very little doubt about how they discovered I was carrying, thus breaking the 5th Amendment.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    8,266

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Monitoring my cell phone does not equal knowing the account holders info. The cellular providers have done an excellent job at keeping that info to themselves.

    And I am not aware of a drone that's been made that can do both.
    It wouldn't be from the cell provider that they get your info from.

    In 2005 while stationed at Davis Monthan we had an Airman go AWOL. I was apart of the Community Action Recall Team (CART) that was trying to locate him. We believed he may be suicidal. He had a second cell phone which wasn't listed and no one in his unit knew about. We were able to track mutilpe cell signals in a certain location we were sure he may be located. Sure enough one signal was registered to him. We identified it because his social was associated with the account. We never went through the cell phone provider. That was 8 years ago. Imagine what we can do today.




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Whatever they wanted.

    why would they care if a law abiding citizen was carrying if it is in a state that allows ccw?

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    I'm not saying they do.

    The overall point is you have politicians in Missouri introduce bills saying citizens turn in your guns, you have 90 days and if you don't you're a felon. Now that bill went nowhere, but the point is you have law makers and a small group of citizens supporting them trying to disarm every citizen totally, and some of just specific weapons, for now.

    Next you'll have a shooting where a revolver is used and Piers Morgan and lawmakers of the like will be saying, why does any American need a revolver? The same type of lawmakers with a growing number of useful idiots agree and then it's turn them over on and on and on it goes.

    With the same types of people wanting to ban guns having control of laws for drones, and the POTUS and AG saying they could be used on Americans (albeit "under extreme circumstances") just makes people uncomfortable.

    The point of the thread was it's a very slippery slope, if it's okay to do this (use drones to see who has a gun on them) than where does it end? We're slowly but surely losing freedom by freedom "in the name of safety" but no one cares because it's happening too slowly to notice, just like live frog getting comfy in the warm water and by the time he realizes it's boiling, it's too late..

    The CCW was just an example that got us sidetracked.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,501

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I'm not saying they do.

    The overall point is you have politicians in Missouri introduce bills saying citizens turn in your guns, you have 90 days and if you don't you're a felon. Now that bill went nowhere, but the point is you have law makers and a small group of citizens supporting them trying to disarm every citizen totally, and some of just specific weapons, for now.

    Next you'll have a shooting where a revolver is used and Piers Morgan and lawmakers of the like will be saying, why does any American need a revolver? The same type of lawmakers with a growing number of useful idiots agree and then it's turn them over on and on and on it goes.

    With the same types of people wanting to ban guns having control of laws for drones, and the POTUS and AG saying they could be used on Americans (albeit "under extreme circumstances") just makes people uncomfortable.

    The point of the thread was it's a very slippery slope, if it's okay to do this (use drones to see who has a gun on them) than where does it end? We're slowly but surely losing freedom by freedom "in the name of safety" but no one cares because it's happening too slowly to notice, just like live frog getting comfy in the warm water and by the time he realizes it's boiling, it's too late..

    The CCW was just an example that got us sidetracked.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,844
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post

    I'm not saying they do.

    The overall point is you have politicians in Missouri introduce bills saying citizens turn in your guns, you have 90 days and if you don't you're a felon. Now that bill went nowhere, but the point is you have law makers and a small group of citizens supporting them trying to disarm every citizen totally, and some of just specific weapons, for now.

    Next you'll have a shooting where a revolver is used and Piers Morgan and lawmakers of the like will be saying, why does any American need a revolver? The same type of lawmakers with a growing number of useful idiots agree and then it's turn them over on and on and on it goes.

    With the same types of people wanting to ban guns having control of laws for drones, and the POTUS and AG saying they could be used on Americans (albeit "under extreme circumstances") just makes people uncomfortable.

    The point of the thread was it's a very slippery slope, if it's okay to do this (use drones to see who has a gun on them) than where does it end? We're slowly but surely losing freedom by freedom "in the name of safety" but no one cares because it's happening too slowly to notice, just like live frog getting comfy in the warm water and by the time he realizes it's boiling, it's too late..

    The CCW was just an example that got us sidetracked.
    I dont disagree with anything you've written at all. I own guns.

    I was just pointing out the fact that just because someone claims drones can and are doing this wont mean much in the grand scheme of things because - in a court of law - you and I would never be able to prove otherwise due to a lot of drone technology and missions are highly classified. In a sense, highly classified things related to the government are kind of above the law because by the time it is introduced for declassification we will all be very old men.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I dont disagree with anything you've written at all. I own guns.

    I was just pointing out the fact that just because someone claims drones can and are doing this wont mean much in the grand scheme of things because - in a court of law - you and I would never be able to prove otherwise due to a lot of drone technology and missions are highly classified. In a sense, highly classified things related to the government are kind of above the law because by the time it is introduced for declassification we will all be very old men.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    And I don't disagree with that either.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,501

    Re: 1984...?

    Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, has now stepped in for a question and is backing up Sen Paul so technically, Rand is still going.

    As long as Sen Paul doesn't actually sit down, he has the floor and can continue to speak once Sen Wyden is done.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: 1984...?

    Not sure how long you've been watching, did you see Cruz talk about Holder? That was great.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,501

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Not sure how long you've been watching, did you see Cruz talk about Holder? That was great.
    I missed it. Been tuning in when work gets slow.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: 1984...?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I missed it. Been tuning in when work gets slow.
    Same here. I missed most of Wyden...
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland