Skip to main content

View Diary: Professor Droney (468 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yeah that's why police copters are weaponized (0+ / 0-)

    oh wait they are not

    •  Oh? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, gooderservice, poligirl, JesseCW

      I've seen them carrying SWAT members. Seems weaponized to me.

    •  What do you reckoen they're talking about here (0+ / 0-)

      then?

      http://abcnews.go.com/...

      Even if it's a 50cal... that's weaponized, so you're wrong.

      But it seems to be more than that.

      •  there's no way a 50 cal would take down a (0+ / 0-)

        jet liner, not in a hurry but that never says anything about arming helicopters to do it

        •  Who cares for THIS argument if a 50cal could take (0+ / 0-)

          down a jet liner...

          They intimate they have more, BUT...

          That's not this argument.

          This argument is are police helicopters currently weaponised.

          They have mounted 50cals. Ergo They are weaponised. Ergo you were wrong.

          •  the article said nothing about mounted 50cals (0+ / 0-)

            that seems to be more your assumption because the article has a picture of a helicopter

            •  From the article: (0+ / 0-)
              Neither Bloomberg nor Kelly would specify what weapons the NYPD has its disposal. Many believe New York's top cop was referring to the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle, known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
              Please, in addition to all the other shortcomings you've bene demonstrating, overcoming the glaring issue with reading comprehension you appparently possess before continuing to distract from forthright discussion here.
              •  In addition to needing a "I said good day sir" (0+ / 0-)

                Been, Overcome. Sigh.

                But yeah, I'll take my occasional typographical errors with meaning still able to be gleaned...

                ...to the inablity to exhibit even the meanest of reading comprehension skills and as such derail the conversation with a need to be corrected on a stark point of fact.

              •  lmao (0+ / 0-)

                you do understand what the word BELIEVE means right?

                Good gods remove that splinter from your eye before you criticize others

                •  It's official, you are not acting in good faith. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gharlane

                  Let me split it up for you.

                  Here's the part you chose to see

                  Neither Bloomberg nor Kelly would specify what weapons the NYPD has its disposal. Many believe New York's top cop was referring to the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle,
                  Here's the part that matters and makes you either an ignorant fool dragging down the discussion or a mendacious one actively sabotaging it.
                  the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle, known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
                  DO YOU GET IT YET?

                  The "many believe" part was their speculation on WHAT could shoot down aircraft... and ONE OPTION WAS:

                  the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle,
                  WHICH WAS:
                  known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
                  DO YOU GET IT YET?
                  known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
                  ?
    •  Retraction and apology please if you were ever (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      arguing in good faith.

       I highly doubt you'll see weaponized drones (1+ / 0-)

      over US airspace anytime soon, there's no way the people in general would tolerate it

       yeah that's why police copters are weaponized (0+ / 0-)

      oh wait they are not

      Having proven that helicopters are currently weaponized... and not seeing a lot of "people not tolerating that"

      Please concede your argument was fundamentally flawed and those you were snidely dismissing had a point.

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        I disagree that mounting a Riffle to a helicopter (if that's even what they did because that sounds really strange) is weaponizing a helicopter in the way I was talking about. Because I clearly was talking about missiles being mounted to drones and used on US territoriality.

        Thus I offer no complete retraction though if and I repeat if the Barrett is actually mounted to the helicopter instead of being carried by a human I'll concede that you would technically have a point. However as that's still not weaponization as I was talking about it, I still 'snidely' dismiss the pure tin foil hat paranoia about drones.

        I do willing admit I read your article wrong though see above about my reservations from a technical standpoint that it is actually mounted to the copter. That's the best you're going to get.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (116)
  • Community (57)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (32)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (22)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site