New defense idea (LRAD)


(adam ulbrich) #1

I think this would be a good tool to use. The LRAD has good defense capabilities.


(Larry G) #2

The LRAD is a choice for people who are denied anything better by the oppressive laws of their own nation. It’s like pepper spray. Somewhat better than nothing when you’re not allowed to have what you need. It’s a tool you can have in your tool box, but ilike using a butter knife instead of a screwdriver. It’s less effective and doesn’t always work.

It is not something I would want to rely on.


(adam ulbrich) #3

well i brought up the idea of a small militia and people said that wasn’t a good idea so i was trying to think of something new.


(Larry G) #4

A couple people said that. Don’t let the naysayers get you down. Don’t let a lil criticism stop you :sunglasses:


(adam ulbrich) #5

k thank you! i thought you didn’t like it though? never mind its just there were so many i got confused.


#6

IMHO, physical security by controlling who enters is the first step. Having a manned double-lock entry system will eliminate a chunk of the potential problems. Having to get through security will stop the greatest majority of problems. Like those currently employed at US courthouses. Not so invasive as TSA, but a good airport scanner for bags, metals off and passing visual inspection, plus a metal detector…


#7

true but ultimately, if someone or some group wants in, they will find a way. The most effective physical security is a willing body standing watch. Therefore what a stead would need is a security force with limited powers of arrest (depending on what governance/legal freedoms enacted) with a physical denial or entry point. However unless you’re planning to totally seal off the stead even that wouldn’t really work. So a combination of warm bodies, surveillance (cameras, sensors), offshore deterrence (unarmed Remote piloted sea/air vehicles) and robust legal framework (if you are caught attempting illegal entry to do illegal things, you will spend some time in a jail somewhere) would work.


#8

Allow anyone who wants to defend themselves, defend themselves, it is just that simple.

Instead of having the TSA at airports let the passengers who want to be armed. That would effectively end the hijacking threat.

People need to take responsibility for themselves, not give it to someone else.


#9

Only in a consensus formed militia would that be a good idea. In an enclosed environment, adding weapons without accountability is a recipe for disaster.


(Larry G) #10

Your thought as expressed seems incomplete. It appears you are saying “without accountability to a central authority”.

But persons, armed or not, may be accountable to each other. Indeed, the higher the cost of offending, the more accountable people hold each other. “An armed society is a polite society.” You’ll rarely see such an overtly polite group of people as you’ll find at organized shooting events and firing ranges.

Unfortunately, you also see too much careless and inconsiderate behavior, but rarely deliberate offense.


#11

That armed society you speak of, is guaranteed by the state/central authority. It wouldn’t exist without controls in place physical or legislative. Ranges still have to be declared to law enforcement, events have to be flagged etc to, you guessed it, a central authority. Think about those few times where said central authority has be ignored, I believe that’s ATF has its own SWAT.


(Larry G) #12

Having planned and executed a number of said events, I must point out you seem to have the wrong impression. Not all ranges are “official” (not by a long shot). Most events are planned and executed without any formal notice to law enforcement or licensing agencies.

The armed society stands in counterbalance to and under considerable on-going threat from central authority. Authority doesn’t like to share power. By no means is that particular civil right clearly guaranteed wholly or in the majority by central authority. It is at least partly maintained by distributed force, the customs of common law or civil society (as opposed to de jure “statutory law” systems) and division of authority (federalism).


#13

which is still backed up and/or enforced by a centralized authority. Lets make no bones about it. If a central authority wants to limit ‘armed citizenry’ it can. it chooses not to because the work/reward delta makes it not worth it. My premise is this - to have an armed citizenry, you still need a central authority ala contemporary govt and/or each citizen signs up to a common enforceable charter which gives them certain responsibilities. the only issue with that system is, you still need leadership/management which will then turn into centralized authority. there’s no getting around it.


(Bob LLewellyn) #14

It really doesn’t need to be too complicated as all that. Plant kelp and algae beds all around your village so all boats would need to come in through limited open areas. At the port of entry, we have a guard. The need for any central authority is very limited. A computer can take care of most of the work.

A police department is full of armed people who hate everyone but they get along with themselves. I’m having to go with Larry on this one. I don’t have a problem with centralized office of management, at least on a small bases, but I don’t see an absolute need for one. The internet isn’t centralized.


#15

web domains are handed registered through a central authority which is controlled by the U.S, so yes it’s centralized. your example of a police department is based around a certain set of rules (the law plus police procedure and rules) and is still controlled by a head, who in turn is controlled by a governing body, so again centralized. Even isolated tribes have been shown to have a centralized authority which governs the day to day practices of said tribe.