Infographic - Are Guns And Ammo The New Gold?

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:18 | 2005132 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

No. But that did invent the Internet. "My God! Everyone is using it! And they tell people who they killed that day on it!" Thank God someone is in charge of that thing.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:59 | 2005445 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

does that "kevlar underwear" also "protect the nads" of those using their cases of depleted uranium tipped-weaponry as seating when riding in their military machines?

thought not.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:56 | 2005267 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Just use standard Level III body armor with chicken pot pie inserts.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 18:13 | 2005494 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

not sure why most here continue to ignore the biowarfare side of the MIC, given that it's advancing to doomsday status pretty rapidly.

If a no-kidding battle were to break out between an armed town of civilians and the military

IF a small town were under siege by "the military" you can rest assured a few passes from a low flying aircraft spraying whatever toxic soup they wanted to "observe the results" of, like the good little sociopaths they are, would sort said town of "resisters" out with relatively little effort or expense on their part.

remember "saddam and the kurds"?  since then every NATO country is aerosoled, daily.  that's pretty amazing coverage, with ZERO mention by most, be it govt. or "news" etc. - it's left to the blogs to report these things, individuals who observe, and want answers.

with the latest "bird flu plague" discovery by the freak who also specialised in HIV research - do the math folks!  that's what you love, the maths, right?

Sun, 12/25/2011 - 21:34 | 2010877 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Right. We're winning in Afghanistan with germ warfare. Oh. wait a minute, we're not. But it's more likely that the US would use germ warfare in the US because then the troops could know that they're indiscriminately killing Americans including their friends and family. Oh wait, that doesn't seem to follow either.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 15:35 | 2004963 jekyll island
jekyll island's picture

ORI,

Give me a break with the DARPA shit.  That is a black hole where dollars go to die, all the military advances come from the large defense contractors who have Generals on their payroll and engineers that actually design and produce a product.  My God, you think a marginalized Army thinktank that dreams up fairy tales actually produces cutting edge deployable technology?  Please stick to something you understand.  

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:20 | 2005141 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

It's called "http". The "p" stands for protocol.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:00 | 2005282 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee, OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA (born 8 June 1955[1]), also known as "TimBL", is a British computer scientist, MIT professor and the inventor of the World Wide Web. He made a proposal for an information management system in March 1989[2] and on 25 December 1990, with the help of Robert Cailliau and a young student at CERN, he implemented the first successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the Internet.[3]

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 22:24 | 2006151 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

he created a "protocol"--one which everyone now uses. Tell me something...what does the word "protocol" mean? I define it as "a military term for addressing one's superior." In other words "i just don't go up to the guy with all that shiny stuff and say what's up brother." I speak to the General with "an appropriate greeting...one connoting respect." For example "i salute him." I would regard such a thing as a "protocol" as a universal form of communication (we all are using it here of course) as potentially very important and potentially dangerous--for example "there is a lack of protocol in Mr. Berners-Lee protocol." So while i agree "he made a proposal for an information management system in march 1989" your only reference is to a government organization called CERN. Interestingly I heard he had created this "protocol" because he enjoyed computer games and wanted to create a system whereby "gamers" could communicate with each other. He probably "didn't even know what he was doing when he did it" when he invented it. I could be wrong of course. More importantly YOU have invented the World Wide Web my friend. I am not joking either when i say "keep participating." People talking to each other is the first step towards conflict resolution.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:30 | 2005184 pupton
pupton's picture

I am quite familiar with:

http://www.darpa.mil/

and in particular:

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Programs/Integrated_Sensor_is_Structure_(ISIS).aspx

The shit they are working on would blow your mind.

They are developing technologies that seem on the surface to be impossible, but could add tremendously to military capability.  Of course, most ideas never make it past the embryonic/seedling phase, but some are successful.  These projects are not just a "black hole" for money.  Where do you guys think the "internet" was developed?  (Hint: it wasn't Al Gore's basement) Stealth?  And probably lots of stuff we don't even know about yet...I'd say the Military gets more bang for their buck out of DARPA than almost anything else when you look at the capabilities they have achieved.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:45 | 2005236 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Part of my resume: Director Of Technology Strategy for United Tecnologies (UTX). If you know who they are...

I might have forgotten more than you'll ever know about DARPA programs and high technology in general.

ori

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 18:44 | 2005620 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

ORI is not stupid.

He's just urban.

In his culture, from what he can see -- it makes sense to say "The feds will always have overwhelmingly better weapons than the people do."

Come to the New World, ORI.

 

 

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 16:40 | 2008180 Frankie Carbone
Frankie Carbone's picture

 

Old Regional Indian says: Dude, just google G20 protest, microwave crowd control.

 

Or just google Darpa Microwave beam Weapon+crowd control

Educate yourself.

 

 

I have a Master's in Engineer and expertise in electromagnetics. This weapon is easy to defeat. 

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 16:59 | 2008228 KK Tipton
KK Tipton's picture

Francis: "I have a Master's in Engineer and expertise in electromagnetics. This weapon is easy to defeat."

Morpheus: "Show Me"

Spell it out then. Links. Whatever.
While you are at it.....how do you hide from thermal cams?
What material is used?

 

 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 21:08 | 2006004 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

People still hold those weapons and joysticks.  Those people can still bleed out.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 14:37 | 2004689 fightthepower
fightthepower's picture

Sincerely,

 

Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 14:43 | 2004714 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

"Guns make you stupid, not safe. They give you a false sense of power. To beat the real threat, you have to think waaaaay outside the box."

As an individual defense against a military or swat team coming after you, civilian weapons will be useless. But armed with the element of surprise and prior planning they can go a long way toward upsetting an already unstable federal apple cart, especially if one or more attackers are smart enough to bypass the police and military and focus on the real targets.

 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 14:57 | 2004794 lemonobrien
lemonobrien's picture

dude, the military has whole complexes under -ground; nuclear weapons, and drones to kill you from the sky. 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:09 | 2005315 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If you were in the military and were ordered to attack civilians would you not consider the possibility that your family back home was also in danger of being attacked? How many troops would high-tail it back home to help defend their children, wives, parents, siblings and friends?

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:46 | 2005409 lemonobrien
lemonobrien's picture

i'd kill'm all except the hot bitches. you're not really thinking like an 18 year old brain washed kid.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:51 | 2005419 lemonobrien
Thu, 12/22/2011 - 18:43 | 2005619 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You're not thinking at all.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 19:03 | 2005692 lemonobrien
lemonobrien's picture

i have a "liberated" mind.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 20:25 | 2005902 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Before the wall fell in Germany, General Jarazelski was running Poland.  He was under pressure to use the Polish army against the people.  Jarazelski knew the Polish army would always side with the public.  He quickly realized that was not an option. 

I do not feel that confident about America.  The unionized cops, fireman, fed agents, etc etc want to keep their perks.  They will shoot you in a heartbeat.

 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 22:45 | 2006197 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Exactly. The moral automatons who comprise the US' police forces routinely use violence against people who are doing nothing but smoking or injecting the 'wrong' kind of plant. How often do their fellow sheep complain if someone is locked in a cage for years for some act that brings harm to no one?

Can you see this crop of Americans resisting the governemnt? Shit, because they can vote, they think they are the government!

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 14:55 | 2004782 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sure, you can't beat "them" when they are sending heavy weapons for YOU specifically.  But it's not hard to shoot someone who is off duty.  Or to blow up an ammunition factory.  Or to kill a couple of oil pipeline guards, then blow the line.  Or blow up five bridges to cut the country in half.  Etc etc.

I don't know why you think that anything less than anti-tank guns are worth having.

The real point of having guns is that military guys recognize the impossibility of occupying an armed populace.  A rifle behind every blade of grass means that the occupying forces have to live in their tanks, and all their supply lines have to be armored and protected.  This is impossible outside of a few urban areas.  In a country the size of the US?  Fagitaboutit.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:26 | 2005167 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

"The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants." 

Yamamoto Isoroku
Thu, 12/22/2011 - 21:34 | 2006048 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

This is one of the reasons that the govt. is gathering data about us.  Do you think this site is not monitored?  I think you may be roughly aware of the size of the NSA's budget?  Why do you think the Feds need to print all that money?

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 15:18 | 2004895 H Reardon
H Reardon's picture

So, ORI your comments seem to say "If slavery and tyranny is inevitable, relax and enjoy it". That kind of thinking just isn't very American. I realize India has demonstrated how EXEPTIONAL it is many, many times, but that kind of attitude doesn't sit well with Americans.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 15:30 | 2004950 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

If you really read the comment, first one, I said preperation needs to be waaaaay outside the box.

I train my whole self, not just my trigger finger. Nothign about lyign back and enjoying it.

More like learn to create your own Capuera. Before. Not during. see?

ori

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 15:42 | 2005005 H Reardon
H Reardon's picture

All your spiritual hokus pokus is just fine with me. But don't forget an old Amerikan proverb: power flows out of the end of a gun barrel, no matter how small the barrel.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:09 | 2005110 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are thinking of Mao.

"Political power flows out of the barrel of a gun."

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:38 | 2005208 H Reardon
H Reardon's picture

Yes, ofcourse.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 16:41 | 2005221 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

I thought it was from Chairman mao's Red book.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 20:32 | 2005923 Freddie
Freddie's picture

With all due respect my friend - we have a population totally brainwashed 24x7 by TV.  The oligarchs have endless contingency plans.  See Civil War 1.  The fight to end slavery - yeah right.  It had little to do with ending slavery.

How many hundreds of thousands died for nothing?  It was for northern/european bankers could grab the wealth of the south.

My guess is they will try to pit some group against another.  The people are so passive in the uSA.  As long as they keep getting free stuff.

 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 22:36 | 2006178 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

what "wealth"? The South was totally destroyed by the Civil War. There was barely a tree left standing in Virginia when it was done. Amazingly "World War I" followed that. And even more amazingly "World War II"! I think i hear ya and see where you're coming from kiddo, but the Civil War was not fought "so the bankers could get all sorts of free stuff." It has been said of the Civil War that "family feuds are always the bloddiest." But as i just said and as actually happened "Europe followed up the Civil War with World War I and World War II." I find it interesting that "Europeans wanted to create a Union" after those conflicts. Perhaps if the goal was to create a more just a peaceful place instead with for example a "greater reverence for the rule of law" instead of "rule of the lawless"? Anywho...

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 15:37 | 2004982 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

Tell that to the perhaps ~25,000 Afghan and Pakastani combatants that have succeeded in pinning down ~$70B of high-tech US military expenditures per year.  On average costing more than ~$10M each to remove from the battlefield.  And I could argue they do not have ideal foilage for an insurgency.  Further, the way they treat their women probably makes them easier to be seen as an unsympathetic enemy by the US military.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:53 | 2005424 lemonobrien
lemonobrien's picture

if we was serious, we'd just kill them all... release a deadly bio/virus; after the country has been isolated.

 

no people no war.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 18:26 | 2005557 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

"they" are serious, always have been. . .

folk should research biowarfare, and dig deep - here's a relatively easy site to get you started:

http://www.answers.com/topic/biological-warfare

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:01 | 2005239 KK Tipton
KK Tipton's picture

"Guns make you stupid, not safe. They give you a false sense of power. To beat the real threat, you have to think waaaaay outside the box."

Amen.

"If you have to fire a shot, you've already lost." - Me

I'm sure I stole that subconciously from somewhere.

 

http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/chapter69.html

The master soldiers have a saying:
I dare not be the host but prefer to be the guest.
I dare not advance an inch but prefer to retreat a foot.

This is called marching without moving,
rolling up a sleeve without baring an arm,
capturing a foe without a battlefront,
arming yourself without weapons.

There is no disaster greater than attacking and finding no enemy.
Doing so will cost you your treasure.
Thus it is that when opposing forces meet,
victory will go to those who take no delight in the situation.

 

In Aikido, so I've heard...the idea is that if you attack first...you are actually going against the "wishes" of the universe basically (You have already lost etc.) When you defend, you are showing the attacker the error of their ways. And are completely "in the right".

Ponder that my fellow Americans (and humans!).

 

 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 18:30 | 2005570 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

excellent post! 

the most important "prep" is your mind. . .

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 22:39 | 2006184 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

indeed.

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 03:00 | 2006568 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

In Aikido, so I've heard...the idea is that if you attack first...you are actually going against the "wishes" of the universe basically (You have already lost etc.) When you defend, you are showing the attacker the error of their ways. And are completely "in the right".

This is actually confirmed in "game theory".  After thousands of computer simulations (I think at McGill University in Canada) of opposing sides initiating or responding to conflicts, the one strategy that wins most is where A. You do not attack first, but B. Once attacked, never fail to respond to the attack.  This is probably why deep down everybody wants to think that they are justified in starting the fight -"I didn't start it, he did, I'm just responding to his aggression."

Fri, 12/23/2011 - 17:19 | 2008266 KK Tipton
KK Tipton's picture

Very cool.

 

On another related note...

I love how the media continually trots out "valid reasons" for the "war" against Iraq etc.
It's like mass psychological programming for the US public. To make them feel "ok" with conflict.

There is actually no "universal" justification for these movements of our troops. None.
The US govt. is relentlessly attacking and cannot ever actually be "right".
Wrong moves are being made continually with odd (sick?) motivations.
This shows you the mentality of those making the moves.
Stop making the wrong moves...and get into being actually right.

Going against "the universe" has repercussions. And always turns out badly.

This goes for China, Russia and all the other anti-human governments out there too.
Lots of whirlwind reaping coming up shortly.

 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 17:03 | 2005295 Franktastic
Franktastic's picture

Most wars are won with small fire arms....

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 19:37 | 2005766 Tompooz
Tompooz's picture

"Guns make you stupid, not safe. They give you a false sense of power. To beat the real threat, you have to think waaaaay outside the box."

 

You got lots of red arrows for that,ORI; thanks for having the balls to write it.

Americans are putting waaaay too much faith in their guns. All those guns out there are far more likely to turn mere chaos into bloody chaos, neighbor firing at neighbor, than to offer protection against "the bad guys".

The constitutional "right to bear arms" had originally something to do with ordinary Joe being equal to a gentleman, who used to have a monopoly on bearing arms as a civilian.

The idea that private guns or even private militias are a match to night-raiding troopers, drones and helicopter gunships is laughable.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 22:41 | 2006190 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

That is certainly true, but only if they know where you are and they attack first.

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 23:26 | 2006294 Tompooz
Tompooz's picture

They know from their databases where the "troublemakers" are. They will attack first, to disarm all who refuse to hand in their weapons, after martial law has made them illegal.

Don't you see it? The temptation to hang on to your weapons will be huge. It will turn all these good citizens into lawbreakers overnight. Exactly what they need to let everybody live in fear. This is the way all police states maintain "order".

ORI is right that guns make you stupid. Like the military, you start thinking that all problems can be solved with the force of arms.

Sat, 12/24/2011 - 00:15 | 2006573 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Not all problems can be solved by force of arms, but there are a lot of innocent people now pushing up dasies who would have been well served by being armed.  Guns are tools, and don't mean much without the right attitude and toughness of mind. 

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 19:42 | 2005782 balanced
balanced's picture

I agree ORI, no rebels/insurgents with small arms have ever been able to fend off an army with superior weaponry. Oh wait.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!