Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The government can own weaponized drones but citizens cannot??? Hmmm....
NO ONE SEES THAT A GUN FIRED FROM REMOTE ARIAL PLATFORM IS NOT AN ISSUE. SINE WHEN DID DRONES GET 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IF THE DRONE MALFUNCTIONED AND SOMEONE WAS SHOT WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE?!
Capslock?
but seriously, the whole point of 2nd amendment rights is to provide the right/responsibility to be able to go to war with the government. No joke, read it. So in actuality, there should be NO regulations on weapons of ANY kind, as the 2nd amendment wishes the commoner to be able to organize into non-government militias that can challenge the government.
The Drone is the wepon, it does not posses the weapon.
What exactly would the atf do?
The idiot operating it, just like anyone who negligently discharges a firearm they're holding in their hand... using existing laws that we already have.
BTW, your caps lock key seems to have malfunctioned.
There is no way to determine who is operating drones.
There is no way to determine who is operating drones.
There is no way to determine who is operating drones.
Oh boo fucking hoo at your "freedoms" of making unmanned vehicle that remotely fired guns might be infringed in the future.
Is an unmanned vehicle that remotely fires a gun illegal? If it is, then I wonder how DoD got their exemptions or does government just hate competition? Or is it freedom for me, but not for thee? Incremental encroachment on rights, freedoms, and liberties is a serious issue, but hey, you just keep on being cavalier about the whole thing. Besides, why do you care since your clear dismissive attitude doesn't warrant an opinion or commentary.
Dismissive? No, quite the opposite. The reason why I care is because that is the nature of things, for for the same reason someone think that a civilian aircraft with remote fired weapons should be legal because the military uses them, there's people like me who think that under no circumstances should that be allowed to happen.Besides, why do you care since your clear dismissive attitude doesn't warrant an opinion or commentary.
Always someone who has to fuck shit up for the rest of us.
Like people haven't been flying them in places they couldn't, already. Wait until some jackass hits a plane with one.
C'mon this was a logical step that somebody was going to make, at least he did a good job of combining the two.
Like people haven't been flying them in places they couldn't, already. Wait until some jackass hits a plane with one.
C'mon this was a logical step that somebody was going to make, at least he did a good job of combining the two.
Software? It wouldn't be that hard to make a basket that can dump an object out. Hell, amazon has been fiddling around with that for a while.It really is a shame when a few bad apples screw things up for others, but I agree it was only a matter of time. This will not be the last I'm sure, you can guarantee after this vid was made there are dozens if not hundreds of people out there trying to build their own now.
And just as predictably, some BS feel good laws will come along that do nothing to anyone actually willing to break the law to hurt people in the first place....
The only thing that would make this not happen, and has kept it happening before now, is for the tech to be expensive. And that cat is leaving the proverbial bag.
I'm waiting for the bomb dropping software, I think the auto stabilization soft/hardware I've seen online that is pretty consumer level could handle it. IED's falling from the sky, I bet this sorta thing keeps some people up at night. I feel for em.
Software? It wouldn't be that hard to make a basket that can dump an object out. Hell, amazon has been fiddling around with that for a while.
Quick, make more laws against it!
Even though the criminals don't already care about laws in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be killing people, destroying property, etc.
Yes, it's great to wait around until someone gets killed or maimed to react rather than proactively addressing the problem. I'm sure if someone you cared about was killed by a kid with an RC toy he stuck a gun onto, you'd be upset that no one addressed this issue until after the fact when a life is already lost.
Just a matter of time before a drone is used in a murder if it hasn't already....that's scary.
I was thinking actual targeting software that would sample wind and object movement and alter the drones position to make whatever it's dropping hit the target. Stuffs been around for aircraft forever in one form or another.
What are you even talking about? Like I said. Murder or manslaughter is murder or manslaughter. Putting the gun on the drone still makes it the operator's gun. Whatever happens to someone else because of that is the operator's problem, just as certainly as if he held the gun himself and shot someone.
You don't need MORE laws for that. We already have it.
Your comment is a knee-jerk reaction to make yourself feel better by passing a law. A law that people dumb or vicious enough to break are going to break anyway.
In case you had not figured it out yet, I think anyone who does this is out of their damn minds because they can be, should be and are morally bound to be liable for what happens.
Just like if you run someone down with your car doing something stupid. 6000lbs of car in a teenager's hands is more likely to kill you than a dumb drone gun stunt. But either one could.
How many laws does it take to define every last stupid thing a human being can do?
Just tell these people that every known gun law on the books still applies while they fly these things and that they are going to be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens and they WILL screw up their lives sooner or later playing with these things.
In general, I agree that we need fewer laws. The one that permits people to own weapons by defining it as an exceptional case, the 2nd amendment, needs to go. We can repeal it and eliminate firearms altogether with is a good middle ground for us both that gets rid of a law that's stupid in modern times and removes the entire matter of what is and isn't acceptable with respect to ownership of weapons because it removes the legal loophole that those idiots who made it created in the first place and cascade downward into removing the host of other laws associated with the regulation of firearm ownership, just replacing it with a big, sensible "Nope!" instead.
It'd suck for a while while a few loud crazies protest the change (just like they're doing over that dumb flag removal thing right now), but a few generations later, it won't matter to anyone. We have to start somewhere and I agree that reducing the number of laws is a great direction to go.
I couldn't believe what I was reading until I saw your username. I don't think I need to call you delusional because most people I'm sure already know that.
So, how do you plan on "getting rid of all the guns"
Please enlighten us all on how this can be done.
Once law abiding good people no longer have means to defend their families, how do you propose getting all the guns from the criminals and gangs in the illegal/stolen gun business?
Do you want to volunteer to go into Compton, south central, Kensington, Detroit, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Trenton, Camden, Chicago, Boston, etc to take all the guns away from the gang bangers, drug dealers, pimps, and murderers?
Or maybe you would just like to send in some jack booted thugs to go around door kicking innocent people's homes until they find them all? Which wouldn't even work, because it's impossible to find them all.
You are so delusional and your ideas are so toxic that it sickens me
Oh and by the way, those "idiots" who created the 2nd Amendment and the Constituion built this nation for all people, even blabbering fools like you. Without the 2a, you wouldn't have a country let alone a 1st Amendment to be able to go around spewing your toxic sludge poorly concealed as an opinion.
It's nice to know you don't want innocent people to be able to protect their families and themselves. Let me guess, they should just call the police if 3 people break into their home and decide they don't want to leave witnesses? Just call the police right.... ?
My question when I saw the video was which govt agency would investigate. FAA for aviation violations, ATF for firearms, HSA for it being a possible terrorist threat, or CIA wanting to hire the kid to assist with their development of the same thing.
It's actually so low that a firearm, kept for defence, is many times more likely to result in the injury or death of a family member.The number of instances where a person can benefit from having a safely stored firearm to stop a home invasion is really, really low.
It's actually so low that a firearm, kept for defence, is many times more likely to result in the injury or death of a family member.
Ok, but making it illegal for people to do it who aren't causing any actual problems, does nothing to stop the people who would do it for the purpose of disrupting the lives of others.
It's actually so low that a firearm, kept for defence, is many times more likely to result in the injury or death of a family member.
Despite calls to arrest the man, police say they can't find any reason to charge him. "It appears to be a case of technology surpassing current legislation," they said. Todd Lawrie, the chief of police where it happened, said, "We are attempting to determine if any laws have been violated at this point. It would seem to the average person, there should be something prohibiting a person from attaching a weapon to a drone. At this point, we can't find anything that's been violated. The legislature in Connecticut (recently) addressed a number of questions with drones, mostly around how law enforcement was going to use drones. It is a gray area, and it's caught the legislature flatfooted." The FAA and other federal agencies are still investigating and trying to figure out if any criminal statutes were violated