Drones

Weaponized Drones and the Second Amendment

Do Americans have a constitutional right to own and use armed drones for self-defense?

|

FlyingGunYouTube
YouTube

A spectacular (and loud) YouTube video showing a drone rigged with a handgun actually firing bullets freaked out a lot of folks last year. In response, several states have passed legislation outlawing such weaponized drones. In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed in its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." So does the Second Amendment protect the right of Americans to have and use armed drones for self-defense?

In 2012 on Fox News, Justice Antonin Scalia observed: "Obviously the [2nd] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it's to keep and "bear", so it doesn't apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided." Scalia's comment provoked attorney Lawrence Rafferty to snark, "Do we draw the limit at briefcase nukes that can be carried in one's hand?"

In the alternative, what about allowing police to use armed drones? Last year, North Dakota passed legislation prohibiting police drones from carrying lethal weapons, but perhaps allowing them to be armed with tasers or pepper spray. In October, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Taser International had met with some police officials to discuss the idea of installing stun guns on police drones. In 2014, the South African company Desert Wolf unveiled its Skunk Riot Control Drone that could shoot pepper spray, paintballs, or plastic bullets. In 2015, The Times of India reported that the police in Lucknow had bought five drones to use for crowd control (a quick Google search finds no instances of them being used yet).

One tiny bit of good news is that many states have adopted laws that require the police to obtain a warrant to use drones for surveillance.

Interestingly, several states, including Michigan, Oregon, and West Virginia, forbid the use of drones to spot, harass or hunt wildlife. Oregon explains that it adopted the drone hunting ban because "it is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that the wildlife laws embody the sporting ethic of fair chase hunting…." None of the drone hunting ban laws I examined made an exception for drone hunting on private land. The states likely claim to have the authority to enact such bans because wildlife is legally "owned" by the states, not by private individuals.

In any case, if a privately owned armed drone is operated on the owner's private property (or with the permission of the property owner), are states constitutionally constrained from outlawing it? As noted, several states don't think so. Legislative push will come to constitutional shove when a drone equipped with a firearm or a bomb, either as an act murder or an instance of stupidity, does kill someone.

See armed drone in action. (Caution: It's loud.)

NEXT: Police Are Still Stopping Motorists to Spread Compulsory Holiday Cheer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Will you take the necessary measures to collect the brass?

      1. A brass catcher would probably be the cheapest part of the rig.

      2. Just put a one shot no ejection action on it.

  1. So does the Second Amendment protect the right of Americans to have and use armed drones for self-defense?

    You can have my robot army when you pry the remote-control from my lazy hands

    1. Lazy dead hands?

      1. He doesn’t sound that committed. You probably wouldn’t need to pry very hard either.

        1. “If only I had stockpiled enough D batteries, my conquest of humanity would have been complete!”

          1. “What are we gonna do tomorrow, Brain?”

            “Try to take over the world, Pinky!… try to take over the world.”

            “Narf.”

      2. *the half-hearted joke there was that if you have a robot army, you’re probably already a fat lazy bastard who is incapable of resisting any physical assault, so would be easily “disarmed”

        1. Indeed.

        2. I think “clammy, weak hands” would have worked better.

  2. I’d say it’s a solution I search of a problem. Putting a gun on a drone will be a novelty because the price versus practicality.

    We make a lot of laws because people dream up things in thier head that people don’t do and then go on a legal crusade to prevent people from doing things they don’t do.

    Buddy of mine was convinced we needed a law because it’s legal to walk into a Walmart and rack a shotgun or something. The fact that management could just tell someone to leave who’s acting foolish was not sufficient. We need laws!

    1. That’s the problem with statists in general: So shall it be written, so shall it be done. It goes along with corrupting markets with all sorts of crippling destructive regulations, then passing a zillion more laws to try to emulate what they have destroyed. Markets work invisibly, instantly, in as fine a detail as necessary; laws work crudely and clumsily after much delay.

      Your buddy no doubt is fearful that some manager somewhere might not agree that racking a shotgun is improper behavior, or might not kick the racker out soon enough. So a law! They work instantly and everywhere … don’t they?

      1. I know that the “this is a gun free zone” signs work instantly to convince me that the people who put them up are idiots.

        1. You have widened the horizons of possible snark. I thank you.

  3. “In 2012 on Fox News, Justice Antonin Scalia observed: “Obviously the [2nd] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried?it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons”

    If this is what he actually thinks, how does he feel about weapons that can be carried, but require more than one person?

    Also, he’s wrong.

    1. It is kind of bizarre for a man who is usually so keen on wording to fail to notice the conjunction between the words “keep” and “bear”. So what if I can’t bear the weapon, I still have a right to keep it.

      1. I say, having not read the discussion below about the meaning of the word “bear” in context.

    2. If this quote was really said by Scalia, I am quite surprised.

      He surely has to have known about the cannons and privateer warships (both crew-served weapons too large for a single person to carry) used by the rebels in the American Revolution. This is not some rare esoteric secret fact that only a few historians know; it’s basically in every US history textbook.

    3. Yep. The restriction should be by the market. Can you afford to buy and maintain said arms. Big stuff isn’t cheep on either count.

  4. In 2012 on Fox News, Justice Antonin Scalia observed: “Obviously the [2nd] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried?it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons?but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” Scalia’s comment provoked attorney Lawrence Rafferty to snark, “Do we draw the limit at briefcase nukes that can be carried in one’s hand?”

    I’ve always held to a simple principle for what to permit and what not to. If a weapon has an unacceptable risk of collateral damage, prohibit it. Pistols and rifles can be safely used by pretty much anyone. Hand grenades and rocket launchers are significantly more dangerous and liable to cause unintended collateral damage. Nuclear weapons are practically impossible to use without causing collateral damage.

    I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable metric.

    1. It’s awful. It leaves the judgement of “unacceptable” to humans, and we all know what the gun grabbers consider acceptable.

      There is no point in outlawing individual nuclear weapons. Who could afford them?

      Ditto for armed drones, as Lurk Diggler said above. The only people who would waste money on them are either in search of a novelty which they will soon tire of, or criminals who are going to disobey the law anyway.

      People out to commit murder or bank robbery aren’t going to let trivially-avoidable laws get in their way.

      1. It doesn’t really matter what gun grabbers consider acceptable since the second amendment exists. We’re talking about whole classes of weapons beyond the ones that are already deemed legal.

        The difference between a gun on a drone shooting in a safe direction and shooting your kid in the head by accident could be as little as a freak gust of wind flipping the thing off target. That isn’t likely to happen when it’s under complete control of your muscles. However, building one that is smart enough to disable itself when not on-target might be safe enough for anyone to operate and I don’t see why that should be prohibited.

        You make it seem like making a functioning nuke is impossible. The only really difficulty is in obtaining fissile material of sufficient enrichment, and that’s because it’s well controlled for obvious reasons.

        1. Actually, even the cops have shot the wrong person – either through mistaken identity (killing a hostage has happened more than once) or through collateral damage due to a miss (read the stats on how many shots by LEOs don’t hit their intended target). I’d think that a drone with a good operator may be better in some cases. But I’ll still carry my gun with me.

      2. Absolutely! Your neighbor should be able to keep tons of explosives and weaponized biological agents in a shed closer to your house than his!

    2. The problem here is the definition of ‘collateral damage’.

      It is, for example, perfectly possible, even easy, to use a nuclear weapon without collateral damage. It all depends on how you define ‘target’. If the target is ‘enemy city’ then, by definition, unless you *miss* you don’t cause collateral damage.

      1. a nuclear bomb is not an “arm”,it’s a destructive device,like a chunk of dynamite or bottle of nitroglycerin.
        The Second Amendment does not cover explosives.
        When you mount one to a delivery device,like a missile or aircraft,then you have an “arm”.
        Because you can’t toss a suitcase nuke far enough to be out of the blast zone yourself.
        Essentially,discussing nuclear weapons (or chemical or bio-weapons) regarding the Second Amendment is a strawman.

        Besides,”suitcase” nukes do not exist. there’s no way you could get critical mass and the means to compress the fissionables into a critical mass in a suitcase. the smallest US nuke was the Davy Crockett,it was 11″ in diameter and weighed more than a man could carry. And it wasn’t “safe” ether,it was prone to fizzle on it’s own.

        1. The 2nd Amendment DOES cover explosives.

          Black powder for muskets, rifles, and cannons was a critical materiel that the Redcoats sought to control and that the American revolutionaries sought to hide from them. The Founding Fathers knew from direct, personal experience that this explosive was crucial to their liberty. They would not have carved out an exception on themselves to bar the ownership or use of the most common explosive of their time.

    3. What? Innocent people get killed all the time by pistols. It seems like in every drive by they shoot everyone but the person they are after.

    4. Well, if the damage is “unacceptable,” why do the agents of the state get to have such weapons?

      In other words, why do you trust the gov’t’s soldiers with grenades more than you trust the citizens with grenades? They’re both people.

      If you say “training,” well, the citizenry can be trained. In fact, that is part of the original meaning of the word “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment. “Regulated” did not mean “controlled/restricted” as it does today. It meant “brought up to standard,” i.e., the citizens shall have military-standard arms, uniforms, and training.

      The citizenry were expected to drill and train just like the Redcoats.

      Certainly, today, many 3-gun competition shooters I know have better marksmanship training than the average police officer or infantryman. The primary difference is that the infantry gets squad tactics training.

      1. I have been officially ‘trained’ with one hand gernade. It was a farce. Pull the pin, flip off the safety catch, throw the thing, duck. You too have now been given the same training I got by the army.

    5. The citizen militia is to be at ready to defend from invaders, terrorists and, in the worst case scenario, our own government. If two or three citizens together can’t raise enough firepower to hold off one terrorist with an AK-47 till the SWAT team arrives, there’s no point.

  5. …Taser International had met with some police officials to discuss the idea of installing stun guns on police drones.

    I say we take off and tase the entire site from orbit.

    1. It’s the only way to be sure.

  6. it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons?

    TRAITOR! Textual authority!

  7. In 2012 on Fox News, Justice Antonin Scalia observed: “Obviously the [2nd] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried?it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons?but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”

    I can bear any weapon against my adversary. Keep and bear means to be well prepared and know how to use them.

    1. Yes, I will nuke you from orbit just to be sure.

    2. This. Bringing a weapon to bear doesn’t require someone to actually pick up the weapon, it means to aim and ready it.

      1. which does NOT include blowing yourself up when you use it,as would happen with a “suitcase” nuke.
        those are only “destructive devices”,no different than a stick of dynamite,which is not protected by the Second,since it’s not an “arm”.

        1. You don’t seem to understand what a suitcase nuke is.

          It is not some unstable fissile material that goes off just by looking at it sideways. There are mechanisms in place to keep it from going off unless triggered. Training on how to operate the trigger will be provided by the persons who made the trigger device.

          So if an agent of Al Qaeda carries a suitcase nuke into Los Angeles, you can bet:

          a) it won’t go off until he detonates it
          b) he will have the training to carry it safely AND detonate it when intended
          c) he will detonate it in such a time and place to cause maximum casualties

          That makes it a weapon.

    3. +18th century English usage

      See also: “well-regulated militia” meaning “dudes who have trained together.”

      1. LOL haha good point! Look at you, CX.

      2. “Well-regulated” meant properly functioning. As in a clock that kept accurate time was considered well-regulated.

        1. That is one meaning and is correct.

          But in the context of the 2nd Amendment, “well-regulated” meant “brought up to military standard.”

          The Redcoats were officially called the “Regulars.” This was because they were trained and equipped to military standards (made regular, according to military regulations).

          Officers were required to provide their own uniforms, for instance, and the uniforms could not be sub-standard (to save money).

          The American militiamen were required to drill/train up to a set standard as well as provide their own supplies up to a set standard.

          1. Regulate in 18C American English would be Standardize in today’s American English (Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty by Randy Barnett). Whatever nuances the word did have, it was not the modern sense of control or dictate.

      3. well,what DOES the Second say there?
        “A well-regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state”.
        Hmm,it does NOT say that militias must be “well-regulated”,it does NOT say arms must be “well-regulated”,it does not restrict arms to militias. it really does not say anything,nor imply anything.
        it says militias “are necessary to a free state”,nothing more.
        IOW,just ONE of many reasons why “the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
        Now that second part DOES say plenty,it makes specific prohibition -on government- to keep their hands off peoples arms.
        it says that people have a RIGHT to own and to CARRY arms,….naturally,in a lawful manner.

        So,WHY is this so hard for people to comprehend?
        I blame it on a leftist education system that turns out cretins.

    4. I’ve always thought that it’s sort of like the saying “to have your cake and eat it, too”, which always confused the shit out of me as a kid–after all, how can you eat a cake you don’t already have? In this case, to bear arms means to actively use them, while to keep arms means to own them. In other words, you have a right to keep–that is, to store as personal property–arms as well as to use them–to bear them–in your own defense.

      1. Not in your own defense, that is covered in the right to life. The second amendment is explained in the first part; a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state – – –
        The founders preference for militia, as opposed to a larger army is well documented, as a means of preventing federal abuse of the states or individual.

      2. “bearing arms” is to CARRY them,OTOH,usage must be in accordance with civil law.
        as in “self-defense” must be credible to a reasonable person,and it must be IMMINENT,not that some guy threatened to “get you”,so you get him first and claim “self-defense”.
        Have you read some of the wild “reasonings” some “progressives” have written about using guns in what they believe is “self-defense”? Some of them believe that if you’re carrying a gun,you’re a threat to them and everybody else,so it’s legitimate self-defense to shoot you even though you have it holstered.(not brandishing it)

  8. Bailey and Shackford don’t get along. It’s the only explanation for linking to effing USA Today instead.

    1. It’s sexual tension; they should just fuck and get it over with.

  9. Terrorism is about to get a lot less martyry.

  10. Thanks everyone for not reluctantly (and following industry best practices) threatening me with armed-drones today. Good to know our nation’s defenses are in sober hands. 🙂

  11. What if (apologies to the Judge) the going in argument was that 2A exists so that a citizenry can protect itself from a tyrannical government and should therefore have the right to own any weapon the government does?

    Let’s start the debate here instead of at the other (incorrect) end of the spectrum.

    1. Good point! Thanks, Franky. We can always count on you to clarify the issues and maintain a constructive dialog.

    2. That was never the argument. It was part of it. The argument is also that people have an right to self defense and the right to bear arms is necessary for that. Further, the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the states and depriving them of a militia by banning the individual ownership of firearms.

      1. And also to obviate the need for a standing army.

        1. So true, so true…. food for thought…..

        2. Which is why pro-military people are as much a threat to the 2nd amendment as gun-banners. Without a standing army, the state would need an armed populace, to be secure in its own sovereignty.

          1. Yep.

            Someone here (i forget who) made an interesting point the other day: the Constitution gives Congress the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal – in other words, the founders envisioned the private ownership of warships.

            1. They envisioned it, as it was the status quo at the time it was written.

              Here’s a list of 2,200 ships owned by American privateers during the Revolutionary War, complete with the number of cannon and the names of the owners of the ships.

              In contrast, the Continental Navy was made up of around 60 vessels at the start of the war. After the war, it was disbanded and a standing navy didn’t exist until the Naval Act of 1794, which authorized the construction of six frigates.

              1. Nicely done, HM, and thank you for the link.

              2. Well, today anyone is allowed to own a frigate armed with black powder cannons. Since this was the technology available to the founders, your rights are well protected!

                1. Even today,you can own cannon,BUT,you have to get a tax stamp for them,and they’re considered destructive devices.

                2. Re: “technology available to the founders”

                  I like to remind the anti-gun people who say this stupid line that then the 1st Amendment would also be limited to the technology of the time: newspapers and town criers.

                  No cell phones, no websites, no silkscreened T-shirts, no telegraph, no email, no typewriters, no laser or inkjet printers, no digital process, no megaphones, no rotary analog telephones, no Twitter, no airplanes dropping leaflets, etc.

                  The only allowable methods of transmitting political speech would be face-to-face verbal communications, riding around on horseback yelling at the top of one’s lungs, and written communications on paper (handwritten or with a typeset printing press).

                3. As long as you’re OK with “Freedom of the Press” applying only to ink on paper.

            2. Cannons were often privately owned as well. Gentlemen would form private artillery companies–sort of like local rotary clubs or BPOEs–and use dues to pay for and maintain a cannon.

    3. At minimum, I think we should say that the citizenry should, in aggregate (but outside the state), have such firepower as to have a plausible chance to overthrow a foreign or domestic tyranny, even in the absence of a centralized command structure. Not to utterly destroy it, necessarily, only to make it infeasible for said tyranny to exercise power over the people.

      On the other hand, weapons which give very small numbers of people power that might allow them to establish an autocratic tyranny (or just plain kill giant shitloads of people, which has a similar impact on people’s lives and liberty as a tyranny) should be forbidden. I think personal drones, in small numbers and with around the killing power of a firearm, fall into that category, while suitcase nukes or giant robot armies do not.

      1. fall into that the former category

      2. I think that what we’ve got available enough is plenty. If goatfuckers who live in caves can take on our military and do pretty well with essentially no training and shoddily manufactured firearms made in said caves, imagine what a populace with quality firearms and a bunch of them having higher proficiency can do. There are a lot of active and former military and a lot of guns in America. IEDs are easy enough to make (the goatfuckers proved that) and urban combat scenarios are easier to use guerrilla tactics in.

        Besides, lots of weapons necessarily become off-limits. How many more rebels would it create when the dumbfucks bomb one of our own schools by mistake? And our people are a lot less easily distinguished from one another – too much variety that pretty much anyone can pretend to be a citizen. Heavy equipment like tanks tear up roads badly, and non-combatants are going to want to use those.

        1. If goatfuckers who live in caves can take on our military and do pretty well with essentially no training and shoddily manufactured firearms made in said caves, imagine what a populace with quality firearms and a bunch of them having higher proficiency can do.

          I agree, but there are three issues with this that aren’t usually addressed.

          1. Insurgency tactics take a very long time to wear down a committed enemy. People live 75 years, on average. I really don’t care to spend 1/3 of my life living in a cave grinding down the superior force until they give up. (Call me greedy)

          2. If fighting your own government, they won’t be worn down by insurgency tactics as readily as say the Afghanis wore down the Russians. Why? Because they live here too. They can’t just pick up and go.

          3. Our troops are/were on a very short leash in Afghanistan/Iran. If there were no concerns about collateral damage, which there wouldn’t likely be in an uprising as the government wou’d be fighting for its very existence, the results would have been different.

          So all in all, I’d rather have enough firepower at my disposal to give the government pause about becoming tyrannical.

          Also, on the plus side, our military is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the government. It’s is likely there’d be a significant portion that’d fight against the tyranny.

          1. And we don’t have the munitions, explosives, and automatic weapons that do, there are only 185,000 legally owned full autos in the us.

        2. Depending on which caves you are referring to, a goodly number were armed and trained by the US for no better reason than they were, at the time, fighting Russians as well as each other. And they were finely manufactured weapons we supplied to them.
          In addition, they did not do so well against the US military; they did well against the US politicians.

      3. As pointed out above, I doubt any private individual would have the means or the inclination to obtain a nuke. 9/10ths of existing nation states don’t/can’t. And a nuke, along with bio, would be my only concerns in the hands of a private citizen.

        1. fissionables are strictly controlled substances,and nothing in the Constitution says that gov’t has to sell you any of it,and they own the means of production of it all.
          Gov’t also owns the designs for nukes,fighter jets,tanks,and every other major weapons systems. And they do not have to sell you any of them.

      4. Here’s a hint: “shall not be infringed” . . . . . . . .

    4. That has always been my position.

  12. http://pjmedia.com/trending/20…..ecipients/

    Speaking of the 2nd Amendment. Have a big cup of fuck you that is why from Obama. Call it a parting gift.

    1. The administration will now characterize those citizens as “mental defectives,” thereby having their ability to own a firearm subject to the federal Gun Control Act.

      While the Obama administration’s actions are inexcusable, the existence of such an act is the real problem.

      1. Yes. All regulation of firearms should happen at the state level unless it involves the export or import of them.

        1. No regulation of firearms can pass constitutional muster. (pun intended)
          The right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.
          Regulation, registration, taxation, whatever; if it exists, it is an infringement.

        2. Nope.
          Unlike the 1A, which specifies “Congress shall make no law”…, the 2A is non-specific, thus covering all government under the Supreme Law of the Land.
          The 10A reserves powers “not delegated to the United States” to the states, unless prohibited by the Constitution. The universal prohibition of the 2A includes the states.

    2. Trump will have a big “all of your executive orders are null and void” party.

    3. What is the correlation between SSI recipients and gun crime?

      1. Some people get really radicalized with the whole “HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY!” thing.

        Like this guy.

      2. You’re making a funny, no? There is no correlation between any gun regulations, all of which are unconstitutional, and anything. Shall not be infringed, that is all.

      3. you may not have noticed,but Congress does NOT have to show proof that the claims they made when enacting these laws are valid or “reasonable”. YOU have to go to court and show they are not “reasonable”,and that process is long,expensive and VERY risky,because to sue,you have to have “standing”,meaning you violated the law,was caught,charged,and convicted. AND,the government has virtually UNLIMITED power,resources,and TIME;they can drag out the appeals until you’re bankrupted.(while you’re sitting in prison,of course.)

    4. You know who else thought that disabled people receiving state assistance were “defectives” who should be deprived of their civil rights?

        1. I was going to say Stalin, but your’s looks WAAY more fun to talk about.

  13. ** probably deserves mention

    Regarding the standoff in Dallas, TX, where the police used a robot typically used for bomb-disposal to kill the ‘active shooter’ …. i recall asking whether that was the first known use of remote-drone by police to kill a suspect. CNN says yes there… but who knows.

    Fisher covered the issue here

    i said this about the issue =

    … “If you have the level of control necessary to ‘remote kill’ someone, you probably have the level of control necessary to ‘remote incapacitate’ someone as well, and therefore the choice to kill is an arbitrary one and in effect, “Govt execution”

    Its not the kind of scenario where a gunman has hostages and needs to be shot by a sniper. If he’s been cornered and isolated, he could be gassed, or blinded, or some other combination, and then apprehended. Killing him was a decision police should not have had the discretionary authority to make.

    others said that there’s no difference between using a robot to kill a suspect and shooting him with a sniper. Which may be the case; but the only reason you’d use the sniper as well would be because of “no other options”. The existence of the drone’s abilities is itself evidence of ‘other options’, imo.

    1. If you have the level of control necessary to ‘remote kill’ someone, you probably have the level of control necessary to ‘remote incapacitate’ someone

      I see no reason to think this is true. If incapacitating were easier than killing wars could be bloodless as they incapacitated thier enemies.

      1. +1 Aztec army (the bloody part came later)

      2. If incapacitating were easier than killing

        No one posited that it was.

        What i specific suggested was that if you have a suspect cornered in the very specific conditions (“level of control”) necessary to “kill via robot”…

        e.g. – immobile, unable to flee, having no hostages/risk of collateral damage, lacking enough firepower to destroy said robot, etc.

        … you would also have the *opportunity* to utilize less-lethal means.

        It gives the lie to the claim that “We had no other options”.

        The sniper-example is far closer to the truth in that respect. No one can actually risk getting close to the suspect to attempt anything *except* shooting them.

        But if you have the means to get close enough to the suspect via remote-controlled robot – and they don’t have the means to evade it or destroy it – then by definition you have “options”.

      3. One guy is not a war.

      4. different people “incapacitate” differently. Meanwhile,the ones that don’t succumb immediately can do tremendous damage or more murders.
        Tasers don’t always work,chemicals,gases,or drugs need different dosages to incapacitate different people,overdo it,and you kill them. So-called “non-lethal” rubber bullets often kill instead of incapacitate. Pepper spray has killed people.

  14. So… how are my filthy little anarcho-frankentrumpkensteins doing today?

  15. Armed drones are going to be a nightmare for static security. The problem isn’t so much one of them. It will be when the technology develops to the point where you have a swarm of them each operating in coordination with the other and with some kind of AI. How you stop such a swarm is a question no one has figured out.

    1. How you stop such a swarm is a question no one has figured out.

      Fortunately, how you create such a swarm is also a question no one has figured out.

      1. It won’t be long before they do. It is not that big of a technical problem. Drones get smaller and smarter all of the time. It is just a matter of time before such a thing not only exists but is quite easy to build.

        1. Typically, how you defend against something is a question answered *very quickly* once the ‘how do you kill people with this’ question is answered.

      2. actually there is a group of scientist that have swarmed drones already they even got them to go through obstructions and lift things together.

        1. From what I’ve seen, those demonstrations are usually in tightly controlled environments.

          1. But they are being developed for the express purpose of operating in very uncontrolled, chaotic environments.

            I have worked with such tech (albeit via ground robots, not flying ones). One primary goal of drone swarm development is their use in rescue efforts such as sending a swarm of drones into the rubble of a massive explosion on the scale of the World Trade Center.

            The goal is for rescue workers to quickly search for survivors with swarms that are able to navigate themselves through highly random, unknown environments. The swarms would of course have infrared heat-detecting cameras as well as night-vision and normal cameras and could intelligently find and circle around survivors, getting as much video back to the rescue team as possible.

            Adding guns to such drones will be a trivial challenge once they get the swarming down right.

            1. And how is a drone, intent on producing harm, going to react to a big-ass fan?

      3. A signal jammer would probably do it.

    2. EMP, electro magnetic pulse, sure it will screw up everything else as well but it works unless the drone is shielded of course

      1. Wind a coil of wire around a core of explosive, run a current through the wire, detonate the explosive (explosively pumped flux compression).

        0r

        Microwave generator of sufficient power – basically a large radar set.

    3. How you stop such a swarm is a question no one has figured out.

      Well, there’s always massive firepower.

      Or, an EMP (not sure you can get one without popping a nuke, though).

    4. That’s why Liandri gave us flak cannons.

      1. Though some sort of artificial spiderweb barrier would also help.

    5. I’m going to throw a couple out there right off the top of my head:

      1. Shotgun
      2. Fire
      3. Water
      4. Magnets (How DO those fucking things work, anyway?)
      5. Net
      6. Directed electricity
      7. Counter drone swarms

      This is literally without doing any hard thinking. So unless you have water proof, shielded, armored, non magnetic, fire retardant, microscopic drones, I am pretty sure I have at least one of those methods at my disposal pretty much at any time.

  16. OH GOD I can’t wait for that Obozo to leave. Anyone know how much longer we have to wait?

    1. ^He/she/it is getting desperate folks. Keep it up and we will have another name change. Eventually the power source will go out and ‘poof’, no more trollbot.

      1. Your estimate of its ability to respond rationally to incentives might be a bit optimistic.

  17. None of the drone hunting ban laws I examined made an exception for drone hunting on private land. The states likely claim to have the authority to enact such bans because wildlife is legally “owned” by the states, not by private individuals.

    Well, Bailey, poaching is against the crown.

    On a serious note: good observation on your part.

    1. wildlife is legally “owned” by the states

      Oh FFS. Is this like how the Queen owns all the swans?

      1. Apparently, this is why the government of Virginia won’t admit that we’ve got mountain lions here: because then the state wildlife people would have a shitload of more responsibility.

    2. That’s why you have to get a hunting permit.

      Otherwise, wildlife is just “commons”, and we know what happens to the commons, don’t we?

  18. Speaking of the 2A, Obama just stripped everyone getting disability insurance or SSI of their 2A rights, on the theory that if you are disabled, you are mentally defective and not allowed to own a gun.

    http://pjmedia.com/trending/20…..ecipients/

    1. Christ, what an asshole.

      1. They are just handing Trump opportunities to become a hero in his first 100 days, assuming he follows through on getting rid of these midnight/lame duck regulations.

    2. This is exactly what I have been saying for years now. Once government is able to put any restrictions on Constitutional rights through regulation, you now have a slippery slope and it will not end until everyone is denied those rights. People thinking ‘oh, well those are bad people right? It can never happen to me’ are complete morons.

      1. Rights can only be denied through “due process”.
        Unfortunately what process is due has morphed from what most people would think – brought against individuals, with the ability to defend themselves – to the process of some legislature passing a law, and now, a bureaucracy creating a regulation.
        With the Supreme Court’s use of the newly created “substantive” due process, which means none, at all, we will see more rights deprived of entire categories of people, like this effort.
        And we will have nowhere to turn, but to the 2A.
        Well, they asked for it.

    3. Conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights based on disability status. Put the people behind this reg in jail, as high as the former President. That will make gun-banners think twice before they get clever next time. One good thing about Trump seems to be a willingness to stop playing defense and start taking enemy scalps. We need Punisher, not Batman.

  19. In October, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Taser International had met with some police officials to discuss the idea of installing stun guns on police drones. In 2014, the South African company Desert Wolf unveiled its Skunk Riot Control Drone that could shoot pepper spray, paintballs, or plastic bullets.

    Those sure are some delicate devices for confronting mobs with comparatively short-range stuff like pepper spray.

  20. As a matter of principle: Any weapon-control law that exempts uniformed law enforcement or plainclothes government agents (or both) is a violation of the 2nd Amendment on its face and should be struck down on that basis.

    So if cops can fly armed drones, then I claim a right to do so as well. If the Secret Service can fly armed drones, then I claim a right to do so as well. If the Army or Air Force flies armed drones, then OK we can talk about it – but only as long as the posse comitatus laws keep the Army and Air Force out of performing law-enforcement tasks.

  21. A spectacular (and loud) YouTube video showing a drone rigged with a handgun actually firing bullets freaked out a lot of folks last year.

    Really? *REALLY*?

    Is it because of the word ‘drone’? Because people have been putting guns (and cameras!) on RC operated helicopters for AT LEAST a decade now.

    This isn’t anything new.

  22. Didn’t an episode of Colony show these weaponized drones? A 1952 Robert Heinlein novel described Dragon dictation software down to intimate specifics over 40 years before there was such a thing.

  23. The recoil seems to affect it quite a bit, and I’d be worried about ejected brass hitting a rotor. I also wonder how the CG changes as a magazine goes from full to empty (and when the slide locks back). But hey, all in all, once a few kinks are ironed out, it seems like a great and fun idea.

    1. the drones available today have accelerometers and automatically balance themselves. it’s really a tiny computer doing the flying,your inputs just give it direction,speed,and altitude. No human could control a quadcopter on their own,4 separate motors speeding up or slowing down just to balance the drone,and then fly it somewhere.

      1. I tried manually controlling a quad in a simulator. Horrendously difficult. It’s more of a controlled fall in the general direction you want than actually flying it. Add any movement in the air whatsoever, and you hit the ground. It’s amazing what computers can do.

  24. What does it matter if you hunt with a drone armed or not? You still would have to have a tag. The state gives out a certain number regardless. Why would they care how they are filled?

    1. Shitty hunters means they can plan for 1,000 dead deer and issue 1,200 tags, maybe (like airline overbooking)?

      Then anything that could increase tag-filling rate would cut their revenues.

  25. I think the issue is the gun, not the drone, and since the 2A protects my right to bear firearms, it should logically extend to protect my right to use technology which assists that right. A drone in this case isn’t really much different than a butt stock, or a scope. It’s a device which makes my use of a firearm easier or more effective, but it doesn’t change the nature of the weapon in any way; a remote-controlled helicopter with a camera and a gun mounted on it isn’t fundamentally different than my being in a helicopter with a scope and a rifle.

    1. One clarification; the 2A protects your right to bear arms, not just firearms. Those old white guys were actually aware that technology would improve. And at the time, a lot of the arms borne were edged weapons.

    2. no,once you mount your gun to a drone,it’s not you that’s bearing the arm,it’s the drone. the RKBA does not extend to robots.(or remote control devices)
      With an armed drone,you could sit in your car and fly your drone somewhere,shoot people,fly it away and not get caught or even identified as the shooter. it would give you time and distance to easily disappear.

      1. Unless your drone has cloaking, I’m calling horseshit. A guy here tried to do something similar, using a drone to pick up a bag full of money he extorted from a local family. The police watched the drone fly right to the guys car a couple blocks away, and picked him right up.

  26. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. “In 2012 on Fox News, Justice Antonin Scalia observed: “Obviously the [2nd] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried?it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons?but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.””

    The people who write the 2a disagree with you. They specifically said that it of course protects your right to own and mount naval cannons on your privately owned ship.

    1. Beat me to it.

  28. My rule of reasonable is – if law enforcement is allow to carry it – I should be too.

  29. Obviously the [2nd] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried?it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons?but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” Scalia’s comment provoked attorney Lawrence Rafferty to snark, “Do we draw the limit at briefcase nukes that can be carried in one’s hand?”

    Scalia really screwed up on this one. In the days of the founders, the right for private individuals to own cannons and heavily-armed warships was recognized. It is by no means “obvious” that the second amendment only applies to “hand-carried” arms. If the founders wanted to limit it to hand-carried arms they could have easily specified that.

  30. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. Are you for real? Seriously, you think this is worth writing about? Utterly barking.

  32. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  33. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  34. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  35. Aaliyah. I see what you mean… Edwin`s artlclee is unimaginable, on friday I bought themselves a Cadillac after making $5642 this past five weeks and-more than, 10/k lass month. this is definitely the best-job Ive ever done. I began this six months/ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $75, per-hr. Learn More Here

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  36. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  37. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ================ http://www.homejobs7.com

  38. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.