16
   

Drones: how much longer will it take...

 
 
hightor
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 01:36 pm
The drone incursions at Britain's Gatwick Airport should make us realize how easily these devices, like firearms, can be used for nefarious purposes. It's bad enough that they can be used to intrude on people's privacy. A couple of them firing Roman candles into the crowd at the Superbowl would cause havoc. A few dozen miscreants with multiple drones could easily paralyze all major airports in the NY metropolitan area. How long before the government steps in? What are the laws in other countries? I know there are some restrictions at present in the USA but it wouldn't surprise me if we started hearing calls to tighten up on regulations. In the present deregulatory climate it will probably take a disaster before anyone takes this threat seriously.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 16 • Views: 1,287 • Replies: 54

 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 01:45 pm
@hightor,
More guns are the answer to this problem. If we can find owners able to recognize drones.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 03:01 pm
@hightor,
I don't see an easy or clean solution to this type of problem. Drone swarms are already being created in universities (Drone light show at the Olympics for example) and it only take someone with a lot of money (or a government) to buy a bunch of drones and swarm them into whatever area they choose. And we haven't even started talking about what happens if they put small explosives onto them. Just a swarm itself hovering around over an airport might bring down a plane just by getting sucked into an engine.
engineer
 
  6  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 03:21 pm
@RABEL222,
Banning drones is not the answer! The answer to a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 04:33 pm
Once they ban assault drones they'll be coming after the camera drones, and next it will be your kid's radio commanded Star Wars toys.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 05:09 pm
This debate will drone on forever.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 05:35 pm
Or they may just let it ride, as with dangerous lasers.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 06:54 pm
@edgarblythe,
Since drones are not "arms" , ownership is not covered in the Bill of rights , amendments, or articles in the constitution, they are not above the reach of the law.
So, requiring drone pilots to be licensed should be doable.
I have several drone services that I use for LIDAR surveys in sinkhole and lineaments/faults areas, all my drone pilot contractors are state licensed as a requirement from my insurance carrier, with me as additional insured. (Drone flying is a licensed "priviledge" , not a right)

We use the bigass octacopters which can hurt ya if their props hit you, awire, a rare bird.

Payloads arent real high but theyre getting better with newer more powerful batteries linked up in parallel so you can almost fly to the coast with one.

My one drone contractor (most of these guys are like big kids havin fun and gettin payed) drove his octacopter into a barn just like he was aiming for it. Sucker just broke into a gazillion pieces and we lost two weeks time till he could rig up another with the LIDAR unit (after he got it repaired). He had to file a safty incidence report, and was given points

Pa requires contractor who use drones to have a licensed pilot ,Im not sure about hobbyists with these little peeps that you can buy at a TARGET store or Wally Mart. Most of the ones with cameras or the Go Pros have a GPS hookup nd can be trcked pretty easily.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 07:02 pm
@farmerman,
PS, your lme humor did not scape me, I hear it all the time from the pilot who think they are comedians, until I explain their responsibility as a contractor to me and my clients.
They start paying attention when we review their insurance certificates.

I imagine that the drone pilots will gradually take on more of a professional demeanor in a few years. Like any technology (Maybe George OB can remember back when zeppelins were considered new), takes a bit o time to snug into a safety protocol.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 07:06 pm
@rosborne979,
theres a study report on just that issue , both accidental and terror. Using just a few W/carbide bee-bees on a drone and getting sucke into a jet engine would tear up the engine 100% of the time.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2018 10:22 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
drones are not "arms"
That can change.
http://able2know.org/topic/431064-1
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 12:04 am
@farmerman,
The solution is to....ARM THE DRONES.

I’ll put my glock on a Mavic and....BOOM, 2nd amendment protection.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 03:20 am
@maporsche,
The problem with that is, Heller only forbids restrictions that have no justification.

That's a problem for the freedom haters because they can't justify the gun restrictions that they advocate.

But if society wanted to ban armed drones, justification could probably be produced.

Even if we were to set Heller aside and use Miller, armed drones would be covered by the Second Amendment only if the military started using them as regular weapons.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 05:53 am
@oralloy,
here we go.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 07:08 am
Actually, The United States versus Miller (which was cited in Heller) cites the power granted to Congress to provide for arming the militia, and denied that the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment. Specifically, the author of the majority opinion stated: Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. That referred to a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length. So, in fact, the Congress would have to require the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) to be equipped with armed drones, before the unorganized militia (all those clowns out there running around playing soldier) could make a claim that they are entitled to use armed drones.

Oralloy is obviously delusion, and unable to distinguish between his (warped) opinions and fact.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 08:14 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Actually, The United States versus Miller (which was cited in Heller) cites the power granted to Congress to provide for arming the militia,
The Miller ruling cites Congress' power to arm the militia only in respect to the fact that the Second Amendment modifies that power, allowing people to be armed even if Congress fails to arm them (or tries to prevent them from being armed).

Setanta wrote:
and denied that the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment.
That is incorrect. The Miller ruling said that the NFA would not violate the Second Amendment if it did not cover military weapons.

Had proceedings resumed against Mr. Miller, he might have claimed that his weapon was in fact a military weapon. Had he done so, there would then have been court proceedings to address that question.

Setanta wrote:
Specifically, the author of the majority opinion stated: Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. That referred to a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length.
Correct.

Setanta wrote:
So, in fact, the Congress would have to require the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) to be equipped with armed drones, before the unorganized militia (all those clowns out there running around playing soldier) could make a claim that they are entitled to use armed drones.
Close, but not quite. Any regular military use would establish it as a valid military weapon. At that point the Miller ruling would prevent Congress from outlawing it.

Setanta wrote:
Oralloy is obviously delusion, and unable to distinguish between his (warped) opinions and fact.
Nope. As usual everything that I said is completely correct, and no one can point out anything that I am wrong about.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 08:41 am
@oralloy,
arming a drone doesnt make it covered by the 2nd amendment any more than does sticking a machine gun in a helicopter.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 08:46 am
@farmerman,
Damn. Idea foiled.

Well, I’d probably get to keep my armed drone while the whole thing played out in court.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 09:31 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
arming a drone doesnt make it covered by the 2nd amendment any more than does sticking a machine gun in a helicopter.
It does under Miller if the US military uses it as a regular infantry weapon.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 10:00 am
@oralloy,
you dont understand, the HELICOPTER, by itself isnt protected and to operate one , one needs training and a chopper pilot license. The average citizen cannot just take out a chopper.

ARming a car doesnt automatically bring it under the 2nd amendment. I think you better go back and think a bit more about it.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Drones: how much longer will it take...
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 07:46:50