(07-17-2015 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 11:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I do not think the 2nd Amendment would cover this.

In case you were responding to me, let me be more clear (and I agree with you)

My only comment about the second amendment was that NO rights are without any limitations whatsoever... even life and liberty.... but that doesn't mean that all limitations are 'equal' either.

The ability to follow due process and a trial and appeals to take away someone's right to life or liberty doesn't create the ability to do so without those actions.

In context, the ability to stop someone from remotely firing a weapon is not the same as stopping them from firing, or especially owning a weapon... which is the only where the second amendment comes in and implied by the 'so SOME regulation is okay?' as that is sometimes argued (not saying by anyone on here) that once you open that door, ANY regulation is possible/legal/allowed.

No, I wasn't. I was replying in general.

I didn't read your first comment.

I'm sorry.

(07-17-2015 10:29 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft...

There are all sorts of laws about shooting from moving vehicles or mounting weapons on cars or planes... and 'remote' firing of weapons (like setting up a gun to be fired when someone opes a door or trips a wire) and I've never seen or heard of any serious issue with such regulation.


SO the left on the issue is merely making up a straw man and arguing with that.

It's not horrible technology and I could see its potential use in law enforcement (and we already have it in the military).

Under the second amendment, it should never be illegal to own a drone and own a gun... but should we get to the point where we are combining their uses, we've abandoned most other laws anyway. The person using this to defend himself or his property doesn't care about the laws against doing so.

So some regulation is okay, just checking.

I think so. In this case the weapon is not totally in the persons control. There are mechanical and environmental factors that come into play. Someone could hack into the signal and even wind could make this dangerous. IMO...If the firearm is not in your hand?...the paradigm changes.

That handgun aint nothing,

(07-17-2015 12:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No, I wasn't. I was replying in general.

I didn't read your first comment.

I'm sorry.

I appreciate it, but I hope you know there's no need to be sorry. I wasn't very clear and your comment pointed that out to me. You and I agree on lots of things, but that doesn't mean that we MUST agree on everything, so I was more than happy to accept that I had given you an incorrect impression.

Thanks.

(07-17-2015 12:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That handgun aint nothing,

That guys accent is the "****".

(07-17-2015 11:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You could fly this thing into Greece and literally take the country over in a minute or two.

Hell, France watched the video and already surrendered.

(07-17-2015 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 12:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  No, I wasn't. I was replying in general.

I didn't read your first comment.

I'm sorry.

I appreciate it, but I hope you know there's no need to be sorry. I wasn't very clear and your comment pointed that out to me. You and I agree on lots of things, but that doesn't mean that we MUST agree on everything, so I was more than happy to accept that I had given you an incorrect impression.

Thanks.

(07-17-2015 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 11:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You could fly this thing into Greece and literally take the country over in a minute or two.

Hell, France watched the video and already surrendered.

I lol'd.

(07-17-2015 10:12 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's still a person controlling the drone, correct? So that should still be legal, to be consistent.

I can see that argent if and only if you are on your own property that would be a stretch!! But it is cool!

(07-17-2015 11:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:29 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So some regulation is okay, just checking.

Of course. I don't recall the NRA or any other remotely popular 'gun' group arguing that people should be able to shoot guns anywhere at any time and by any means they want. Have you? Many gun owners are hunters and hunting is HIGHLY regulated with little complaint over most issues.

There's nothing about the right to keep and bear arms that allows you to shoot skeet in your apartment.

The problem with the way you've responded though is that you seem to be assuming that regulating how and when and where someone fires a gun (safe operation) is the same thing as denying ownership or operation... merely a 'gun regulation' and it isn't.

There are all sorts of things that you have an absolute right to (like free speech) but your ability to exercise that right is subject to regulation (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or blast loud music at 2am). You can own a gun, but you can't fire it anywhere at any time for any reason. There are limitations/regulations that don't interfere with your fundamental right.

Let's say you had the drone and it had a gun on it somewhere, and you didn't fire it. Then you aren't operating the gun. It's like concealed carry. Anyway, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about you not being able to shoot skeet in your apartment. Somebody had to interpret that.

(07-17-2015 11:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  to shoot skeet in your apartment.

Adds to list of things to do this weekend.

(07-17-2015 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Let's say you had the drone and it had a gun on it somewhere, and you didn't fire it. Then you aren't operating the gun. It's like concealed carry. Anyway, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about you not being able to shoot skeet in your apartment. Somebody had to interpret that.

They also had to interpret the 'yelling fire' and 2am restrictions... but the idea that rights aren't absolute or without restriction at all is very clearly stated in the Constitution.

These are your rights. You cannot be denied these rights without due process. The interpretation you're talking about IS due process.

To your hypo, it isn't concealed. Depending on how and where you fly it, assuming the drone has the ability to fire, it is arguably 'brandishing' a weapon or perhaps 'unsafe operation' which are crimes in most jurisdictions. Even if not technically a crime, it's not a smart move.

(07-17-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft...

There are all sorts of laws about shooting from moving vehicles or mounting weapons on cars or planes... and 'remote' firing of weapons (like setting up a gun to be fired when someone opes a door or trips a wire) and I've never seen or heard of any serious issue with such regulation.


SO the left on the issue is merely making up a straw man and arguing with that.

It's not horrible technology and I could see its potential use in law enforcement (and we already have it in the military).

Under the second amendment, it should never be illegal to own a drone and own a gun... like it's not illegal to own a car and to own beer... but should we get to the point where we are combining their uses, we've abandoned most other laws anyway. The person using this to defend himself or his property doesn't care about the laws against doing so.

that's carrying it too far IMO....and the comparative analogy is irrelevant since guns, drones, cars, and beer in any combination can or cannot kill

if your argument was always true regarding the 2nd amendment, then nukes should be available for sale....they only kill when triggered....I guess it would be neato to show off, "hey look at my nuke....I'll use it if I have to"

a line has to be drawn within the parameters of reason....drones offer zero value to the average consumer/business other than as a novelty, or to enhance the twisted fks that are amongst the rest....

you can't stop people from making things in their garage.....but you can outlaw commercial sales to force that to happen as the only choice for manufacturing....

edit: I fail to see how restricting owning a drone is a 2nd amendment violation

(07-18-2015 10:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft...

There are all sorts of laws about shooting from moving vehicles or mounting weapons on cars or planes... and 'remote' firing of weapons (like setting up a gun to be fired when someone opes a door or trips a wire) and I've never seen or heard of any serious issue with such regulation.


SO the left on the issue is merely making up a straw man and arguing with that.

It's not horrible technology and I could see its potential use in law enforcement (and we already have it in the military).

Under the second amendment, it should never be illegal to own a drone and own a gun... like it's not illegal to own a car and to own beer... but should we get to the point where we are combining their uses, we've abandoned most other laws anyway. The person using this to defend himself or his property doesn't care about the laws against doing so.

that's carrying it too far IMO....and the comparative analogy is irrelevant since guns, drones, cars, and beer in any combination can or cannot kill

if your argument was always true regarding the 2nd amendment, then nukes should be available for sale....they only kill when triggered....I guess it would be neato to show off, "hey look at my nuke....I'll use it if I have to"

a line has to be drawn within the parameters of reason....drones offer zero value to the average consumer/business other than as a novelty, or to enhance the twisted fks that are amongst the rest....

you can't stop people from making things in their garage.....but you can outlaw commercial sales to force that to happen as the only choice for manufacturing....

edit: I fail to see how restricting owning a drone is a 2nd amendment violation

Well, if you believe the comments on here, it is a violation because current laws say it is a violation.

And so it begins.

#DroneLivesMatter

(07-20-2015 10:35 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  #DroneLivesMatter

lol....

(07-20-2015 10:34 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  And so it begins.

XACLY!

this should be a real concern how this progresses.....

(07-18-2015 10:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's carrying it too far IMO....and the comparative analogy is irrelevant since guns, drones, cars, and beer in any combination can or cannot kill

That is entirely my point. Guns should be legal, drones should be legal, cars should be legal and beer should be legal.... specifically how you operate/use them is not always legal.

My point is simply that a drone shouldn't be illegal merely because you COULD attach a gun to it. I know it seems self-evident, but the entire gun law argument is about what people COULD do with weapons, because there are already laws for what people DO do with them.

Quote:if your argument was always true regarding the 2nd amendment, then nukes should be available for sale....they only kill when triggered....I guess it would be neato to show off, "hey look at my nuke....I'll use it if I have to"

That isn't remotely what I said. Not sure where the confusion is. Nukes are essentially illegal because there is NO 'safe' way to operate them for their intended purpose. Bombs of all types are essentially indiscriminate weapons. Adding a gun to your car or private airplane is MUCH more like a gun on a drone than having a nuke. It's not even remotely close IMO... so again, I'm not sure where I lost you.

Quote:a line has to be drawn within the parameters of reason....drones offer zero value to the average consumer/business other than as a novelty, or to enhance the twisted fks that are amongst the rest....

That's not true at all. An ARMED drone might fit that description, but drones are useful in security, advertising, artistic and numerous other reasonable endeavors. The comment about a rancher monitoring his southern border is also a legitimate reason for a drone, but IMO, not a legitimate reason to arm a drone. Trespass on open land miles away from people isn't generally something where 'deadly force' is authorized under law.

Quote:edit: I fail to see how restricting owning a drone is a 2nd amendment violation

It's not. We're talking about the gun on the drone.... not the drone itself. Unarmed drones have nothing to do with the second amendment, and to the extent that guns are legal and protected by the second amendment, it doesn't apply to ANY application (including a drone). Of course that is my opinion, but it seems obvious to me. Few/no people (other than perhaps gun OPPONENTS like RobertN trying to assign a set of beliefs to gun proponents) are seriously arguing that restricting a gun on a drone is a second amendment violation.

Guns have legitimate purposes. Drones have legitimate purposes. Nukes do not. That part isn't even remotely similar IMO. Just because you CAN use a drone or a gun for an illegitimate purpose doesn't mean they should be banned. Simply restrict their use to those legitimate purposes.

(07-20-2015 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-18-2015 10:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's carrying it too far IMO....and the comparative analogy is irrelevant since guns, drones, cars, and beer in any combination can or cannot kill

That is entirely my point. Guns should be legal, drones should be legal, cars should be legal and beer should be legal.... specifically how you operate/use them is not always legal.

My point is simply that a drone shouldn't be illegal merely because you COULD attach a gun to it. I know it seems self-evident, but the entire gun law argument is about what people COULD do with weapons, because there are already laws for what people DO do with them.

Quote:if your argument was always true regarding the 2nd amendment, then nukes should be available for sale....they only kill when triggered....I guess it would be neato to show off, "hey look at my nuke....I'll use it if I have to"

That isn't remotely what I said. Not sure where the confusion is. Nukes are essentially illegal because there is NO 'safe' way to operate them for their intended purpose. Bombs of all types are essentially indiscriminate weapons. Adding a gun to your car or private airplane is MUCH more like a gun on a drone than having a nuke. It's not even remotely close IMO... so again, I'm not sure where I lost you.

Quote:a line has to be drawn within the parameters of reason....drones offer zero value to the average consumer/business other than as a novelty, or to enhance the twisted fks that are amongst the rest....

That's not true at all. An ARMED drone might fit that description, but drones are useful in security, advertising, artistic and numerous other reasonable endeavors. The comment about a rancher monitoring his southern border is also a legitimate reason for a drone, but IMO, not a legitimate reason to arm a drone. Trespass on open land miles away from people isn't generally something where 'deadly force' is authorized under law.

Quote:edit: I fail to see how restricting owning a drone is a 2nd amendment violation

It's not. We're talking about the gun on the drone.... not the drone itself. Unarmed drones have nothing to do with the second amendment, and to the extent that guns are legal and protected by the second amendment, it doesn't apply to ANY application (including a drone). Of course that is my opinion, but it seems obvious to me. Few/no people (other than perhaps gun OPPONENTS like RobertN trying to assign a set of beliefs to gun proponents) are seriously arguing that restricting a gun on a drone is a second amendment violation.

Guns have legitimate purposes. Drones have legitimate purposes. Nukes do not. That part isn't even remotely similar IMO. Just because you CAN use a drone or a gun for an illegitimate purpose doesn't mean they should be banned. Simply restrict their use to those legitimate purposes.

w/o turning this into a cf....

I am a gun owner.....wouldn't want it any other way in this country

I misinterpreted a portion of your position.

you're right...the nuke reference was an extremist example that I didn't think through

however, IMO, ad hoc perusing the airstream of anonymity is a dangerous slope to climb.....meaning that I'm still trying to understand the value of drones and how this will affect the structuring of limits (law)

you claim there are valid uses......I have yet to see an example of one....

maybe a more reasonable comparison would be drones to Jarts.....they were cool when they were introduced to the public. however, once kids unintentionally became vlad the impaler, they were quickly pulled from the market...

IMO, the negatives far outweigh the positives at this point

hope that helps explain my position better...