(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.