RX8er wrote:I'm more concerned with the fact that they can fire "things" from these at citizens on US soil.
"
THEY" have been able to fire "things" (much worse than tasers) from drones at citizens on U.S. soil for years now, lacking only the political will and evil intent to do so. It doesn't really matter what one's opinion of it is, but they already overcame the inertia against firing on U.S. citizens. What remains is the inertia of doing it on U.S. soil.
The thing about technology is that it lacks any kind of intent, good
or bad. Even things which are built for the purpose of mass destruction—Fat Man and Little Boy—lack evil intent since they were used for the purpose of drawing a long and costly war, both in terms of material destruction and human lives lost, to a more rapid end than would have otherwise occurred. In the case of those two bombs, even the Japanese lost fewer lives than they would have lost had the U.S. had to go through with a land invasion and continued aerial firebombing of their cities, though the loss of life in those two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone was beyond imagining. The devices themselves were no more evil than a pistol. The only thing that counted from a moral perspective was the user's intent and the context in which they were used.
It's the same with drones. There are plenty of very good applications for drone technology: SAR, forestry analysis, crop analysis, traffic monitoring, and yes, with limitations, even police work. The problem isn't drones, per se. It is the death of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT