TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote: ...the subject of the article's daughter ordered a Thompson Sub-machine Gun through the mail.

Ahhh, the good ol days!

Some people here already know my feelings on UAVs. If you're concerned about their uses, make your voice heard because they're coming like it or not. However, keep in mind that the scary stuff (surveillance, law enforcement) is a comparitively tiny portion of the industry as a whole. Don't demonize the tool... look at who is using it (comparison to guns, anyone?).

I happily agree that law enforcement having armed UAVs is far, far over the line though, and the fact that it's even being considered is unsettling.

MadMonkey wrote:I happily agree that law enforcement having armed UAVs is far, far over the line though, and the fact that it's even being considered is unsettling.

Having the same technology in the hands of Google and others is almost as unsettling. There are too many companies collecting and selling personal information. With drone surveillance, that would only get worse. Red light cameras are in the hands of contractors. I cannot imagine how far South things could go if LE outsources surveillance using drones.

chasfm11 wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:I happily agree that law enforcement having armed UAVs is far, far over the line though, and the fact that it's even being considered is unsettling.

Having the same technology in the hands of Google and others is almost as unsettling. There are too many companies collecting and selling personal information. With drone surveillance, that would only get worse. Red light cameras are in the hands of contractors. I cannot imagine how far South things could go if LE outsources surveillance using drones.

In San Diego, the red-light-scamera vendors were eventually found to be shortening the yellow lights, and then ultimately mis-positioning the sensors so as to 'catch' people who hadden't actually run the light. The city had to refund fines paid, back to the statute of limitations for the infractions. Fines paid (and presumably contract payments to the 3rd party vendors) before that point were kept by the parties evolved. My tax dollars at work

MadMonkey wrote:Some people here already know my feelings on UAVs. If you're concerned about their uses, make your voice heard because they're coming like it or not. However, keep in mind that the scary stuff (surveillance, law enforcement) is a comparitively tiny portion of the industry as a whole. Don't demonize the tool... look at who is using it (comparison to guns, anyone?).
I happily agree that law enforcement having armed UAVs is far, far over the line though, and the fact that it's even being considered is unsettling.

That's a ridiculous comparison! We shouldn't object to domestic drone use, because they're just tools, just like guns? Wow - can civilians go out and buy a drone to fly around & do covert personal surveillance?

Drones ARE tools. Tools that provide information and POWER (including potential killing power) to their users. The framers sought to enact limits to protect the people against the inherent danger in providing power to those that may use it to oppress. Maybe you need to revisit the 2nd and 4th Amendments - is the common objective to protect the use of the "tools" (whether arms in the 2nd or the means used to search & seize in the 4th) or to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

It's clear you have a beneficial interest in the expansion of drone use, so your promoting of them is understood. I hope there are more of us that believe in individual rights and due process, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. It's far from remote that drone use will follow a similar, but more expansive path as red-light cameras and will soon find their way into helping "enforce" everything from local ordinances to federal EPA dictates, enacting fines and seizing property along the way.

chasfm11 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...would you lead a drone like a dove, or more like a duck???

but I doubt that you are going to get close enough to one of them to use a 12 gauge on it. Have something better in mind?

...would you believe a slingshot???

Slowplay wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:Some people here already know my feelings on UAVs. If you're concerned about their uses, make your voice heard because they're coming like it or not. However, keep in mind that the scary stuff (surveillance, law enforcement) is a comparitively tiny portion of the industry as a whole. Don't demonize the tool... look at who is using it (comparison to guns, anyone?).
I happily agree that law enforcement having armed UAVs is far, far over the line though, and the fact that it's even being considered is unsettling.

That's a ridiculous comparison! We shouldn't object to domestic drone use, because they're just tools, just like guns? Wow - can civilians go out and buy a drone to fly around & do covert personal surveillance?

Drones ARE tools. Tools that provide information and POWER (including potential killing power) to their users. The framers sought to enact limits to protect the people against the inherent danger in providing power to those that may use it to oppress. Maybe you need to revisit the 2nd and 4th Amendments - is the common objective to protect the use of the "tools" (whether arms in the 2nd or the means used to search & seize in the 4th) or to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

It's clear you have a beneficial interest in the expansion of drone use, so your promoting of them is understood. I hope there are more of us that believe in individual rights and due process, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. It's far from remote that drone use will follow a similar, but more expansive path as red-light cameras and will soon find their way into helping "enforce" everything from local ordinances to federal EPA dictates, enacting fines and seizing property along the way.

Slowplay wrote: That's a ridiculous comparison! We shouldn't object to domestic drone use, because they're just tools, just like guns?

Object to UAV misuse. I already said that arming law enforcement (or any domestic-use UAV) is over the line in my opinion. Like firearms, any technology/tool/vehicle/etc has the potential for serious misuse. Instead of banning them all, shouldn't companies and private citizens have the freedom to use them in a positive manner without infringing on the rights of another? Or would you rather they be regulated out of existence because you fear them?

Gee, this argument sounds mighty familiar.

Wow - can civilians go out and buy a drone to fly around & do covert personal surveillance?

Yes. Legality is another issue, though.

Drones ARE tools. Tools that provide information and POWER (including potential killing power) to their users. The framers sought to enact limits to protect the people against the inherent danger in providing power to those that may use it to oppress. Maybe you need to revisit the 2nd and 4th Amendments - is the common objective to protect the use of the "tools" (whether arms in the 2nd or the means used to search & seize in the 4th) or to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

How hard did you fight to ban binoculars from GA aircraft?

Let me ask a couple of questions.

1. Who is oppressing you with a UAV? Law enforcement? Then fight to keep them from having access to them. I don't want them to have UAVs either.

2. Do you think law enforcement or government surveillance is going to be the primary use of unmanned vehicles? News flash: It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the thousands of applications available.

The media is breathlessly reporting "armed surveillance drones" coming to the skies over US cities, while posting pictures of scary Reapers and Global Hawks which have zero to do with what is actually going on. One of the most popular platforms that law enforcement is looking at is the ShadowHawk:



Not quite as frightening as a stock photo of a Predator with a few Hellfires hanging on the wings. Yes, Vanguard (and many other UAV manufacturers) have talked about adding weapons (rubber bullets and tear gas, not miniguns and Sidewinders), but that has yet to happen with any domestic UAVs and I honestly doubt that it will due to the sheer level of liability involved. However, fight against it, make your voice heard regardless, because the people who would misuse UAVs (and any other technology) will take a yard if given an inch.

It's clear you have a beneficial interest in the expansion of drone use, so your promoting of them is understood.

Absolutely. I'm 110% excited because the domestic UAV market is about to explode, creating tens of thousands of jobs and revolutionizing (and cutting the costs) of hundreds of industries. I can provide a large list of uses that UAVs are already being developed and tested for, and not one of them involves "spying" on private citizens.

I hope there are more of us that believe in individual rights and due process, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

So do I. I also hope that fewer people have knee-jerk reactions and instead research the industry they're trying to demonize.

It's far from remote that drone use will follow a similar, but more expansive path as red-light cameras and will soon find their way into helping "enforce" everything from local ordinances to federal EPA dictates, enacting fines and seizing property along the way.

It's very possible, unless limits on law enforcement and government are put on such applications.

BTW, if you're referring to the alleged use of EPA UAVs spying on farms, those were actually manned aircraft.

BTW, if you're referring to the alleged use of EPA UAVs spying on farms, those were actually manned aircraft.

I am going to call bull on this.

First, I admit, I haven't done independent research. I didn't see the aircraft flying but every news article I have read calls them 'drones'. I looked up
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone drone in the dictionary.
2. a remote control mechanism, as a radio-controlled airplane or boat.

So...
Are you saying the news articles are wrong?
or
Are you saying there was a passenger in a remote controlled airplane?



Drones are weapons of war.
No branch of the government should deploy weapons of war on or above US soil.

What you are seeing on this tread are the beginnings of the resistance.
This step is building awareness.

tomneal wrote:
I am going to call bull on this.

First, I admit, I haven't done independent research. I didn't see the aircraft flying but every news article I have read calls them 'drones'. I looked up
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone drone in the dictionary.
2. a remote control mechanism, as a radio-controlled airplane or boat.

So...
Are you saying the news articles are wrong?

Yep. The stories were based on unsubstantiated claims (big shock there) that the EPA was using unmanned aircraft.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/06/08/ ... -missouri/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drones are weapons of war.
No branch of the government should deploy weapons of war on or above US soil.

Could you please explain the bolded statement?

Armed UAVs used by the military are indeed weapons of war. But calling all UAVs weapons of war shows an incredible lack of knowledge about the UAV industry, which media fearmongering certainly isn't helping.

What you are seeing on this tread are the beginnings of the resistance.
This step is building awareness.

I'm sorry, but

Say good bye to your privacy rights, assuming you still believe you have any.

chasfm11 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...would you lead a drone like a dove, or more like a duck???

but I doubt that you are going to get close enough to one of them to use a 12 gauge on it. Have something better in mind?

Wasn't this on an episode of Harry's Law?

...whozat???

MadMonkey wrote:

tomneal wrote:Drones are weapons of war.
No branch of the government should deploy weapons of war on or above US soil.

Could you please explain the bolded statement?

Yeah, I'm all against surveillance and whatnot, but drones could legitimately be used for pretty much anything other than flying people around (and that one's just because I doubt people would trust it).