SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
FAA threatens $25,000 fine for weaponizing drones
It's perfectly natural for a red-blooded American to, once they have procured their first real drone, experiment with attaching a flame thrower to it. But it turns out that this harmless hobby is frowned upon by the biggest buzzkills in the world... the feds.
Yes, the FAA has gone and published a notice that drones and weapons are "A Dangerous Mix." Well, that's arguable. But they're the authority here, so we have to hear them out.
"Perhaps you've seen online photos and videos of drones with attached guns, bombs, fireworks, flamethrowers, and other dangerous items. Do not consider attaching any items such as these to a drone because operating a drone with such an item may result in significant harm to a person and to your bank account."
Also at The Verge and PetaPixel.
Previously: Department of Homeland Security Terror Bulletin Warns of "Weaponized Drones"
Related: FAA Restricts Drone Operations Over 10 U.S. Landmarks
FAA Approves Blood Toting Drones at North Carolina Hospital
Commercial Drones Are Way More Popular Than the FAA Expected
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Warns Against Using Chinese Drones
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 25 2019, @10:24AM (4 children)
So, you are also advocating for warlords, ISIL, Taliban and the rest?? There are obvious reasons why you don't want your neighbor controlling his home made drone with a fucking shotgun attached to it. It's common fucking sense without going to "whataboutism" about US government having different laws when it comes to it's never-ending wars. If you want to protest policies of US Army/CIA, then do so. But that's completely unrelated to this shit.
Seriously dude.... think before writing stupid fucking things.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 25 2019, @05:21PM (2 children)
nobody's talking about people in other countries. we're talking about american citizens. also, the argument could be made that since the US gov military has weaponized drones then the 2a protects the right of the citizens to have weaponized drones. read the Federalist Papers if you are brainwashed about the 2a and don't understand wtf it's really for. The people are not under the gov. the gov is under the people, even if the people have not been fulfilling their duty the last 90 yrs or so..
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday August 26 2019, @04:18AM (1 child)
Flying a drone is not equivalent to bearing an arm. To bear means to carry. Learn to read.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @05:32AM
How about a tow cable attached to a drone to fly you around while you carry a bazooka (the anti-tank weapon)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @03:21PM
Maybe the not stupid fucking thing to write is that it's OK that the United States can issue an execution order on foreigners and have that remotely delivered by drone like Amazon wants to bring your new undies to you.
No, it is not completely unrelated. At all. If gun control advocates can suggest the possibility that maybe civilians shouldn't have military hardware (and no, not interested in the 'AR and AK aren't military' line here although I acknowledge that valid point), then maybe civilians can advocate that the military should not engage in some (some) behaviors that civilians cannot do. Like drone strikes. Torture. You know.