SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An 18-year-old student in Clinton, Connecticut has led the Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and local police to investigate after his video of a quadcopter drone firing a handgun went viral.
According to his father, Austin Haughwout assembled the drone warrior for a college class project with the help of a professor at Central Connecticut State University. A spokesman for the university said that the professor strongly discouraged Haughwout and that the drone wasn't related to a class project. The 14-second video, posted on YouTube on July 10th, shows a quadcopter hovering and firing a semiautomatic handgun (unconfirmed that this was a Kel-Tec PMR-30 pistol) four times in midair. CNN reports that the agencies involved haven't found any evidence of wrongdoing:
"We are attempting to determine if any laws have been violated at this point. It would seem to the average person, there should be something prohibiting a person from attaching a weapon to a drone. At this point, we can't find anything that's been violated," Clinton Police Chief Todd Lawrie said. [...] The Federal Aviation Administration and federal law agencies are also investigating "to determine if there were any violations of criminal statutes," the FAA said.
[...] Law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes, a former director of the FBI, said he believed the gun drone could be illegal as a form of reckless conduct. "What if the drone gets beyond the distance of the radio control? We had that drone land on the front lawn of the White House," Fuentes said. Earlier this year, a U.S. intelligence agency employee lost control of a borrowed personal quadcopter drone, which crashed on the White House lawn. "Do we want drones out of control that could land who knows here? We could have a child pick up the drone, pick up the gun, and accidentally kill themselves. I see the whole thing as reckless conduct," Fuentes said.
This isn't the teen's first taste of national drone fame. He was assaulted by a 23-year-old woman last year while taking aerial footage of a beach using an unarmed quadcopter. Despite assaulting a minor and lying to the police whom she had called to the scene, in contradiction of video evidence from the drone and Haughwout's iPhone, she received just 2 years probation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 23 2015, @02:54PM
Absolutely NONE of those "assumptions" you mention were even contemplated by the Second amendment proponents. Not one.
There were several drafts, and various letters and newspaper articles discussing the reasons for a second amendment.
Some drafts actually mentioned that the people needed to be armed sufficiently to overthrow the government (to do so is considered a right of the people). They decided to tone down that language a tad in the final version.
All understood that arms meant equipment ON PAR with then current military standard issue weaponry.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday July 23 2015, @03:32PM
They didn't write those things down because they didn't need to write them. They also didn't bother to mention opposable thumbs or using your eyes to aim. Likewise, no special rules for space or what happens during an alien invasion either. They didn't debate those because it was a given that blind people wouldn't be using firearms and that you'd have to hold the gun in some way in order to fire it.
Assuming that just because they didn't specifically mention the things that they were taking for granted that they weren't taking them for granted is rather ridiculous. Those things were all a a part of the context and the mental framework they were using when they debating.
Just because it's not convenient to consider the historical context in which the discussions and debates were being made, does not make it more accurate to pretend like the debate considered the future consequences of technological advance. At that time there was very little difference in weaponry available. It was mostly flintlocks that were notorious for misfiring and you'd have to choose between a hair trigger and one that would take longer to fire. With the trade off being that you'd either have it fire before you might want or having to wait a moment after pulling the trigger.
BTW, considering that they did specifically mention well-organized militas in the 2nd amendment, I find it rather hard to believe that they didn't discuss the matter.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 23 2015, @03:55PM
> All understood that arms meant equipment ON PAR with then current military standard issue weaponry.
The US has a nuke for every 100 or 200 military personnel. Every high-rise in the country should have a nuke launcher, just to be on par.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 23 2015, @04:18PM
You know, like a rifle. Also, nuclear weapons would be a terrible way to retake your country.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 23 2015, @04:34PM
Hey, don't ask me what's actually required to retake the country from an army known to have used nukes in less-than-dire situations before: I checked the box that said "I don't intend to overthrow the US government".
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 24 2015, @12:32AM
There is a catch-22 in there where you first swore an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 23 2015, @05:01PM
Leave Texas out of this!
Some drafts actually mentioned that the people needed to be armed sufficiently to overthrow the government (to do so is considered a right of the people).
And please show us where in the the US Constitution that such a right is considered? The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. Nor are the Articles of Succession. Treason will now come on a quadcopter?
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Thursday July 23 2015, @09:58PM
So, what happens, if someone makes preaches in the street to overthrow the government?
Is inciting riot legal in the US?
Also, by and large, how many men would it require to march to Washington armed, before the military would stop mawing them down with machine guns, and admit it to be a legitimate overthrowment?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Friday July 24 2015, @01:16AM
that would be sedition, which is very illegal. here [cornell.edu] is the relevant law.
the problem here though is that the US has a rogue government, operating outside the law and flagrantly ignoring its foundational document which grants it sovereignty, and by ignoring that it loses all legitimacy. basically every congressman and all employees of many gov't branches (most notably DEA, NSA, DHS, and TSA employees) are openly violating 5 U.S. Code § 7311 [cornell.edu] (punishment listed under 18 U.S. Code § 1918 [cornell.edu]). rather than suggesting to overthrow the government, we just need to push for enforcement of Title 18 USC sec. 1918, because if it were to be enforced there'd be no need for the appearance of sedition.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 24 2015, @01:07AM
except for the one about there being no standing army, because a full-time standing army is explicitly forbidden by the constitution:
the US Army is supposed to be nothing but militias, ie, national guard/army reserve units called to active duty with no full-time "active duty" branch:
(note that this is also what's meant by the "well-regulated militia" clause, and if you say something about all able-bodied men are the militia, well, then that supports the GP's statement about the assumption that nearly all adults would own one)