SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The political and ideological discussion in the USA about gun control laws and the 2nd Amendment has been a hot topic for decades. Usually, the topic remains in a glowing, hot-ember state. The heat and light emanating from this hot-ember pulses and intensifies when fanned by the news of mass murder involving guns. As drones become more prevalent in society, I fear the hot-embers of this age-old debate will fan into flames. While one must have a license to operate either machine, that legal requirement will not deter those with harmful intent.
Putting aside the political and ideological debates, how would soylentils implement a no-fly zone for drones - especially ones with harmful payloads or in areas containing volatile substances?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ask Soylent: Drones and the Right to Bear Arms
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
innovate, v.:
To annoy people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:17PM
While one must have a license to operate either machine
Huh?
especially ones with harmful payloads or in areas containing volatile substances?
LOL the really harmful ones will be police surveillance, military surveillance and forward arty observation, etc.
Basically we have more to fear from government operated drones than private ones, and I'm sure it'll be made illegal to interfere with big brother's drones, so good luck with that.
how would soylentils implement a no-fly zone
There's some weird cultural drift where the term no-fly zone has drifted into signalling to each other how we all agree celebrities are a more equal animal than the rest of us equal animals so we'll demonstrate solidarity with each other by disparagement in public. But where the actual term comes from is men with guns and missiles shooting down anything without their IFF code, and the opposition can figure it out by observing executive orders and take their chances flying, or not. And that's the only way no-fly zones will be implemented. I would imagine in the hood, the locals will shotgun police drones making a defacto no fly zone. Possibly countries will declare they're a no fly zone for foreign country spy drones, and shoot them down. The only way to implement will be use of weapons, everything else is just social media talk that won't do anything.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:30PM
Right - no license necesary to purchase or to own a weapon in the state of Arkansas. Concealed carry requires a license, but UNCONCEALED carry does not. I'm a believer in "Constitutional carry" - that is, the second amendment is my license. I'm not going to ask the sheriff or anyone else if I can have a weapon, or when or where I can carry it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:47PM
I personally want anybody who wants to carry/own/use a firearm to have a license. Similar to a drivers license.
That is, I want a firearm license to indicate the holder knows:
- which end is the business end
- how to store firearms/ munitions safely.
- how to carry them safely
- how to fire them without injuring themselves
- other firearms best practices.
- some reasonable belief the holder has mental facilities to understand the risks
There is risk associated with firearms. I want some assurance users of firearms know what it is they are using.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:13PM
Then advocate for a constitutional amendment.