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This discussion has been archived.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 jdavidb on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:36PM
Putting aside the political and ideological debates
To me this is a bit of a strange comment to make. If someone subscribes to an ideology they pretty much can't put it away. And most people do subscribe to some sort of ideology at least in some areas, although they may differ on what measures they are or are not willing to take to impose it on someone else. Here we are discussing basically what laws and what measures of force should exist to create a drone no-fly zone. For almost everybody that is going to come down to some sort of bedrock principles of right and wrong that will be used to determine the issue - an ideology.
Basically when people use terms like this, they are denigrating the points of view that don't match theirs. Their view is moderate and well-reasoned - others are "ideological."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings