Leaderboard

The post calling this forum/its members racist for disagreement of opinion has been removed. If people are wondering where the line is, here’s an example.

That’s fucking hilarious when the current immigration problem was largely caused by a far left political movement that believed that importing as many dark sinned people as possible was the ticket to winning elections. Because apparently skin color has everything to do with how you vote. Now tell me who’s racist? By the way, pulling the “you’re racist” card is the most clear way to know the person you’re arguing with is not someone worth spending time on.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of using the military to get this under control but the city, county, and state leadership are unable or unwilling to use law enforcement to prevent destruction of property and attacks on Federal personnel executing their lawful duties. Democrats have pandered to these people for so long, they think free speech is throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. FAFO.

We should. We’ve been invaded.

Yup. But since not everything in the universe is correlated to everything else in the universe, I'll need you to expand a little bit more. There are also examples of countries that severely punish drug use, and as such have wildly lower usage rates. Again, that's not me endorsing the punishment, but to deny the reality that it *can* be controlled is silly. And there's a whole separate conversation about whether or not something becomes pointless just because it cannot be pursued to perfection. Just because you *can* get meth doesn't mean we should legalize it. Fewer meth heads is a societal good. But we can start another thread on the inanity of libertarian purism if we want to continue that discussion.

That's an oversimplification. If guns are 100% illegal in all circumstances, then anyone with a gun is by definition a criminal and can be engaged accordingly. That makes things vastly simpler from a defensive/law enforcement perspective. It would absolutely, positively reduce the number of mass murders, gang killings, and other firearms associated fatalities. Those numbers are very obviously shown in countries that have outright bans on firearms. I'm completely against that position, but trying to boil it down to "the bad guys will have it anyways" is excessively simplistic. This applies even more so to drones. It is simply easier to do something illegal with a tool that is legal than it is to do with an illegal tool. If we go so far as to say that civilian drone ownership is illegal, then the ROE for drones gets very simple very fast. See it, shoot it. I'm against making guns illegal because I believe in the core premise of the second amendment. The risk of government-induced tyranny is far worse than the loss of life associated with the legalization of firearms. I do not believe that premise extends to drones. I'm also not advocating for making drones illegal (haven't given it enough thought), but it's a hyper-libertarian argument to say that "bad guys will have it anyways" and almost every hyper-libertarian argument collapses upon contact with reality.

Surely you mean “mostly peaceful protest” my good sir.

I'm fairly confident even AETC doesn't know the answer to that question...

Yes, however nobody was confused that you may or may not be holding cocaine legally. That’s the premise with highly regulating a commercial substance, same reason while criminals can get hand grenades or fertilizer, they can’t just walk into any old shop and go and acquire it, nor would an attempt to buy 1000lbs of certain precursor chemicals go unnoticed. If drones were turned into a highly regulated item, the guy trying to walk one to a sporting event would stick out pretty well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My solution

Reminds me of laws or signs stating "Gun Free Zone.". Yeah, right. I'm sure some criminal type bent on criminal activity came across one of those signs and turned around because the sign said no guns. If someone is going to do something war or terrorist like with a drone, they don't care about your laws, signs, etc.

Airspace rules, yes, as it would give greater authority to disable offending drones. Operator certificates and transponders? Nah, all that really does is add an extra civil fine/misdemeanor the DOJ can impose after someone conducts an act of war/terrorism. Not effective deterrence.

I had to sift through several childish posts to find a sentence worth engaging, it'd be nice if you were more mature. The problem with your quoted point is the police refuse to do anything because the mayor refuses to do anything because the governor refuses to do anything. Fortunately we have a POTUS who disagrees with your opinion of constitutional limits, and unlike the LAPD will not allow this behavior. I'm glad you agree these dudes should be stopped.

Like gun control, the restrictions you mention will only restrict lawful operators.

It was planned in and programmed before he was elected president. The Army was always going to celebrate its 250th birthday. Clutch pearls harder and get outraged the next flyover you see while you’re at it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Come on, it’s not like we let our adversary buy large plots of land adjacent to our military facilities… wait… it appears new information has just been handed to me. Fuck.

Because it's a stupid parade. Like we need to spend $$$ on that shit. But I guess little Taco needs an ego stroke so he can look mighty like Un. Tards.