Slashdot Mirror
That Toy Is Now a Drone
fluxgate (2851685) writes "A notice from the FAA announced earlier this week just turned a bunch of kids' toys into drones. In the past, the FAA had made the distinction between model aircraft (allowed) and drones (prohibited without special permission) according to whether they were used for recreation (okay) or commercial purposes (verboten). Now they have further narrowed the definition of model aircraft: If you fly it through video goggles, it no longer qualifies. This move eliminates First Person View (FPV) radio control flying. I'm an editor at IEEE Spectrum with a special interest and blogged about this disturbing development as soon as I heard the news."
As an RC airplane enthusiast, who likes to dabble in FPV and UAVs, I must say that I'm not surprised. However my feelings are a mix of outrage at the FAA as well as understanding. When a few irresponsible people use their toys in ways that are, well irresponsible, I'm not at all surprised to see the FAA come down hard on everyone. I think in many ways this is a tragedy of the commons. A few idiots have actually ruined it for everyone. When a toy has the power to kill people, or to hurt them, and people do stupid things with them, then it ceases to be a toy. We are now seeing stories in the news almost weekly of stupid people flying their toys in reckless and dangerous ways.
That said, I don't see how the FAA's rules are enforceable, nor do I see how the FAA can actually claim to have the authority to make rules in an an area that, as far as I can tell, congress has never granted them the power to do.
If FAA truly has the power to regulate a hobby, then they need to have a framework in place to allow this activity to continue safely. It's happening everywhere in the world. Banning it in the US will only put companies behind the curve who want to develop and use the technology.
Are "drones" the types of arms normally carried by soldiers and expected to bring when the militia is called?
I'm sorry for those losing out here, but I also don't see why they should be allowed to operate unmanned aerial vehicles with surveillance capabilities any more than anyone else.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The article and comments miss the point. http://washington.cbslocal.com... They are trying to regulate the use of the drones for peeping in neighbors yards and windows. They are trying to regulate it in a way without banning them, the over-reaction which will probably occur the first time a nude child shows up on youtube from an evil neighbor's google glasses. The CBS article - and most articles via news.google.com - point out that you can buy these pocket yard drones on amazon and are more nuanced about the policy debate than the /. "government is gonna take your toys away" article.
Gently reply
in 2014, yes.
Please, it's clear from the writings of the founders that the second amendment is only tangentially related to a militia. It's also to do with a check of the people against the government.
More than who? Wasn't everybody allowed?
The inventor of the Erector Set called this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory a kids toy too.
Neither the label you print on something nor who you say you intended to market it to changes what something actually is.
This is actually kind of important. The second amendment means little if you cannot posses weapons that pose a serious threat to the government. Air warfare is essential in today's battlefields.
So... regular quadcopter equals FAA-regulated and illegal but Quadcopter with a gun equals second amendment?
Good luck to all lawyers out there.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I also don't see why they should be allowed to operate unmanned aerial vehicles with surveillance capabilities any more than anyone else.
The default should be yes, you're allowed to do it as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Going to a park or a field and flying a model airplane (or drone, however you want to call it) doesn't hurt anyone, so it should be allowed.
One of the main arguments against centralized government authority is that it's too big to take into account the concerns of everyone, so small constituencies get trampled. That is the case here, people who were not hurting anyone are now prevented from a healthy hobby, and have very little recourse.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Stop flying it more safely! You may only fly it the more dangerous old way!"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's time to start de-electing politicians who are allowing this busybody (i.e. typical) government agency to run rampant without thought or control, like kings of old.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- in fact, I suspect from your choice of phrase that we would very much agree on the basic principles of how laws should work -- I'm just saying the law should apply equally to everyone. If certain areas are acceptable for this kind of hobby, they should be acceptable for other similar "drone" flights. Equally, if for whatever reason certain areas are not acceptable in law for general "drone" flights or if the default in law is that these devices aren't considered acceptable but they are then allowed under specific conditions, the same rules should apply for hobby aircraft with similar characteristics.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place, but the quadcopter-with-a-gun is certainly a weapon, so why wouldn't it be protected by the second amendment?
side note: To all those who say, "because that sounds super dangerous" the response is to draft a constitutional amendment to allow the government to regulate more things. Simply "interpreting" away the teeth of the second amendment merely encourages contempt of the constitution and all the other things protected by other clauses and amendments are sure to be abridged in the same manner.
Further side note: Perhaps it's me, but I've noticed over the past few years that while both congress and the people are interested in "regulating drones," both parties seem to have very different ideas about what will be regulated. Congress seems to want to regulate the use of drones by private individuals, but the clamor from the public seems to be about the use of drones by the state for surveillance or armed action. The whole thing is shaping up not unlike the calls for "immigration reform" where each party's ideas about what the reform should be are other parties' ideas about what needs to be fixed.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The FAA has always had this rule.
To be a flying a 'model' you have to fly by line of sight, i.e. with your eyes on the model, not via electronics. Its been this way for years.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The political speech workaround won't work. Mostly because these rules by the FAA are content neutral. You can't burn down a government building and sucessfully claim a "free speech" exemption from arson laws just because you used lighter fluid to spell out your "I hate government" message on the building, lit it, and posted a picture of the start of the fire with your message clearly visible in flames.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
and when a drone crashes into a plane the FAA will get all the power that they need and the pilot may be looking at some hard time and or a big lawsuit and if it's some commercial drone they better go all the way up the chain so they can't use the an network of subcontractors to get out of blame / have people who have no cash to pay out.
It would have been easy for the FCC to make regulations that allowed hobbyists to use toys, by defining the parameters to allow such uses. One first attempt would be something like, "these types of toys can be used when in view of the user"
In this case, it appears that they merely weren't aware of all the ramifications of what they were doing. So it's a mistake that hurts people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place..."
Maybe not quadracopters, but they definitely have the authority to regulate airspace. And regulation of quadracopters is probably coming, in much the same way as every little device that transmits radio waves is regulated now.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Is it quadcopters or quadracopters? After all, we say quad-core CPUs instead of quadra-core CPUs, but maybe there's a grammar rule or something that I'm not aware of.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What do you mean, CGI isn't real? Are you telling me vocaloids are a world-wide conspiracy?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
You know, I'm pretty sure that 18th century militia didn't wield pump-action shotguns all that often, either...
Ezekiel 23:20
They do something! They make my hipster hobby illegal!
In principle, this is a good change. The regulations should be not be based on "hobby" vs "commercial". They should instead be based on size, weight, speed, altitude, method of control (line of sight, or not, etc.), capabilities (camera, machine gun, etc.), and where it is flown (public vs private land). If you are flying a drone less than 5kg, on your own property, and keeping it below 100 meters, it should be anything goes, with no permit required. After that, there should be reasonable restrictions.
but the quadcopter-with-a-gun is certainly a weapon
When properly implemented, it's probably a much more dangerous weapon than any human shooter.
Ezekiel 23:20
Maybe not quadracopters, but they definitely have the authority to regulate airspace.
And governments generally reserve the right to regulate firearms in possession of civilians, but look at Ukraine to see how that turns out when push comes to shove.
Ezekiel 23:20
No the AMA(Academy of Model Aeronautics) is also going against the rule. Another case of a slashdot reader who didn't actually read the article.
"The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill."
"AMA cannot support this rule." said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. "It is at best ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule."
yeah, the Eastern Ukraine is fighting back against their government using the handheld anti-aircraft weaponry they just happened to have lying around, hidden from their government.
And the Irwin Mainway Bag O' Glass.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -- It's very clear and there is little room for interpretation here. But as we all know, the constitution is a lot like the bible, everyone has his or her own take! Charles Bukowski said it best, “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
Well, they most likely stole them using the AK-47s they just happened to have lying around. :)
Ezekiel 23:20
Line of sight between the operator and the model - has always been a legal requirement of operating R/C aircraft.
That would only be true if one had never read the Militia Act.
Hint: it's not even in the fine print that pretty much every American citizen is a member of the Militia.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Drone's are not "prohibited without special permission" and the FAA lost their case when they sought to ban commercial use of drones.
In coding terms, the militia part is a comment, the right part is code. The militia part isn't part of the operative law of the constitution; never was. It clarifies intent, however.
But viewed in the context of the time, with a bunch of ordinary people with weaponry in their private possession (including military-grade stuff) just having used that to overthrow an oppressive government, it's quite clear the intent there was "a check on government overreach". Even through the 19th century, it was common for 1%ers to buy cannon, Gatling guns and other clearly military hardware, and bring it along to war, or donate it to the town for local defense. Due to some remarkably stupid procurement decisions by the US military, we would likely have been soundly defeated in the Spanish-American War had it not been for rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves (and Roosevelt basically inventing the modern "base of fire" infantry tactic with those Gatling guns.)
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The definition of what airspace they can regulate is questionable. For example, can they regulate baseball games just because a ball is hit up into the air? Frisbee throwing? Jumping off a diving board? That something goes up into the air doesn't mean the FAA has authority over it.
In principal you're right. Still privacy issues as you may be able to use the drone to view over the neighbours privacy fence and into their hot tub or private sun bathing area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You know that is what they want, might as well just do it now and get over with.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So who regulates cars without guns attached? Or are those unregulated?
Note that the amendment does not presume to be granting the right to keep and bear arms. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Normal weapons, even with fancy training, couldn't ever pose a large threat to the government.
Really?
Tell it the king we overthrew in in the late 1700s.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Note also there is also minor limitations on keeping a standing army, namely having to refinance it regularly IIRC, I'm not American. Even by the time of the Revolution of 1688 it was well recognized that a standing army led to tyranny and limits were attempted.
Way back it was expected (with laws enforcing it I believe) that free men would keep and be proficient in arms, often long bow, so that the militia could quickly be organized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And there's no putting it back. I'm waiting for the first homemade (well, hobbyist or toy) drone attack. Won't be long. And I'm betting it'll be homegrown, no foreign terrorists required. FAA can regulate all it wants, but those drones are not going away.
I could also use a camera on a stick for that.
Shouldn't they be regulating everything that can fly as low as regular planes in their normal paths, so that anything below that height isn't theirs to regulate?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I don't feel too bad for enthusiasts as this limitation won't stop them.
It's the same as some semiautomatics or limited cartridge guns -- you can modify them.
If the definition of DRONE is flies by video -- then they aren't sold with video and someone buys a radio camera and attaches that. Suddenly it's a remote viewer.
I suspect more fear of drones from the Government as the capabilities of CITIZENS doing what they do 24/7 becomes apparent. Is the worry about someone ELSE spying besides corporations and government, or that there will be remotely commit crimes?
The bigger fear to come is when the first crooked fat cat gets caught by a drone -- THEN they will be treated like WMDs.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Ask the French who armed, trained, officered, equipped and funded your army and Navy if it was your right to bear arms that made a difference. Hint: without foreign intervention it never would have worked then. See Syria for how well it works now. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
So since I'm not a government agency, this still leaves me class G airspace on private property (assuming I have permission from the land owner).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It could be argued too that modern weapons are not the same as weapons of the time. At the time of writing, the most advanced guns around were muskets - there were no rifles, and fully-automatic weapons were unimagined. Today the most powerful weapons available are bombs capable of destroying a small country, and even some of our 'small' arms can turn a man into a highly efficient killing machine capable of potentially several deaths-per-second given a sufficiently rapidly replenished supply of targets.
Yes, England had that system during the middle ages. Manditory bow training for all men.
But an army of the time wasn't like a modern army. There were a few professionals, but most of the men were conscripts. The idea wasn't to allow the militia to be quickly organised: It was to the King's representative could turn up at your village and declare he wanted thirty men to go fight the French (Again), and you'd better show some loyalty and do you were told.
Let existing state nuance laws handle the peeping-tom problems
As we've seen in the middle east, small weapons can pose a threat to a government. The trick is just preventing the government from bringing their really big weapons to bear. If you march your patriotic rebellion upon Washington, it would just be carpet-bombed into a bloody and burning pulp - but if you instead have your men infiltrate in civilian clothes, fight dirty, use sabotage where possible, snipe from a distance and disappear into the population again... well, then the only way to kill them all would be to kill several times as many loyal civilians, which would just inspire more rebellion.
Normal weapons, even with fancy training, couldn't ever pose a large threat to the government.
Tell it the king we overthrew in in the late 1700s.
The late 1700's king did not have tanks and bazookas. Both sides had artillery for most of the American War of Independence - the Americans by capturing it such as by the Knox Expedition. The only significant weaponry where the British had the advantage in was in ships.
Only possible because his logistics were seriously overstretched, and even then it needed French support.
Dirty secret of the American revolution: Likely wouldn't have worked without French support.
What regulations are you talking about?
TFA is referring to the interpretation and enforcement of HR 658 which specifically separates hobby and commercial (with no commercial provisions for the Continental United States!)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B...
No love for the pentacopters?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I'm no constitution specialist (I'm french), but I've heard that the constitution was also meant to be revised from time to time. Not held like a holy book for centuries. And that article clearly needs to, times have changed a lot, gatling guns are kid toys compared to modern military hardware, the us military is certainly well funded and organized to not need the help of rich guys. As to being able to overthrow the government by buying weapons, good luck with that. In fact with a modern country like he us, you have better chance of overthrowing the government without weapons that with weapons.
The FAA agrees with you and you still retain the ability to fly the craft as a hobbyist, but you must do so below 400 ft and within line of sight (not using FPV). You must not operate the craft for money, nor as a part of a business.
The problem is that when people take their quad out to a park and fly it using FPV, they often go above 400 ft, fly over other people's property, fly over crowded areas, fly over highways, and fly in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc). This isn't a "few bad apples" either, this is the glut of FPV users.
Ars Technica got their hands on a DJI Phantom and IMMEDIATELY did the things I mentioned and wrote about it: link
Some emboldened quad users have been more than willing to put others at risk and fly their aircraft in the landing path of airports. In 2013 an Alitalia pilot identified a quad in the flight path at JFK International Airport, coming within 200 ft of the airplane on it's descent: link
There were rifles in the US War of Independence, and both sides had them. But they weren't the main infantry weapon because of the slow reloading time.
Would you apply that same argument to the first amendment? At the time of the signing of the bill of rights, the most advanced methods of written communication was the hand-operated newspaper press. By your "no unforeseen technology" argument, the first amendment would not apply to telegraphs, radio, faxes, photographs(!), telephones, photocopiers, computers, the internet, wifi, etc.
This is obviously insane. The first amendment is designed to protect the message. The medium used to transmit that message is irrelevant. Likewise, the second amendment is designed to protect the right and capability of the people to overthrow a government and establish a new one. If new technologies are invented, then the people must be allowed access to them, in order to maintain the balance of power.
" It's very clear and there is little room for interpretation here."
No, it isn't. You might have notice experts in constitutional law, and experts in the history of the constitution can not agree.
If you can't understand why that is, stop talking about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
With a modern country, you'd better not use weapons if you want to otherthrow the government, you'll just look like bad guys and be obliterated with the approval of the people. The only way is pacific revolution. In a not-modern country, look at at Syria or Lybia, you don't stand a chance without the help of a powerful country.
No, It's very clear in the various letters it's there because they couldn't afford a standing army.
The right to bear arms on the federal level is relatively new. Until it the 1970's cities and states determined local laws. Orrin Hatch commissioned a report, ignored the reports finding, but still waved it around as proof. hell, 100 years ago and more many cities and towns didn't allow firearms;
Add to that congress can change the amendments should it like, this is really a PR issue created by the PR company the runs the NRA and also supports gun manufactures.
Here is a little bit of history regarding the NRA and politics. Surprisingly accurate for a media report.
http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" But they weren't the main infantry weapon because of the slow reloading time."
which is his point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
NO, it doesn't, and had NEVER been interpreted that way until the 1970s/80s.
Learn some damn history before talking about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
God damn; well said.
only if it has an actual weapon mounted on it.
Otherwise, pickup trucks/jeeps are also weapons under this idea, because military forces trivially bolt large machine guns or antiaircraft guns or even small missiles to truck beds all the time.
and if you go with "the vehicle itself is a weapon" argument, then again, pretty much every vehicle you see on the street also meets that definition.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I wish /. administered a test on constitutional history and you could only comment if you past that test, becasue most of you idiot are laughably wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Process matters. There's a legitimate process for changing the Constitution as the world around us changes. I'm all for outlawing nuclear weapons in private hands, but the way do limit the second amendment is not by justices just deciding one day it means something different!
But of course, no one cares these days. You can't go to court or fly without a clearly unconstitutional search by government employees, and the NSA collects our private correspondence wholesale. The Fifth Amendment gets whittled away at the edges, and the First limited to Free Speech Zones. The federal government arrogates itself ever more power, and people just shrug, or even cheer if their side is in charge when it happens.
Well, I supposed this is what's meant by "you get the government you deserve".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Have they really got nuance laws in the States? And how would that work? Probably better to make sure peeking tom laws have teeth and people are aware of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Not if they have dual fences, one around the yard and another around their private hot tub area. Could be a hedge rather then a fence as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In coding terms, the militia part is a comment, the right part is code. The militia part isn't part of the operative law of the constitution; never was. It clarifies intent, however.
This isn't a topic I spend very much time pondering, but this is a very good analogy from my perspective as well. Thanks.
I thought that the number of rotors had to be even so that the torque canceled out. Canceling torque being the reason why multi-rotor aircraft don't need a separate vertical rotor like an ordinary single horizontal rotor helicopter. Forgive me if I missed some obvious pun and focused on the odd number relationship instead.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how is this much different than some of the justifications used by the US government for applying the "interstate commerce clause" of the constitution to things that are obviously not interstate commerce?
No. Of course they couldn't. Just go back and look at some of the 'life in the year 2000' videos made in the 50s and 60s and see how wrong they were.
The founders knew this though. That's why they included the process of constitutional amendment.
It is YOU who needs to learn some history.
The Rights outlined in the US Constitution are the Rights every person is born with as they are the rights of "Nature and Nature's God" (as described by the founders).
Every person has a natural right to protect themselves. Every person has a right to voice their opinion. The US Constitution merely highlights and emphasizes what the Founders considered some of the most important of these rights in order to emphasize that the government may not infringe upon them.
The Constitution incorporates a negative list of Rights, that is, it is a non-exclusive list of some of the natural individual Rights that every person is born with that the government may not infringe upon.
It is always disturbing when the ignorant speak out with such vehemence and confidence upon matters in which they have no clue. Such public ignorance is what allows tyranny to take root.
Please, for all our sakes and for your own, educate yourself rather than parroting partisan political talking points.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You get one shot with the weapons of the era. Then you need to go through the slow process of manual reloading. You can't really go on a killing spree with one.
If you wanted to commit some mass-murder with 1700's weaponry, I imagine the best you could come up with would be a really big bomb - lots of gunpowder stacked up underneath a populated building. It'd also be a valuable weapon to overthrow a government - someone tried that in England once, and nearly pulled it off too. So, does the second amendment give people the right to own several tons of low explosive? If not, why? If so, why wouldn't this also extend to high explosive and nuclear weaponry?
Because, hypothetically, if I was planning to overthrow a tyrannical government, blowing up a nuke in the middle of the capital city would be one hell of a way to signal the start of the rebellion.
Those who wrote the first amendment obviously couldn't have intended it apply to technologies they could not predict. Thus it makes sense to look at the reasoning behind the amendment, and decide if the same reasoning extends to cover these new technologies as well.
This doesn't work on the second amendment because there seems to be very little agreement about exactly what it's for these days. Some insist it's there to ensure a right to self-defense, some that it is there to ensure the citizens are ready to form a militia for national defense (This being written in the days when such a thing was still practical), and some that it's there so that the people might be able to overthrow the government should it turn oppressive. The wording of the amendment itsself is hopelessly ambiguous.
You don't need an even number of rotors to cancel torque about the yaw axis if you run the rotors at asymmetric rates; tricopters are common in the hobbyist community.
The FAA DID make that very recommendation. The clarification here is that they are not permitting FPV flight, and are restricting "view of the user" to their natural vision (corrected, if necessary). FPV is the new tech advancement that irresponsible pilots are using to fly in an unsafe manner.
Your characterization of Citizen's United is not complete.
Being "content neutral" (or, perhaps more correctly, "viewpoint neutral" -- fire, crowded theater and all that is considering content, but not of political speech) is necessary, but not sufficient, for a restriction that limits speech to pass constitutional muster.
Roughly speaking (I'm not a constitutional expert or a lawyer), there also has to be, at whatever level of scrutiny the court decides applies, sufficient (and, in practice, generally quite narrow) justification that a speech restriction furthers an important public good and that (depending on level of scrutiny applied) the one chosen is the narrowest possible restriction and there is no other possible solution that doesn't infringe on speech. Look to this week's abortion clinic buffer zone rejection. The justices decided that the ban was, in fact, viewpoint neutral (I don't agree with that, but then I'm no wearing a black robe so my opinion matters little). That didn't save the law though -- the flaw was that the ban was too broad and the government hadn't proven that it was the only solution or even a necessary measure.
In general, SCOTUS has upheld many campaign finance regulations (such as disclosure) on the grounds of preventing bribery and corruption -- NOT for the purpose of "leveling the playing field" (which is what most advocates of campaign finance regulations actually seem to desire).
I've not read Citizen's United in a while, but a main issue there, as I recall it, was that an individual living breathing human with a heartbeat can spend an unlimited amount of money backing a measure or a candidate -- as long as they don't coordinate with the campaign (unless, of course, they are the candidate spending their own money). Citizen's United decided that corporations and organizations had similar rights (being composed of, at their core, humans).
And, the ability and desire to prosecute someone for violating a constitutional law is up to law enforcement and proprietorial discretion. Ayers wasn't "allowed" to do what he did -- he just didn't get prosecuted for it.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
NOT for them.
This increasingly narrowed view of the powers that be is overall a very very disturbing trend I have been watching since the 2007 financial crisis.
These bankers are funding every single war on the planet in order to save the currency, while printing gigantic wads of cash for the militarization of the police, and every single government agency. Billions of bullets purchased for social security administration, EPA...etc.
Now they slip a little money to the court system and insure YOU cannot have any sort of drone that provides FPS.
I doubt that is a coincidence.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
While there have been a few comments claiming otherwise, the simple fact is that not all airspace in the US can be regulated by the FAA. The US Supreme Court ruled in US v Causby in 1946 ""We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land.[9] The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense — by the erection of buildings and the like — is not material." The FAA has jurisdiction of the navigable airways, it does not have jurisdiction over YOUR use of the airspace immediately above your backyard and they cannot regulate the use of drones of model aircraft outside the navigable airspace any more than they can require you to get a permit to plant a tree in your backyard. Now the FAA won't admit it and likes to pretend that they have control of the air around your head, but it is clear from US v Causby that "must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere".
Isn't this a regulation that retroactively reclassifies something sold as a toy into more than a toy?
If you can't retroactively ban old machine guns, then you can't retroactively ban old toys either. That's why we have grandfather clauses. (seat belt laws, for example, don't apply to cars made before a certain year, if the car had no belts from the factory)
If I had just spent big money on a fancy toy drone, and suddenly found out that the law had been changed (after the fact) to ban me from actually using it, I would be demanding that the FAA either reimburse me, or grant me a grandfathered exception.
Ask some of the countries in the middle east how it works when the citizens revolt.
Ask who would participate in America's army against its citizens if it actually came down to that?
The US armed forces is made of US citizens, they aren't raving lunatics, most of them are 'good ol boys' who do it because they 'believe in America'. Those people are the ones who would likely be on the side of the citizens not the government.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Particularly for those that keep insisting the FAA regulates model aircraft already and have done so "forever" http://dronelawjournal.com/ And for those who insist the FAA regulates the air around your head and regulates houses (and maybe fences and trees and perhaps can tell you that your grass needs to be trimmed) here is the US Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise: http://supreme.justia.com/case... That was a decision that did two things, confirmed that you don't own the airspace up to the heavens above your property but also made it clear that you had exclusive control of the airspace below what was defined as the navigable airspace. While the FAA might want to pretend they can regulate your toy hovercraft that flies 1/16th off the surface, they would lose in court. http://www.mainstreettoys.com/...
rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves
That's the way wars worked before WW2, one of my distant ancestors donated 22 Viking boats and 300 paid soldiers to William the conqueror's invasion force and sailed across the English channel with him, his reward? - Wales (the country, not the animal). In fact this is how modern democracy first appeared, rich merchants basically forced the crown to sign the Magna Carta by withdrawing financial supports for the crown's military adventures. Even during and after WW2, rich merchants still own the means of production for military hardware. The one sign of hope is that for most (but not all) rich merchants - war is bad for business in the modern world.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That the answer to GGP's answer is "in the future, they probably will be".
Ezekiel 23:20
That's why they included the process of constitutional amendment.
More likely they were guided by Natural Philosophy's aversion to claims of absolute truth.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Some further good reading is Pirker's reply to the FAA's appeal http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirk... It clearly lays out the argument, which prevailed in the Pirker decision, that the FAA has only offered up advisories on safe operation of model aircraft and they had not issued any actual, enforceable regulations governing them. The latest FAA move is an attempt to create regulations governing them, though the question remains as to whether they have the authority to do so.
Thus proving there is not real difference between Republicans and Democrats.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence â" economic, political, even spiritual â" is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Not really. The problem with federal government regulation is that they do not by default have jurisdiction unless it somehow it granted to them by the constitution. Hence the reason there is a recreational exemption to regulation- it doesn't influence interstate commerce or whatever other stretch of power they use in order to devise regulatory authority. The federal government is not like a traditional government that can just pass laws. It's original jurisdiction is outlined in the constitution and some court cases have expanded those to seem like it is all encompassing.
This is even true for things like tractor trailer operations too. There are recreational exceptions to even that which do not require keeping a log book, having a DOT or MCC number or anything of the sort. There is even an exemption for a CDL requirement if it is what they consider recreational/hobby.
If the exemption was not there, the regulation ability would not survive a court challenge by people clearly outside the scope of their regulatory jurisdiction.
Which is what I think is funny about this whole "drone vs model" crap, they are talking about planes even the largest of which frankly isn't gonna be able to carry enough payload to do even a tenth the damage of a Rider truck with fertilizer. If there is anything we should have learned from OKC its that low tech does a hell of a lot more damage while being easy for even the dumbest terrorist to construct. And I'm sure that if you counted up every vehicle used for combat out there? Drones wouldn't even be in the top 50, probably not even in the top 100 when it comes to terrorists, its technicals and bomb trucks.
This is just another case of "Hollywood scenario planning" where the government treats the high tech shit they see on NCIS and 24 and treat it as a legitimate threat because they can't/won't admit the truth.....which is that what makes terrorists effective is the fact they can take pretty much anything and make it a weapon. If you want to see what terrorists weapons are like you should look at the crazy IEDs the military has disarmed in Iraq, everything from copies of late WWII German wooden mines made out of footlockers and packing crates to paint cans filled with homemade explosives and metal scraps and rigged to a beeper, what makes terrorism so hard to stop isn't them using high tech shit, its just the opposite, they often go so low tech that you'd have to ban pretty much all agriculture and household cleaning products to stop 'em.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Hey folks flying by video has always been against regulations. Move along.
Free Speech Zones? That's a new one
Exactly. Imagine what they could do with everyday objects if they decided to do more than go for a body count and actually had the inclination to come over here. *cough* southern border *cough* Let me just throw out a few possibilities to make the point.
Caltrops. This several thousand year old weapon, first used against humans and horses, remains effective today against vehicles with pneumatic tires. You can make them out of darn near any piece of thin metal. Just have every member go around town once a month to every hardware/big-box store in town and buy a box of nails or screws for cash. Pickup a gallon of milk or something else and you'll blend right in with the millions of other people picking up odds and ends for home.
With a few basic tools and a welder a few guys can build caltrops assembly line style. Then just go out on the road just before rush hour when its dark or during ran so it's harder for the car behind to notice the bouncing spike thing coming from under your car and drop them one at a time through a hole in the floor. (Make sure you make sure they don't bounce into your own tires.) Home-rigged caltrops like these usually don't cause blowouts, but will case a slow leak that will deflate a tire. How many car and truck tires do you need to take out before you case a cluster of a traffic jam? Sure sounds lame, but what happens when your group does this once every month and there are 4 other cells in the area doing the same? In certain areas of the country this could bring commerce to a standstill.
High tension wooden power pole in middle of nowhere + Chainsaw. Don't really need to explain this one further except that power pole wood is hard on chainsaw chains. Sure just one cell doing this would just be a nuisance, a couple dozen driving around the country doing this will quickly overwhelm the repair crews. Just cutting one will usually result in the neighboring poles holding the wires up for the time being, allowing an escape and not letting people know exactly when you did the deed.
Supposedly Iran has sleeper cells in the US tasked with doing exactly this should the US attack Iran. No idea if it's true or not, but attacking infrastructure wouldn't exactly be a hard thing to do.
Registration and Operation? Individual states. The federal government exerts its influence by bribing the states with their own money (i.e. "federal" highway funds)
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
the founding fathers never envisioned an article in the Constitution that would legitimaze the rise against the legitimate authority
"legitimate" and "authority" didn't mean "elected" and "power" in their parlance; and they were quite clear on this; infringe a natural right and you loose legitimacy; wield power to enforce it and you are a tyrant. And about that part of never envisioning, a little nobody named Jefferson (along with similar statements of a few others) mentioned the need for mass use of Amendment II, well, about every 20 years...
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
This doesn't work on the second amendment because there seems to be very little agreement about exactly what it's for these days. Some insist it's there to ensure a right to self-defense, some that it is there to ensure the citizens are ready to form a militia for national defense (This being written in the days when such a thing was still practical), and some that it's there so that the people might be able to overthrow the government should it turn oppressive. The wording of the amendment itsself is hopelessly ambiguous.
These aren't disagreements. These are bullet points.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
No pun intended...
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
He was an administrative judge (ie: not a real full judge, only allowed to rule on MINOR cases) and that his so called ruling was overturned less than a week later because he didn't have the authority to give the rule.
Citation? I've seen multiple articles about this judge's ruling but nothing about it being overturned.
I know the FAA appealed the ruling but having an appeal take "less than a week" is pretty much unheard of.
In those days, they had punt guns. These were wide bore barrels mounted directly onto a punt. and each could propel pellets in a wide and long enough range to take out a good number of a flock of ducks at one time. But there seem to be others that might have been used on land:
http://homemadedefense.blogspo...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the role of a federal administrative law judge is "functionally comparable" to that of an Article III judge.
There is nothing about only deciding "minor" issues.
You've just dangerously oversimplified a complicated problem.
100m? What happens if you live on a property right in the flight path next to the airport?
Weight? Weight means nothing. I accidentally ran into myself with my 6kg hexacopter doing a stupid stunt. I ended up with bruises and a few broken cheap plastic props. On the flip side one of my friends flies this tiny little ~2kg quadrocopter which he also flew into himself. He ended up in hospital thanks to very high speed carbon fibre blades slicing him up his arms and his face. He ended up with quite a few stitches as a result.
So what's a reasonable restriction? Any quad could potentially kill someone. If you're interested in safety you'd need to take into account weight class, propeller speed, propeller type. Now you're talking private property, so if I fly my quad some 100m above my house on my private land and I have an incident, where will the quad end up? Prop failure, RF failure, actually every failure I've seen has resulted in a little multirotor craft not falling straight down. Maybe you should only be able to fly on private property if you live in an acreage?
This is much more complicated than you think.
You haven't seen a drone have you? They sound like a large angry swarm of bees from a horror movie. It would be the equivalent of a peeping tom setting up a photo studio in your hot tub or sun bathing area. It would be immediately obvious. Typically when I fly mine around neighbours from all over come out and find out what the noise is about. There's no discrete peeping with these things.
First, I've never met a pilot who "knows the FARs" ... that's like saying you know a lawyer who "knows the federal laws" (no such thing). US Law has become extremely complex and is further complicated by "precedent" (piles of court rulings NOT contained in the legal codes passed by congress and signed into effect by Presidents). Even the FAA does not "know" the FARs just like the IRS admits it does not "know the tax code" (the IRS even absurdly warns in the tax booklets that you cannot rely upon them for advice in interpreting the code). This stuff has all become such a bloated mess that NOBODY "knows" it all and ultimately it will be decided on an individual basis by a jury in any situation in which the FAA and a defendant take a case all the way to court. Just because the FAA says it, that does not make it magically (begin judge dredd voice)"the LAW"(end judge dredd voice). What's needed here is lobbying of congress to get a narrow bill drafted to exempt model airplanes and hobbyist drones from FAA rules, thereby depriving the FAA of its arbitrary (bought-and-paid-for-by-lobbyists) "rules" ... Too many lawmakers are just ignorant fools who want to leave everything to "the experts" in the various agencies to write "rules" about everything (no member of congress ever gets blamed for agency "rules" but they DO get blamed for LAWS).
The truth is that the bureaucrats in the FAA think they are in charge of all activity in the Earth's atmosphere... like ALL bureaucrats, they want to presume to be the ultimate authorities in their fields and imagine that more money and power will flow their way as they find more and more stuff that "needs" to be regulated and which they can find an argument to assert that is within their jurisdiction. The FAA wants you to think they get to license a helicopter flying between two oil platforms in international water, and that you need a license from them to allow your spacecraft to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere over the South Pacific. This is all a joke, of course, because US jurisdiction ends a few miles off the coast... even if they sign a treaty with some other country (which also has NO jurisdiction in the middle of the sea) in which both countries agree. The illegitimate claims of one nation mated with the illegitimate claims of another (no matter the type size and font of the treaty document) do NOT suddenly impart legitimacy. Adding more countries to the pie also does not add any more legitimacy.
This is a little like all the governments who have agreed at the UN on various aspects of law as applies to space.... it's out of their jurisdiction. NONE of them have authority there. The first people to establish a colony on the moon will be the people who say what the laws there are. Same for Mars. Vast armies of law makers on Earth will be able to pontificate till they turn blue about their "legal authority" over the moon or Mars but that will not make their fevered rantings and ravings legitimate.
Before the Wright brothers flew, the US government asserted no legal authority over the air above your personal property (even though balloons and airships DID exist). Most modern aviation got going BEFORE the government "discovered" it had authority there. The current generation of young Americans seem to be stupidly cheering while their "messiah" eliminates their remaining freedoms. Sad, but they and their kids will have to live in their precious police state.
Government overreach is, ALWAYS, predicated on the idea that there will be no little boy with common-sense along the parade route who will speak-up and say: "Look! The emporer has no clothes!"
Look up the long bow, a skilled user would limit himself to six shots a minute. Range was 220+ yards and they would pierce older (14th century) armour easily. Of course you had to grow up using them to be proficient especially as some estimates give a 200 lb pull though most 130+ lb pull.
Smaller bows were also a formidable weapon in a skilled archers hands.
The thing with firearms is that with little training and a bit of luck anyone could kill at a range further then hand to hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I believe it was the Stuarts that started the modern army thing with full time professional soldiers who were also used on their own subjects. Of course the Stuarts were nuts and really believed that they were appointed by God and had a natural right to be tyrants. This led to two revolutions, one with the King losing his head and the second Parliament replacing the King and becoming supreme. It was also the time when the average person came to believe in natural rights and the second revolution gave the first Bill of Rights, which included the right to bear arms (for protestants).
One of the things that pissed off the American colonists was that they considered their natural rights as Englishmen was being infringed and most of the Bill of Rights of 1789 reflected this with many of the rights expanded including the right to bear arms expanded from self-defence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
To be honest, I haven't seen one in operation and the small ones being electric, I assumed would be somewhat quiet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The FAA's published interpretations show the multiple areas they are saying they can now regulate. They want to preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. They do acknowledge that standard eyeglasses are OK. Note that they are NOT prohibiting remote cameras, only the goggles which fit over the face.
Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted. A pilot that gives a demonstration of advanced aerobatics and receives a payment is now not flying for hobby or recreational purposes. This is equivalent to saying a fly fisherman that demonstrates casting techniques and receives a payment is no longer a recreational fisher and now must be a commercial fisherman.
They also say if you take any pictures or video while flying, they have the right to decide what you do with the pictures or video can also change you from a hobbyist. Take a picture of you own [hobby only] garden to see where it needs watering, OK. Take a picture of your neighbor's garden and show him where it needs watering, commercial use. Take a picture of any commercial enterprise and post it online, commercial use.
Many of these changes are being published now because in March a federal judge ruled that the FAA has never published its restrictions of commercial use of hobby aircraft. [See FAA vs Pirker]. The FAA had previously issued "policy guidelines", but that was not enough to fine Pirker the $10,000 they wanted for commercial use of a hobby aircraft. http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
~~
I'm just waiting for someone to get hold of one of those lethal lead projectile machines and use it to kill someone. Oh wait - that happens tens of thousands of times every year in the US. Guns are designed only to kill things, yet are given away when you open a new bank account*, no problem there. But if there is even a potential for the possibility of harm - in complete absence of any real actual harm - and we are outright banning it?
Oh - I'm a big fan of responsible use and using technology to ensure that these things don't enter restricted airspace. Most Quads have GPS these days, and it would be mind blowingly easy to program them with TMA airspace so that they simply cannot be flown into controlled airspace.
Some history for you:
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".
No. The 2A clearly states that "the people" shall have the right to bear arms. They could have said militia, but didn't.
I have lots of electric fans in my house... They're not very quiet.
Hardly new, having come to national attention during the 2004 Democratic (of course) primary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The propellers spin at a very high speed so make a lot of noise.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
It's worse than that. The regulation is totally ass-backwards. Flying anything small without FPV is hard and inaccurate, and, presumably, also less safe. I've personally looked through an FPV system installed in a plane that was flown line-of-sight by an experienced pilot doing it the old fashioned way. And all I have to say is that it was some very shitty flying. Sure, if you look at it from a distance, it looks "great". Yet when you see the VSI and the artificial horizon, you can't be but all "the fuck is the pilot on drugs or something?". Understandably, the accuracy of flying decreases with the distance, as gain in the pilot's visual feedback loop decreases with the decreasing size of the plane on the retina. It may be that the video is not quite necessary, but remote VSI and artificial horizon is a must, and those are, in one form or another, the mainstay of FPV.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
A few years ago, there were a couple of black guys who evaded capture for weeks after killing people with sniper rifles at target stores on the east coast. DWB is a well-known cop attractant.
If Iran really wanted to mess with the US, they could dispatch 100 teams of well spoken/well dressed people to hang out around walmarts and freeway overpasses. These hitmen wouldn't even need to bring their own weapons. They could get better ones here at gun shows and by mail order. It would stop commerce completely, tank our 'financial markets', and cause mass chaos.
Add a few dozen really big fertilizer bombs, and 20 bizjets flown into high value targets like the white house, congress, and the various stock exchanges, and our government would be effectively brought to its knees.
Given that, flying my parrot drone around the neighborhood seems unlikely to be a bother.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
I don't think you understand the nuisances of the English language.
FTFY
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
There is. However the definition of "nuisance" gets rather complicated and can depend upon state and local ordinances. For example, weekly loud and raucous parties in a residential area could be considered a nuisance because neighbors can have an expectation of "peace and quiet" most of the time. The occasional noisy party excluded. And sometimes a permit is required. Someone constantly invading your personal property or "space" by climbing over fences, using binoculars to peer in someone's windows etc. can also be considered a nuisance. It just depends on the circumstances, frequency of occurrence, the degree of intrusiveness, etc.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Constitutional amendments are a cynical joke. The U.S. can't even pass a constitutional amendment ensuring gender equality (male v. female) in the job market. Also, the Constitution was designed by and for a relatively homogeneous culture (western European) not the "melting pot" it literally has become. There is so much cultural and political diversity and extremes, the modern U.S. is extremely unlikely to pass any other amendments in the foreseeable future. And that doesn't even address the entrenched power regimes in D.C. and the various state governing bodies. It is quite possible that any radical change in the future will come about by reason of force. Either in the part of government or the citizenry. In either case the parties engaged will require the means to conduct military action. Thus, armament of the masses may be a necessary "evil". Seething under the surface of America's overt optimism and hubris is a culture decaying due to the destruction of confidence in the political, judicial and economic systems. Even though the decay may not be immediately obvious, there is an undercurrent of perception that the "system" is a sinking ship. The result being... people taking matters into their own hands. And armament is viewed as a necessary ingredient. Aside from the bleeding heart gun banners who will never loose faith in the goodness of tyranny, most Americans don't see themselves struggling to reassert basic freedoms on par with the Syrian rebellion in which they had to launch their struggle for freedom with stones, Molotov cocktails, etc. Americans want to be somewhat prepared to redeploy guerrilla warfare if need be. As much as the world likes to think that enlightened minds will eventually guide humankind to a more peaceful world, that is far more naïve than the expectation of continued conflicts. Human nature can not be denied. And what is that nature? Self interest not altruism.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
The post I replied to was
Let existing state nuance laws handle the peeping-tom problems
which is a much different word from nuisance though sounding similar and I think if nuisance laws being for things like loud public drunkenness or even parties. Anyways I was tired and my attempt at a joke failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Small multi-rotor craft suffer from lifting capacity. You can put big motors and high speeds on the thing, and those electrics are actually quite quiet. However to get lifting capacity you need to move air and many quads that aren't a $60 toy are laid out with large props quite close together. You end up getting incredible amount of noise from air buffeting between the pair of counter rotating blades.
Yes, it's fairly complicated but if they are going to take away the "non-commercial use" safe harbor then they
should create some other basic safe harbors. Something like "more than 1 mile away from nearest airport
and 100 meters away from nearest house and less than 100 meters in the sky" would be a safe start.
There should be a quick/easy way to make sure you're legal or at least a cheap/easy way to be approved so
that you can do "reasonable" stuff without requiring an expensive permit. Flying by camera seems a
perfectly reasonable thing for a hobbiest to want to do. They shouldn't need to get a full blown pilot's
license and FAA permission to do it if they follow proper precautions.
I didn't say I couldn't see a reason, nor did I say they should be outlawed. I just said if they're outlawed for everyone else for whatever reason, no-one should get a free pass just by claiming they're somehow in a different category.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Also, the Constitution was designed by and for a relatively homogeneous culture (western European) not the "melting pot" it literally has become.
Ack! The country is a trap! We are all going to be melted!
The issue of the right to bear arms was NEVER mutually agreed upon by the states and federal government. The federal government essentially tricked the states by the use of a carefully placed comma.
I'd be interested in knowing if you have any references at all to support that claim. I'd prefer something written during that time period that says something to the effect of, "Dang it, those clever Federalists tricked us with that comma! Curse you, comma!"
Early firearms replaced longbows on the basis of requiring much less training to be effective. They replaced crossbows largely by becoming cheaper overall.
It was quite a while before a really good gun user would be more dangerous than a really good archer, but armies have to be equipped with stuff the soldiers can use effectively.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
While the militia was a decent harassing force, and worked remarkably well in operations with regulars (such as they were), the main fighting was done by trained armies. In the meantime, we had French help (which even extended to control of the sea at Yorktown), and the British were quite distracted by other stuff going on and had a long logistical tail.
I think partisan warfare in WWII is a useful comparison: partisans themselves could not defeat even badly led, badly trained, badly equipped regular forces with bad morale, at least not until partisans started organizing like regular armies.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They weren't even using sniper rifles. They were using a rack-grade AR rifle with a red-dot. They could have had a break-action single shot and done the same.
Though to turn to the critical side, you've clearly never bought a firearm if you think a foreigner buying guns at gunshows and mail-order is simple. Most sellers at gunshows are dealers so they would have to fill out a 4473 and have a NICS check. Of the small fraction who are private sellers like myself, 90% of us are going to demand a drivers license to copy down your info. The quantity and quality of firearms they would be able to purchase would be extremely limited.
Buying guns by mail-order requires you to either have your own FFL or have them shipped to an FFL. So you'll have to write into the government to get your own FFL or fill out a 4473 to get one by mail order. So in reality the only guns they will have access to are black market guns.