Slashdot Mirror
Judge: Defendant 'Had a Right' To Shoot Down Drone (wdrb.com)
EzInKy writes: Back in July, Kentucky resident William Merideth was arrested after he shot down a drone flying near his property. The arrest wasn't because of the destroyed drone, but because Merideth fired a gun within the city limits. Now, after a two-hour hearing in Bullitt District Court, a judge has dismissed all charges against Merideth. The owner of the drone, David Boggs, has always contested Merideth's claim that it was hovering over his yard. "But Judge Rebecca Ward says that since at least two witnesses could see the drone below the tree line, it was an invasion of privacy." Ward further said that Merideth "had a right to shoot at this drone."
Even from a hand gun like a 9mm, you are talking over a mile when shot upwards at the wrong angle. Forward velocity does not drop below killing velocity before downwards acceleration causes the bullet to hit the ground or some low object.
This was a very dangerous action.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I think part of the problem with justice is it doesn't fit neatly in people's ideas on how things should work politically.
Guns are bad, however his privacy and property was threatened and the causality was not a life.
He used a gun as a tool to solve a problem.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
He used a shotgun, not a 9mm.
I pilot fixed-wing and multi-rotor RPAS (remotely piloted aircraft system). I never encountered shooting so far, thanks god, but several times my RPASs were attacked by large birds.
This was where I understood the importance of a sport flying, and especially the knowledge of the Basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Knowing and practicing the basic defensive piloting is very useful in order not to hurt a bird and not to damage an expensive RPAS. It is practically impossible for a bird to catch an experienced pilot in the air, I would guess it is about the same for a gunner on the ground with a usual shotgun.
...who post negative comments about preserving private property rights. It's as if you want to give the government the power take from the individual to benefit the majority. Why aren't you all up in arms against this obvious usurpation of private property rights. Certainly few believe in taking from those who have and giving to those who need.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Not much surprised here.h
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Who cares about that argument? I'm more interested in the case where willful damage of another person's property is justified because someone makes an assumption that it infringes their right to privacy.
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion. *You* are saying that there is an *assumed* privacy invasion while a court has decided that there is no "assumed" about it.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.
"Normally", yes. It appears though that in this case the shooting and destruction of property was justified, and a court judgement backs that up.
In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
That is far more consistent than having a "right to shoo a drone"
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it. The "right" to trespass via remote control is not a right that anyone should ever get: if you willingly invade someones privacy *repeatedly* and intentionally then expect to lose your remote control viewing privileges.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Oh so he just used a tool (shotgun) to disable (obliterate) another tool. Sounds pretty reasonable...in America.
A tool, while could be also a weapon is not in its sole purpose a weapon. If he missed or caused other harm but I digress...a wise person (judge) found that it was reasonable.
What I'm very curious about is the precedent. So a drone above the property is fair game for a shotgun, how far above? how close? what if you only thought it was a drone but actually it was some other RC toy? -what if you mount the gun on a drone to shoot another drone?
As we are headed towards autonomous cars and most likely aircraft soon - what if the drone was the size of an aircraft?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Or Marshole, if you prefer the Roman version?
Well, justice has spoken and says you're wrong. Get over it. Justice just took a big smelly dump upon you. Your clothes are brown with Justice's spicy excrements.
If you dump shit in my property, I get to do what I want with it: several jurisdictions have this principle. If you took pictures of me a thousand feet up, I certainly don't get to interfere during the act - the specific issue in the judgment was the closeness of the drone.
It's no different from you driving an RC car into my living room through an open door with a webcam attached and whining because I struck it with a bat. Your stuff wilfully placed on my property becomes my stuff.
As for going to court, yeah, I might do that the second time, but why waste the court's time unless you didn't get the message the first time?
Firing a shotgun with birdshot into the air is fairly safe.
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
Ever caught some birdshot in the face, after someone fired it up (above a treeline)? No? I have, from over 100 yards away. If I hadn't been wearing eye protection, I'd be blind right now. This is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Not even close.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Firing a shotgun with birdshot into the air is fairly safe.
WAY too broad a statement. I've caught a face-full of bird shot that someone sent into the air (pointed above their treeline) over 100 yards away. I'd be blind right now if I hadn't been wearing eye protection. I've shot untold hundreds of birds out of the air (and into the freezer). I never pull the trigger unless I know what's downrange for at least 300 yards, even with very light birdshot. In a suburban area when my life or my family's life isn't at risk? Never. If some local kid is being reckless with his toy quadcopter below tree-top level over my property, I can completely avoid harm to myself by: stepping inside. Then I can walk next door and light him up about manners. Shoot it down? Total BS.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So what's going to happen to privacy laws when that Amazon/Walmart drone flies 500 ft over your property? 500 ft or even a mile high is nothing when you have the proper lens for zooming in. Will people have the right to buckshot these drones too to protect their privacy?
The militia part is not modifying the right to bear arms. The quote reads: "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."
For those with reading comprehension, there are two statements in this sentence. 1) that a militia that is well regulated is necessary to keep a free state secure and 2) that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that the government cannot infringe upon.
I will note that your statement of there being no militia is part of the problem. As the founding fathers warned, our free state isn't secure and one of the reasons is because the militias went away. Instead we have a standing army that is continuously operating and while not mentioned in the Constitution, many of the federalist papers discussed in depth the problems with a powerful central government having a powerful military in times of peace.
I'm in agreement that we have far too many laws and we can throw out most of the federal code of regulations. However, the Constitution is a pretty small, easy to read, reasonable document that has been ripped to shreds by attempts to interpret it with a context of the modern world. However, there is a convenient part built in that allows it to be modified. But long ago the government figured out it was far easier to ignore it than go through the modification process.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Why do YOU people always leave out the militia part? A little inconvenient?? There is no militia now, so you don't need any guns.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to be arms is an individual right, not the right of the militia. It merely facilitates the formation of a militia when needed.
Claiming that 2nd amendment only applies to the militia would have made about as much sense as claiming that the 1st amendment only applies to the press.
Sweden destroys their constitution every 10 years, and re-writes it from the ground up. This eliminates the issue of a 325,000 page federal code, and ridiculous shit like Alabama having a law against playing naked ping-ping, or a woman in California from riding a horse wearing shorts, etc.
The constitution isn't "325,000" pages. As a matter of fact the constitution fits on less than 10 pages. All the crazy laws that we have are the laws beyond the constitution that have been later added. The constitution itself is a document that explicitly is intended to be timeless. Only the most basic of concepts are addressed there, and its been working for us just fine for well over 2 centuries.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
You have to interpret "well regulated militia" in the context of which the 2nd amendment was written.
"Regulate" in this case means to "make regular", or to "facilitate" -- ie. government must promote an environment in which a militia can can exist and operate.
Firearm ownership was "obvious" to anyone living in the 18th century as a means of procuring food and defending against indian attacks. There was no need to explicitly enumerate this as an individual right.
Yup. Don't run with scissors too. But, you're more likely to get hurt falling off your bike than by birdshot at 100+ yards.
Just another day in Paradise
The militia part is not modifying the right to bear arms. The quote reads: "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."
For those with reading comprehension, there are two statements in this sentence. 1) that a militia that is well regulated is necessary to keep a free state secure and 2) that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that the government cannot infringe upon.
There's one more thing that's important to note -- (3) these two things are combined in the same sentence because (1) is **a** justification for (2). Some interpret the sentence to mean that (1) is the only justification for (2), but the history of these types of clauses in, say, state constitutions from the same time does not really support such a reading.
Anyhow, the more useful aid I find in interpreting these things is to transfer the statement to something less controversial:
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
If the Constitution said that, would we infer that only registered voters (part of the "electorate") should get to keep and read books? If you're a kid or you don't vote, you don't get to read?
OR... do we interpret it to mean that the first part of the sentence is ONE important reason why "the people" in general should get to read books -- but it only applies to a subset of "the people," namely the "electorate." There may be other good reasons why other people may benefit from books, and hence the right is granted to "the people" later in the sentence (rather than a repetition of "the electorate" only) but the Constitution (which is a fairly terse document in general) doesn't list all of them.
Personally, I find the latter interpretation (i.e., a general right for "the people") to be much more compelling when we transfer the logic to a sentence on a less controversial topic.
(By the way, I'm actually in favor of much greater regulations on guns, perhaps even beyond what the 2nd amendment implies. But I refuse to twist the meaning of this sentence to accord with my personal belief.)
Actually, that'd make it too much fun!
Are we all forgetting the video of the shot down drone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's clearly well above the tree line. Why was this not used in court?
Hello????? We're not in the 18th century anymore.
Tear that shit up and make a new constitution every 10 years.
Please do that. At least start that, have the US Constitution self-destruct at the end of this year. Then the whole US federal government dissolves, because it exists solely as the creation of the Constitution. Remove the one, and you remove the other. Then the separate states can have their liberty back again.
We'll see how the new Constitution is written next year. But I don't think you'll have as much influence on it as you would like.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The interesting question, to me, is whether or not it was actually flying below the treeline. From TFA, the drone's owner presented flight data showing that the drone was not below the treeline, but the man who shot the drone down had two eyewitnesses saying it was lower. If we have altitude readings and video footage, it seems to me those should be able to trump eyewitnesses (assuming that data is complete and not suspect). That's why people are pushing to put bodycams on police, for example.
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
So along this same analogy - would you expect that the types of books and manner of keeping them are subject to restriction/regulation?
This was birdshot, not buckshot, and it's not going to do anything at 500ft, lens or not (assuming you even have a tight enough spread to hit your target!).
The "325,000" was referring to large amount of US code and possibly the poster was also thinking about the legal system being based around past court rulings. There are legal systems which do not place so much faith legal presidence. Such systems are much less foobar'ed due to activist judges.
The Supreme Court is BS. They do not decide truth or reality; within our flawed system they do have too much say-- but they are not the final word.... until a more corrupt Supreme Court makes up some BS to throw out an amendment and the citizens relinquish even more of their power to the bureaucracy, "the people" get the final word. They are old LAWYERS (they need not be lawyers...but we seem to think they must be.) Truth has nothing to do with the law; it's not science. If you want to pursue truth and reality you'd not put lawyers and politicians in charge of everything nearly all the time.
"The people"
When you read the constitution and the amendments, it's clear that it was a well thought out legal document-- written before jargon made law an exclusive realm of professional lawyers.
When they use "the people" they are talking about everybody as a group, not individuals. The 1st amendment just before that one was worded stronger; they clearly could have phrased it with similar strength had that been their intent. Guns are clearly not on the same level of speech (besides they use "arms" which includes nukes.) It is really beside Jefferson's point which the poster was making: we are wasting too much time splitting hairs over some phrasing that is vague enough to be taken too many directions (that said, the Supreme Court interpretation of it is BS just like Citizens United or Separate but Equal.)
The poster; like Jefferson, is making the point that the document is not holy writ. It should be altered more rather than playing crazy word games with what is a fairly clear for such a SHORT document-- revisions would help clarify as long as they were terse and didn't blow up into craziness like the US Code has. The whole point of judges and juries was to INTERPRET and APPLY human intelligence to specific situations rather than try to program all possible scenarios on paper. Past arguments can be relevant but one shouldn't be wasting too much mental energy trying to morph them into different situations when people can just THINK out the new problem. (not like we don't have contradicting legal decisions despite our belief in legal presidence.) More thinking is required and less dependence upon paper "thought".
2 centuries is nothing. there are older democracies and many older governments. A good document will "stand the test of time" but time also... "time changes all things" so if the document is so good, it would heavily influence future revisions. If the system is broken then the new versions would reflect the corruption; keep in mind that corruption will not be stopped by some static document (it takes ACTIVE humans constantly fighting corruption - you can't stand still or let down your guard.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Headwind? Tailwind? Did you get pellets directly in the eye? Plenty of anecdotes to go around. #8 shot certainly does slow down more quickly than, say #6.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're right. That typo definitely nullifies the point I was making. I appreciate your thoughtful discussion of the actual substance of the matter at hand.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Nicely thought out. I haven't heard this before.
and for over 200 years before that, it was a group right related to the militia.
and no, the constitution is not intended to be timeless.
the founders were not perfect, and they knew it. even THEY argued amongst themselves over what the words in the constitution meant in supreme court cases, beginning almost immediately after the document was adopted. they were no smarter or better than we are today. in fact in many ways they were worse.
but they were bold. and that's why they gave us not just the Constitution, but also the means to update it as needed by a society meant to govern itself . when we worship them and their document and fear to change it to suit our needs, we fail at the very concept of self governance, instead letting dead slaver holders rule us instead.
In revering the Founders we undervalue ourselves and sabotage our own efforts to make improvements—necessary improvements—in the republican experiment they began. Our love for the Founders leads us to abandon, and even to betray, the very principles they fought for. We agonize over ‘original intent’ as if what the Founders believed ought to determine the way we live two centuries later. They would have laughed, and then wept, at our timidity.
(as for the militia: think reservists. we had a very small standing army, because the founders feared a large standing army. so in any conflict of note, mlitia (reservists) would have been called up to fill out the ranks. and because they also didn't keep large amounts of equipment on hand to equip the militia, they were expected to bring their own, including their rifles. it was only over time that we developed a larger and larger standing army, and began keeping on hand equipment to equip everyone)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I like you books analogy. It helps clear up what the intended meaning is.
Arguing the semantics of it, though, distracts from the real issue. It's all well and good to understand what the writers of the amendment meant, and to understand why they wrote it when they wrote it. The appropriate question should be: Is it still relevant today? Is it still serving its intended purpose. It was amended into the constitution. It can be amended out. It was not an infallible law handed down by God.
Today, the free and easy access to guns granted by that amendment is responsible for many times more lost innocent lives than it is preventing. Are the benefits of that freedom really worth all those lost lives? Is this what the writers really wanted?
To continue your analogy, what would be the proper recourse if people started using those books for something other than their intended purpose? If a bunch of teenagers started throwing their textbooks at each other in a classroom, the appropriate recourse is to confiscate their textbooks, not to blindly follow the constitution.
(By the way, I'm actually in favor of much greater regulations on guns, perhaps even beyond what the 2nd amendment implies. But I refuse to twist the meaning of this sentence to accord with my personal belief.)
Thank you for demonstrating how a reasonable person ought to approach this issue. Thank you many times over.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The militia part is not modifying the right to bear arms. The quote reads: "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."
For those with reading comprehension, there are two statements in this sentence. 1) that a militia that is well regulated is necessary to keep a free state secure and 2) that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that the government cannot infringe upon.
There's one more thing that's important to note -- (3) these two things are combined in the same sentence because (1) is **a** justification for (2). Some interpret the sentence to mean that (1) is the only justification for (2), but the history of these types of clauses in, say, state constitutions from the same time does not really support such a reading.
Anyhow, the more useful aid I find in interpreting these things is to transfer the statement to something less controversial:
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
If the Constitution said that, would we infer that only registered voters (part of the "electorate") should get to keep and read books? If you're a kid or you don't vote, you don't get to read?
OR... do we interpret it to mean that the first part of the sentence is ONE important reason why "the people" in general should get to read books -- but it only applies to a subset of "the people," namely the "electorate." There may be other good reasons why other people may benefit from books, and hence the right is granted to "the people" later in the sentence (rather than a repetition of "the electorate" only) but the Constitution (which is a fairly terse document in general) doesn't list all of them.
Personally, I find the latter interpretation (i.e., a general right for "the people") to be much more compelling when we transfer the logic to a sentence on a less controversial topic.
(By the way, I'm actually in favor of much greater regulations on guns, perhaps even beyond what the 2nd amendment implies. But I refuse to twist the meaning of this sentence to accord with my personal belief.)
Though what happens in that interpretation the government system changed and people stopped voting? It's been a very long time since the US has had well-regulated militias in the way they envisioned it in that clause, nor are militias even able to fulfil the purpose that was envisioned if they were recreated.
I stole this Sig
I'm in agreement that we have far too many laws and we can throw out most of the federal code of regulations. However, the Constitution is a pretty small, easy to read, reasonable document that has been ripped to shreds by attempts to interpret it with a context of the modern world. However, there is a convenient part built in that allows it to be modified. But long ago the government figured out it was far easier to ignore it than go through the modification process.
I feel that we need to repeal the second amendment, and I say this as a gun-owner. The text of the amendment clearly prevents the government from restricting access even to nuclear arms, which most people would agree is not optimal. Our government has taken the expedient approach and simply ignored (sorry, "interpreted") the second amendment and passed legislation that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. While this solves the problem of NBC proliferation, it introduces the problem of law-ignoring government. It would be nice if more people saw things your way -- maybe then we'd finally see people support repealing the second amendment and replacing it with something that is more in line with existing legislation that [rightly] restricts arms.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
c'mon. He clearly and in a very upfront manner restricted his post to a discussion as to the relationship between the two clauses and how the amendment should be understood. And, to his credit, did so in a very effective manner.
He did not say that he thought the second amendment, as written, was good or should be abided by. In fact, he said he supported regulation, "perhaps even beyond what the 2nd amendment implies."
Then you ask him a leading question? Ridiculous.
Why do YOU people always leave out the militia part? A little inconvenient?? There is no militia now, so you don't need any guns.
I wouldn't expect someone participating in a gun-control discussion to be informed about reality, but according to the US federal law, there is a militia, even today. Of particular relevance here might be the part about the unorganized militia.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Unmanned Aerial Systems are restricted to airspace below 400 ft. It is recommended that UAS not fly within 25 feet of people, not fly over buildings or large groups of people. If a UAS is operated in a manner that compromises personal rights such as saftey or property there are ways too file a complaint that doesn't include felonious interference of an aircraft opperation.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Except if you run with scissors you can only really hurt yourself.
You randomly fire a gun into the air, and you can only really hurt others.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Ballistic trajectory, how does it work?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Well these things should be following some pre-planned route on public land in regulated drone airspace.
However, as far as property rights go, when does a property owner's airspace end and it becomes the FAA's airspace?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
There may be limits on where and at whom you may fire them.
Have gnu, will travel.
This guy used a simple camera. But if privacy is an issue (and it should be), drones in general are a threat to privacy. An easily available $600 camera can capture every pore from 10 miles away. Any ridiculous distance like 500 feet or 1 mile is too small.
Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
Ever caught some birdshot in the face, after someone fired it up (above a treeline)? No? I have, from over 100 yards away. If I hadn't been wearing eye protection, I'd be blind right now. This is not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. Not even close.
How many times do people have to be reminded not to go hunting with Dick Cheney?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It's difficult to look into windows from those heights. It is perfectly fine for watching the neighbor tan topless though.
BlameBillCosby.com
Perhaps, but they can keep track of people around the house but not inside it. With facial recognition already advancing quickly, are you okay with your every entry and exit from your house recorded in some skynet database, along with tracking all the visitors you get?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Which is precisely the point. If the people want to ban guns then that's fine they can do that. However, it requires an amendment to the constitution not just legislation.
How many times do people have to be reminded not to go hunting with Dick Cheney?
Actually, the person who delivered that birdshot to MY face was a patrician-type Boston-ite. More of a John Kerry, only more liberal still, politically.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Thats an upper end projection I've read. While that is only 1:30 males age 12 to 40, thats is still a large number. We'll be reading about drone incidents for eyars.
And it has been updated as the times changed. We still need the First and Second and so they're still in there.
If you don't like our Constitution as presently understood, feel free to try to repeal the parts you don't like. Funny how even the most shrill of leftists never want to come out and say what everyone knows they are wishing for. BTW, those rich slave holding men created the most successful country in the history of the world. As if any leftie could do better. One of course wonders what our great grand children will mock us for. My vote is AGW.
Feel free to sue the asshole flying the drone
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Do you always just make stuff up?
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion.
No I'm talking about the general case, you're talking about the specific case. The court ruled in this specific case and that should not be confused with giving people a carte blanche right to go sniping at drones entering the property.
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it.
Yep just like the supreme court ruled that your 4th amendment rights don't exist within 200km of the nation border, and just like no court case every gets challenged or appealed. The court agreed and they are {menacing voice}INFALLIBLE{/menacing voice}.
I wouldn't. It was plain and simple.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Shooting a drone that is fifty feet above a property is no different than shooting down an airplane at 5,000 feet that might be looking down or taking photographs. If it can be seen by others there is absolutely nothing private about it. The guy that shot at that drone needs to be locked up. And we do not need individuals deciding when it is or is not safe to fire a gun of any type in an area with other people or homes near by. Not every gun owner will make reasonable decisions about where he can fire a gun with the exception of stopping a serious attacker or thief.
It says at the end of the article that the drone owner plans to ask the prosecutor to convene a grand jury over this. I did a little reading and it looks like these were misdemeanor charges. I would assume that the drone's owner is looking to have felony charges brought against him, which would put this back into criminal court at a higher level.
As far as all the complaints about how safe it is to shoot a shotgun in town, the greater worry is where the drone landed after being damaged and that is where the shooter is more in the wrong than the drone operator. Letting him off the hook is setting a bad precedence IMHO.
There in no religion higher than truth.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
Except you can't do that when the person who is infringing on your privacy is enforcing their own privacy while trampling all over yours by being blocks away where you cannot track them down.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Because when you do need the Militia, it'll be too late to get the guns; better to have them and not use them than to need them and not have them. Look at Switzerland 8.2 million, everybody is required to have an assault rifle and they have the lowest per capita murder rate in the world verses Honduras, 8.2 million and the strictest gun control laws on the planet and their murder rate is the highest.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If they guy is jerking off watching your daughter sun bathing, then yes.
Then the next thing flying into your property will be the police coming to arrest you for assault with a deadly weapon and possibly second degree murder.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm not real fond of the Second Amendment, personally, and I'd like to see serious gun control.
However, what I'd really like is recognition of Constitutional rights. If I start advocating unconstitutional gun control laws, I have no moral advantage over someone advocating unconstitutional book control laws.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh I am not debating that you can easily spy on someone from outside property range. I am sure this is what my neighbors think I am doing every time I bring out my telescope.
The real problem is privacy, not how how close a drone is allowed to get to a person. If it was close enough to shoot down, it was probably too close.
But I am more asking a question about the attack range. At what height above one's property do they "own"? I am sure that people installing their own anti aircraft systems will need to know this.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It could be argued that militias can no longer fulfill the purpose *because* they basically don't exist anymore. In the unlikely event of an invasion, it really might be nice that people in local communities actually know how to operate basic firearms. We used 2 atomic bombs on Japan to avoid having to kill and be killed by Japanese civilians with butcher knives.
I think a populace armed to the teeth would be a pretty good deterrent to any would be invaders. The problem is that it's a defense mechanism that is getting lots of people killed in a time when there is very little risk of invasion.
Agreed.
Sometimes it's possible to have abstract thoughts and determine what would or should happen in hypothetical situations. In these situations analogies make sense even if the examples used in the analogies are not reflective of reality currently.
Is it really that hard to imagine what one should make of this statement, *if* it were in the constitution?
No that's not hard to imagine, but that also isn't what the post said.
As the founding fathers warned,
Who cares?
Seriously, the "founding fathers", while extremely smart and wise for their time were not omnipotent super-beings that know everything for all eternity.
It is possible, just maybe, that people in the future will have better ideas about how to run the place, and we can take these 18th century ideals with just a little grain of salt.
If it turns out that liberal gun ownership is causing more harm than good to society, then we should, as intelligent humans, be able to make decisions based on the evidence. Not just lock ourselves into the so-called wisdom from 200 years ago.
30 years ago there was no suspicion that the RC craft was recording HD video.
Just the same as if in 30 more years time (hypothetically) high quality x-ray photography is consumer available, you'll treat that guy taking pictures of your house (daughter's bedroom) from the street with a slightly different attitude too.
And yeah, next year if some guy is hovering over my back yard in a jetpack snapping pictures of my daughter sunbathing, I'm not gonna start suggesting better angles to him, or tell her to improve her posture.
(Sure I'm not gonna shoot him down either, cause a) I'm in Australia, so I don't have a gun, or much of a need to worry about them, and b) It's a person, not a machine, and shooting (or even just disabling) it will probably lead to human death or injury, which is a whole different scenario and while protecting my privacy is worth more to me than someone else's toy, it's not worth more to me necessarily than someone else's life.)
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
The Constitution doesn't define the rights of the people. It defines the authority of the government. The Constitution restricts the government from impinging the rights of the people which are too broad and numerous to be explicitly stated. Any right that is listed by the Constitution (the right to bear arms for example) is a nice sentiment, but it would be a horrible society where only the rights mentioned were the freedoms of the citizens. This is why the 9th Amendment exists. The founding fathers explicitly stated "Hey people, you have all the rights you can think of even if we didn't list them. The stuff in here only restricts the government, not you!"
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Have you read their writings? When I see a modern argument against the right of gun ownership that is half as well reasoned as their arguments for gun ownership, I will reconsider my opinion. Currently, the common argument used against the founding fathers is that they are old fashioned and their reasoning only applies in an 18th century world.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Type 3 FFL holder out of Louisiana here, just checked my ATF regs manual, what do you know the AC claiming to be a type 3 FFL holder (registered firearms collector) is telling the truth.
Muzzle loaders are exempt from most of the federal firearms regulations. hence why convicted felons are allowed to purchase them, at least under federal law. Generally larger diameter than .50 is regulated, there are a few exemptions, shot guns come to mind, but those are limited to specific guns which generally carry other regulations (sporting requirements on imported shotguns). No there isn't a special license required for any firearm under federal law afaik, there is however a special tax stamp and registration which includes an extended background check and extra paperwork requirements.
If you don't like our Constitution as presently understood, feel free to try to repeal the parts you don't like.
Pretty sure that's -EXACTLY- what I am alluding to, and the fact it's been done 29 times.
BTW, those rich slave holding men created the most successful country in the history of the world.
Actually, no, they didn't, unless you believe the Founder's survived well into the 20th Century. They created a minor, rebellious nation that not many paid attention to because it was across an ocean and difficult to control with the realities of the day (much like if Earth tried to exert its will on a rebellious Mars colony with today's space tech). The US as the successful and powerful nation we know today was created by later persons, such as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, and so on.
As if any leftie could do better.
It's like you've never heard of Europe (unsurprising given your lack of historical education as evidenced above)
One of course wonders what our great grand children will mock us for. My vote is AGW.
and thus do you cement your stupidity
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Now go ahead and convince me that a) You would definitely be blind now if you weren't wearing glasses then, and then how not wearing glasses would have been a sensible thing for where you were, and.... all the other little bits that might actually give your post some substance.
Acceleration due to gravity. When the shot is fired up, the slowing of it will be much more due to gravity than air resistance. Then as the shot falls, it will increase velocity due to gravity. Even accounting for air resistance, the shot's velocity when it impacts a person on the ground will still be a very significant percentage of the muzzle velocity.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
Have you read their writings? When I see a modern argument against the right of gun ownership that is half as well reasoned as their arguments for gun ownership, I will reconsider my opinion.
Well every other modern western democracy seems to have figured out how to control gun violence better than yours. But you probably don't consider that reasonable...
I don't get why people on slashdot argue over the second amendment. It is irrelevant when the issue of gun regulations is what most people are actually talking about. There is nothing in the constitution that would prevent stricter regulations, limits, etc...
Can you read? I know you oppose government control over what can be read, but do *you* know *how* to read? Can you actually comprehend what it is that you are reading?
Hah, we'd get one back, because i think pretty much 100 percent of the country actually likes being part of the country....
That's just the thing. All citizens of the United States are citizens whether the Constitution exists or is dissolved. It is only the federal government that is beholden to that document for its existence.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Western democracies? Is that how you are going to set the bar?
-Honduras last time I checked was in the western hemisphere and has a democratically elected government. It also has the highest rate of firearms related deaths in the world.
-Venezuela comes next in firearm deaths and is most definitely in the western hemisphere. They are technically based on a democratically elected leader, but I'll let you discount this one if you want (as communist dictators don't have the best record of internal peace either).
-Third in line is El Salvador, also in the western hemisphere and also a democratically based society.
-Fourth is Jamaica. Still in the west, but in this case it's a constitutional monarchy (under Queen Elizabeth no less).
You can feel free to go down the list if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I sorted by the overall rate by the way. A couple countries from Africa pop in, but mostly it's Latin American (all in the west mind you), with many of those being democratic societies. The US comes in at lucky number 13. Ironically right below Mexico (ranked 12), our dear neighbor with another democratically elected government.
So when you say "modern western democracy" do you mean the US and Canada? Or do you mean the hand picked countries in your head that have lower gun violence? Also if you choose to sort by homicides (take suicides and accidents out of the count) your argument gets worse. The US is third in the world on suicides but moves down to 15th on homicides per capita.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
This judge is a total asshat. Since the FAA has decided to treat quadrotors and their ilk as "aircraft" (wrongly, IMO, but that's another post), this pinhead of a jurist just set a precedent that it's OK to shoot at aircraft if you feel your privacy is threatened. Well, let's just scale that right on up to LEO satellites while we're at it! I doubt the FAA will let this go un-appealed.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
Sweden destroys their constitution every 10 years, and re-writes it from the ground up.
Uhh? What? We do nothing of the sort. Not even close. As a matter of fact the constitutional process in Sweden and the US is similar from the point of view that they are changed by the legislating body like regular laws are but with extra checks and balances to make it more difficult to change.
In Sweden the four parts of our constitutional law (we don't have one collected constitution per se), can be changed only by two consecutive parliaments with a national election in-between (to give the people the chance of changing a parliament that tries to do something not to our liking). Since the term today is four years, that gives a maximum of eight years for a change in constitutional law, but shorter is of course often the norm. So I have no idea where you got the "ten years" from. We most certainly don't require the whole constitution to be ratified within any set time period.
Stefan Axelsson
Europe nearly succumbed to the German National Socialists, and would have had it not been for us. And our founders laid the foundation for all the subsequent success. The fact that we are following Europe down the crapper is because we have deviated in substantial ways from the system of government they set up. If you are so sure of AGW, cite me the paper that, in your opinion, definitively proved that the earth's atmosphere is warning due to the tiny amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activities. I will review the paper and find R^2 correlations, which never proved anything, cooked computer models, and vigorous hand waving. Note that I have a degree in physics with minors in math and chemistry, so I can read and comprehend the original papers. I have reviewed many such papers and found the same thing in all of them. And don't yammer on about a body of work. Coming to the same unsupported conclusions time after time does not even begin to establish proof. The only viable conclusion a true scientist can arrive at based on our knowledge is that we don't know if CO2 is the primary driver of climatic temperatures.
So when you say "modern western democracy" do you mean the US and Canada? Or do you mean the hand picked countries in your head that have lower gun violence?
I don't use El Salvador and Honduras, that is for sure.
Maybe we went to different schools, but where I'm from, "the west" generally refers to North Western Europe (Germany, France, Denmark, UK, Scandinavia etc), and by extension, the US, Canada, Australia and NZ. You know, the modern and advanced countries that have the highest standards of living, education and health. You know, the ones we all aim to be.
Maybe our difference in education taught us different things, but where I'm from we compare ourselves against the best and try to compete at the same level
I can only guess that the US figures are so bad that cognitive dissonance is at play, and all you come up with crazy excuses like " But El Salvador!".
Seriously, you think the US gun violence rate is quite fine because you beat El Salvador?
I'm sure we did go to different schools. I wasn't seriously saying El Salvador is comparable to the US. But Mexico probably isn't that far off... Maybe you grew up in an urban area that you think gun violence is so bad? In the vast majority of the US, gun violence is pretty low (and trending downward I might add). The media sure doesn't make it seem that way. If you think Germany, France, Denmark, the UK, the countries in Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, and NZ are so much better than the US, I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to move there and eventually gain citizenship. I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. I know, it's crazy of me to think that you should move to another country if you like their policies better... It makes so much more sense to argue with people to try and change the country you're in.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?