Town considering licensing bounty hunters to shoot down drones

[National Socialist]

Nope. Plus anything that isn't covered in the constitution is illegal so who gives a shit.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

positive this not legal, nor advisable

Positive that killing Jews was legal in Germany.

Positive that interning Japanese was legal in America.

Positive that Legal and Lawful are separate terms.

It is Lawful for a Sovereign to act in self defense, even if it is made illegal.

"Legal" and "Lawful" are synonyms, and mean exactly the same thing.

Nope.

Also, that would mean that the Nuremberg trials were unjustified. What Hitler did was legal, was Nuremberg (trials) did was Lawful.

Slavery was once Legal, however, it was never Lawful.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Linking to another forum is against the rules.

Not to mention, using a post on another forum as a source is pretty silly.

Here are the definitions, according to Websters:

Definition of LEGAL
1 : of or relating to law

2a : deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure
b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular <a corporation is a legal but not a real person>
c : established by law; especially : statutory

3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules

Lawful:

Definition of LAWFUL
1 a : being in harmony with the law <a lawful judgment>
b : constituted, authorized, or established by law : rightful <lawful institutions>

I'm failing to see a difference.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Positive that killing Jews was legal in Germany.

Positive that interning Japanese was legal in America.

Positive that Legal and Lawful are separate terms.

It is Lawful for a Sovereign to act in self defense, even if it is made illegal.

"Legal" and "Lawful" are synonyms, and mean exactly the same thing.

Nope.

Also, that would mean that the Nuremberg trials were unjustified. What Hitler did was legal, was Nuremberg (trials) did was Lawful.

Slavery was once Legal, however, it was never Lawful.

What Hitler did was legal according to the laws that he wrote, sure. It was "lawful" too.

But the Nuremburg trials were based on international law, not Nazi German law - and what Hitler did was neither legal nor lawful, according to international law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

positive this not legal, nor advisable

Positive that killing Jews was legal in Germany.

Positive that interning Japanese was legal in America.

Positive that Legal and Lawful are separate terms.

It is Lawful for a Sovereign to act in self defense, even if it is made illegal.

Nonsense.

There’s no such thing as a ‘sovereign,’ the notion is ignorant idiocy.

Any person who commits a crime can and will be prosecuted, no matter how ‘unjust’ he might perceive a law to be.

And attempting to ‘shoot down’ drones does not constitute ‘self-defense,’ it constitutes destruction of private property.

 

[National Socialist]

Can't fix stupid.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

A preventative measure to keep sheeple from shooting at drones is to arm them with missiles ............... targeting sheeple over the horizon is the drones speciality, in the testing grounds of Afghanistan & Iraq, this renders the sheeple's guns useless.

Check .. sheeple!

 

[waltky]

FAA warns against shooting at drones...

FAA warns public against shooting guns at drones
July 19, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday.

The FAA released a statement in response to questions about an ordinance under consideration in the tiny farming community of Deer Trail, Colo., that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. The administration reminded the public that it regulates the nation's airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns. A drone "hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," the statement said. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane." Under the proposed ordinance, Deer Trail would grant hunting permits to shoot drones. The permits would cost $25 each. The town would also encourage drone hunting by awarding $100 to anyone who presents a valid hunting license and identifiable pieces of a drone that has been shot down.

Deer Trail resident Phillip Steel, 48, author of the proposal, said in an interview that he has 28 signatures on a petition — roughly 10 percent of the town's registered voters. Under Colorado law, that requires local officials to formally consider the proposal at a meeting next month, he said. Town officials would then have the option of adopting the ordinance or putting it on the ballot in an election this fall, he said. The proposed ordinance is mostly a symbolic protest against small, civilian drones that are coming into use in the United States, Steel said. He acknowledged that it's unlikely there are any drones in use near Deer Trail. "I don't want to live in a surveillance society. I don't feel like being in a virtual prison," Steel said. "This is a pre-emptive strike."

He dismissed the FAA's warning. "The FAA doesn't have the power to make a law," he said. The FAA is working on regulations to safely integrate drones into the skies over the U.S., where manned aircraft are prevalent. The Congress gave the FAA until 2015 to develop the regulations, but the agency is behind schedule. FAA officials have estimated that once regulations are in place, thousands of drones will be in use across the country for a wide variety of purposes, from helping farmers figure out which crops need watering to tracking sea lions in remote rocky outcroppings to aiding search and rescue missions. But the Deer Trail proposal is the latest ripple in a spreading backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned aircraft have been introduced in states and cities. Privacy advocates have expressed fear that police will use drones to cheaply and effectively conduct widespread surveillance without warrants.

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drone industry trade group, was concerned enough last year about people threatening to shoot down drones that it issued a statement warning that such comments were "irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful." Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the group, expressed similar concerns Friday, saying drones "are being designed to serve the public good....The myriad of important uses will be imperiled if they become targets. ... The suggestion that Americans take up arms against unmanned aircraft also endangers citizens on the ground."

- See more at: FAA warns public against shooting guns at drones | CNS News

 

[National Socialist]

I laugh at the fact the FAA thinks it has any legs to stand on calling something illegal.

 

[Freewill]

I realize we don't want drones. But say this story had any basis in reality, in that they were actually wanted people to shoot at drones. What would happen? They would be in violation of federal law. The law would come down on them hard license or not. Then they would arm the predators to protect them from those trying to shoot them down. Could get very ugly.

Better to nip this drone program in the butt right now. Obama is already a war criminal the charges should not be hard at all to prove. Many innocents killed in ally countries and they posed NO immediate threat to anyone. Pile on the Americans killed without due process along with a 16 year old American and the case is clear. Hell even Obama said that it was not constitutional to use drones against Americans without due process, yet he did it.

 

[National Socialist]

Let them arm them...just turn the public against them even more...the sooner the people regain a backbone the better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FAA warns public against shooting guns at drones

When supporters of this idiocy were confronted with the fact that if indeed anyone should ‘shoot down’ a drone, he would be subject to criminal prosecution, they backpedaled to the position that the proposal was merely ‘symbolic protest.’

A drone "hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," the statement said. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane."

Clearly advocates of this nonsense are not only ignorant of the law, but exhibit a clear disregard for human life and safety.

Even if such an act were not against the law, common sense and decency would at least compel one to not do something so reckless and stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I realize we don't want drones. But say this story had any basis in reality, in that they were actually wanted people to shoot at drones. What would happen? They would be in violation of federal law. The law would come down on them hard license or not. Then they would arm the predators to protect them from those trying to shoot them down. Could get very ugly.

Better to nip this drone program in the butt right now. Obama is already a war criminal the charges should not be hard at all to prove. Many innocents killed in ally countries and they posed NO immediate threat to anyone. Pile on the Americans killed without due process along with a 16 year old American and the case is clear. Hell even Obama said that it was not constitutional to use drones against Americans without due process, yet he did it.

When even the usual crazy people such as Freewill come out against something the OP advocates, that’s a clear indicator the OP needs to reexamine his position.

 

[National Socialist]

Reckless and stupid like using a drone missile to murder kids on a playground? How about at a cafe?