Hunting mistakes

Actually, I kind of like the idea. Don't think it will happen, but I like the idea.

I don't buy your arguments about shooting down planes, etc. People shoot into the sky all the time, especially bird hunters. When is the lst time you heard of a hunter bring down a plane?

This pertains to drones under 1000 feet. If it is any higher than that you won't be able to hit it and may not even be able to see it if it is a small, personal drone.

I am sure there will be plenty of perverts and control freaks in every town who will want to buy their own personal drone in order to spy on neighbors and harass people they don't like. It would be nice to see such people lose several hundred dollars every time they spy in the bedroom windows or backyards of people in their neighborhood.

Hit 'em where it counts. In the checkbook. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Philosophically I don't particularly have issue with some of your points--but I think there is a serious issue with implementation.

The range of the weapon limitation is real for most people's guns. Some of the bigger issues are telling how high it is, what it's flying over, etc.

As is usually the case, it comes down to the "perverts and control freaks" you mention. Guns have legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Small unmanned vehicles have legitimate and illegitimate purposes. I do not see why the few gun "perverts and control freaks" should have their rights held inherently superior to people legitimately flying remote aircraft with no snooping equipment. Will we see "hot air balloon" permits next?

My OP was some amount of hyperbole, but not completely.

Philosophically I don't particularly have issue with some of your points--but I think there is a serious issue with implementation.

The range of the weapon limitation is real for most people's guns. Some of the bigger issues are telling how high it is, what it's flying over, etc.

As is usually the case, it comes down to the "perverts and control freaks" you mention. Guns have legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Small unmanned vehicles have legitimate and illegitimate purposes. I do not see why the few gun "perverts and control freaks" should have their rights held inherently superior to people legitimately flying remote aircraft with no snooping equipment. Will we see "hot air balloon" permits next?

My OP was some amount of hyperbole, but not completely. Originally Posted by Old-T

Well, one distinction is that drones are inherently intrusive, but guns are not.

You may not like that people in your neighborhood have guns - even a bunch of them - but they do not intrude on your rights. Someone must deliberately misuse them.

On the other hand, what drones don't have snooping equipment? Practically all uses - even legitimate ones - involve surveillance. I have heard of a small number of drone uses that don't involve cameras and sensors - like crop dusting that follows a GPS program. But that is inherently a large drone (to carry a tank of pesticide).

But all of these small personal drones don't have any lift capacity. They just have tiny cameras that beam a picture back to the operator's computer.

Most people who want guns do not want to shoot someone. They just want protection from others in case they need it. But they are not looking to shoot someone.

On the other hand, the type of person who wants a drone is the type of person who wants to spy on others. If you are not interested in observing others, why on earth would you spend money on one?

Personal drones are a stalker's wet dream.

No, not at all the same. I do NOT believe the color of one's skin determines their cultural of academic achievement. Or their success, or their being a good or bad person.

I DO believe that the Billy Bob mindset--not the same as where you live--DOES severely limit a person's options for achievement and success. Not for being good/bad. And in no way did I ever say that urban folks should "rule" the Billy Bobs of the world.

The other big difference between being Black and being Billy Bob, is one CAN--if they work hard--usually renounce and grow out of being a Billy Bob. At least in theory. It doesn't mean they have to stop loving Blue Grass music (though what anyone sees in that I will never understand--it's almost as hard on the ears as Rap), or give up their Dodge pick-up and gun racks. But it probably does mean they need to aspire to something more than being the next "Step-son of Duck Nation" or whatever it's called. They DO need to take what steps they can to finish grade school, learn how to do long division, and write a sentence that other people outside their immediate wide spot in the road can understand.

Again, if Billy Bob is content with his life style that doesn't make him (or her, there are Billie Bobbies too) a "bad person", just one that likely provides very little to the country as a whole. Originally Posted by Old-T

I'll take a Billy Bob who doesn't contribute much over a welfare recipient any day.

It doesn't mean they have to stop loving Blue Grass music (though what anyone sees in that I will never understand--it's almost as hard on the ears as Rap) Originally Posted by Old-T

Not all Bluegrass is created equal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoLXtj0aCiM

Not all Bluegrass is created equal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoLXtj0aCiM Originally Posted by LNK

I suspect my reaction to BG is environmentally derived.

No, not at all the same. I do NOT believe the color of one's skin determines their cultural of academic achievement. Or their success, or their being a good or bad person.

I DO believe that the Billy Bob mindset--not the same as where you live--DOES severely limit a person's options for achievement and success. Not for being good/bad. And in no way did I ever say that urban folks should "rule" the Billy Bobs of the world.

The other big difference between being Black and being Billy Bob, is one CAN--if they work hard--usually renounce and grow out of being a Billy Bob. At least in theory. It doesn't mean they have to stop loving Blue Grass music (though what anyone sees in that I will never understand--it's almost as hard on the ears as Rap), or give up their Dodge pick-up and gun racks. But it probably does mean they need to aspire to something more than being the next "Step-son of Duck Nation" or whatever it's called. They DO need to take what steps they can to finish grade school, learn how to do long division, and write a sentence that other people outside their immediate wide spot in the road can understand.

Again, if Billy Bob is content with his life style that doesn't make him (or her, there are Billie Bobbies too) a "bad person", just one that likely provides very little to the country as a whole. Originally Posted by Old-T

Using your logic black people could work hard and move back to Africa where the white man wouldn't be able to keep his foot on their throat. I have a feeling that the Billy Bobs of the world live a much more fulfilling life than most people packed into the concrete jungle.

I don't know you but odds are the guys of ''duck nation'' make a lot more money than you do, 200,000$ an episode. Which means they contribute more to the country in taxes than you do. That's not counting speaking engagements and there original business of making duck calls, oh I forgot about the endorsements. Maybe you do really well with your endorsements and just haven't ever mentioned it, or I missed it.

We haven't even talked about all of the Billy Bobs that bled out in some far off land and never came back to their simple small town life. Next time you are in a small town drive by the local park and odds are you will see a veteran memorial with all of there names on it. You might think they have done very little for the country but some of us think they have done more for it than anyone else.

so ...is the town not at all worried, when all these Billy Bobs start shooting up in the air at drones, that a bullet might just come down and injury or possibly kill someone?

there are plenty of incidents where someone is killed by celebratory gunfire after a bunch of idiots start shooting in the air on holidays or for whatever reason.

god invented shotguns for shooting Judges in the face without killing them

god invented shotguns for shooting Judges in the face without killing them Originally Posted by CJ7

No, not shotguns. Birdshot.

Buckshot would have had horribly different consequences.

No. 9 shot is just about right.

No, not shotguns. Birdshot.

Buckshot would have had horribly different consequences. Originally Posted by ExNYer

without a shotgun birdshot is worthless

small drones 7 1/2 or 8 shot sounds about right

The only way the Chinese would have it is if they stole it from us. They aren't very creative, it is the Achilles's heel of the Orientals. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Racist hypocrite FAGGOT!

Hell Chaney couldn't kill a lawyer with a shotgun.

Racist hypocrite FAGGOT! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Are you referring to posters who refer to black skin as shit, i.e. Yssup Ryder?

A picture of poor ol' Harry Whittington after Duck Cheney pulled the trigger. Harry should have ducked!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...151839728.html