XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt-journalism.photo, talk.politics.guns
"Scout" wrote in message news:n03mt5$ogu$
1@dont-email.me...
"Just Wondering" <
fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rWWUx.83746$
JM4.37471@fx04.iad...
On 10/18/2015 11:38 AM, Wayne wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:jtg72bl794bkn5c6dsemsjk5bsjs6v1qot@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:03:10 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net>
wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-will-require-drones-be-registered-n446266
The federal government will announce a new plan requiring anyone
buying a
drone
Oh. I thought you were going to say "gun."
[follow ups corrected]
Well the guns used to shoot them down will have to be registered also.
When one flies over private property without permission, at an altitude
within range of a 12 gauge, they should be fair game.
In a rural area, maybe. But it's illegal to shoot a firearm into the air
in most urban areas. Maybe use a high-powered super soaker?
# Pack a bunch of light string with a few small fishing weights and a couple
# of Styrofoam peanuts into the barrel of a paintball gun.
# Will tend to produce a 'cloud' of thread on firing, get a couple of those
# into the props, and I bet it's not going to stay airborne much longer.
# Best part, non-lethal, limited range, and perfectly legal to fire.
Cool! Of course that raises the question of which is worse, peeping or
taking out drones.
What caught my attention on the story was that the FAA has decided to
require registration of private property.
Drones aren't protected by the second amendment, but Obama might get some
gun inspiration from the FAA move.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)