|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CO: Government needs drone rules
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Even a gun-control freak like me would have to concede that one undeniably beneficial use of a good rifle — besides hunting or self-defense — is the purpose for which William Meredith used it: to shoot down a drone, like the one hovering above his sunbathing daughter.
Columnist Stephen Carter is right on target in asserting that because regulations regarding the use of the new drone technology are sparse and unsettled, many citizens will take matters into their own hands. The government, in kowtowing to business and hobby interests, has flubbed its responsibility in this regard, and there will be a price to pay. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(8/8/2015)
|
I'm (im) patiently waiting for governing officialdom to explain just how being a "peeping tom" via the enablement of technology differs from the same act performed in person. Worse, since this is invasion is performed via electronic video means whatever is viewed can be preserved for whatever later nefarious purpose the user intends. We raise pluperfect hell over surreptitious videos in bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms; how does this activity - either in intent or end product - differ ?
The loss of an expensive toy ought to be a salutary lesson for all such "peepers", or a prosecutable offense. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
