Three teams in trouble with the FAA for using drones to film practices

[UpstatePanther]

 

So what height would you generally suggest?

Honestly, I haven't thought through all the minutia. I think it should be proportionate to distance from major airports. There would have to be regulations for city-dwellers and condominium residents in smaller population centers. What they might be, I haven't thought about yet.

 

Right now I'm more focused on maintaining our focus on personal freedom rather than how much the already overbearing government should regulate it. 

[TN05]

 

 

Honestly, I haven't thought through all the minutia. I think it should be proportionate to distance from major airports. There would have to be regulations for city-dwellers and condominium residents in smaller population centers. What they might be, I haven't thought about yet.

 

Right now I'm more focused on maintaining our focus on personal freedom rather than how much the already overbearing government should regulate it. 

Sorry, but I really don't see not letting people fly commercial drones wherever they want to be overbearing government anymore, and I'm pretty dang conservative.

[UpstatePanther]

Well, tell me. Just who is going to check that all these unmanned, unregistered drones are also unarmed and are truly flown by a "private business" and not a leaderless local terrorist? You? Drones can be weapons (duh!) and that is why the government is rushing to catch up the law to control them. Again, technology has outdistanced the laws. 

hmm... you raise a good point. One I don't know how to answer. Then again, in classic government fashion, they are using the excuse of "rushing to catch up to technology" to grab up as much power over our lives as they can.

I agree there needs to be some way to prevent terrorists from using them, but we are entitled to weaponize our drones to defend our homes and families, and yes against our government should we need to. That's our right as Americans. It should be respected by whatever regulations are legislated

[Batman]

hmm... you raise a good point. One I don't know how to answer. Then again, in classic government fashion, they are using the excuse of "rushing to catch up to technology" to grab up as much power over our lives as they can.

I agree there needs to be some way to prevent terrorists from using them, but we are entitled to weaponize our drones to defend our homes and families, and yes against our government should we need to. That's our right as Americans. It should be respected by whatever regulations are legislated

That tinfoil hat is starting to seep into your head.

[KendrickPanther]

They've had those giant towers for an eternity. they would never need drones ti film their own practices

 

[UpstatePanther]

Sorry, but I really don't see not letting people fly commercial drones wherever they want to be overbearing government anymore, and I'm pretty dang conservative.

Haha what you don't want Amazon an dominos using new technology to better their service? This is where consent comes in. Drones shouldn't be flying on property they aren't authorized to fly on, regardless of who owns them. There ought to be a general airspace where no entity claims ownership and businesses can conduct their business. This general airspace should be high above homes and other businesses. how high? That can be argued. Likewise personal drones should only be flown below this airspace. But arguments that they shouldn't be available for commercial or personal use are downright tyrannical. The same goes for those who would suggest that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to weaponize their drones for defense. Tinfoil hat or not, that's how our country was founded. That's how it should remain.

[TN05]

Haha what you don't want Amazon an dominos using new technology to better their service? This is where consent comes in. Drones shouldn't be flying on property they aren't authorized to fly on, regardless of who owns them. There ought to be a general airspace where no entity claims ownership and businesses can conduct their business. This general airspace should be high above homes and other businesses. how high? That can be argued. Likewise personal drones should only be flown below this airspace. But arguments that they shouldn't be available for commercial or personal use are downright tyrannical. The same goes for those who would suggest that law abiding citizens shouldn't be able to weaponize their drones for defense. Tinfoil hat or not, that's how our country was founded. That's how it should remain.

I never said they shouldn't be available. I said I didn't want commercial drones flying around anywhere they want.

And no, I think it's a bit silly to suggest the right to 'keep and bear arms' applies to unmanned drones. Antonin Scalia (a very conservative, originalist justice) has argued the second amendment doesn't apply to weapons that can't be carried by hand, like cannons. 

[UpstatePanther]

I never said they shouldn't be available. I said I didn't want commercial drones flying around anywhere they want.
And no, I think it's a bit silly to suggest the right to 'keep and bear arms' applies to unmanned drones. Antonin Scalia (a very conservative, originalist justice) has argued the second amendment doesn't apply to weapons that can't be carried by hand, like cannons.

Yet without them, America would never have existed. I'm not ignorant. I know farmers and merchants didn't own their own personal cannons. But the smiths were allowed to make them for the continental army which was nothing more than a coalition of farmers and merchants at the time. Scalia can say what he wants, but without private citizens building their own armaments that could cointend with the might of the British, the American Revolution would be a distant rebellion remembered only by history books.

[Squirrel]

Havent researched it much.  But sounds like for commercial use the FAA is going to require a license for a person to operate one and also the drone will need to be registered.  Wont require a pilots license but a operators license and training on operating a drone over crowds and in airspace.   Wouldn't not be surprised  to see them limiting it 700 ft or less in airspace depending on where it operated and of course not in the vicinity of airports or Helipads. 

[TN05]

Yet without them, America would never have existed. I'm not ignorant. I know farmers and merchants didn't own their own personal cannons. But the smiths were allowed to make them for the continental army which was nothing more than a coalition of farmers and merchants at the time. Scalia can say what he wants, but without private citizens building their own armaments that could cointend with the might of the British, the American Revolution would be a distant rebellion remembered only by history books.

Not being constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's illegal. It just doesn't mean there is a constitutional right to own a cannon.

[Cj72]

Uh oh, I hope the faa doesn't find out I've been flying my miniature drone in my living room

[UpstatePanther]

Not being constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's illegal. It just doesn't mean there is a constitutional right to own a cannon.

then what's your point? The constitution was meant to reign in government, not.bestow rights on people. Our rights are given by the Creator, or if you don't believe, then they are inherent and inalienable. It's government that needs to be reigned in, not people. They serve us. Not the other way around. To bring it home, just because the constitution doesn't say we have a right to weaponize our drones, doesn't mean we don't have that right. 

[Jangler]

Lotta words in this thread.

But not the right ones...

 

 

 

 

Thanks Obama.

[CoastalCat]

Poo for not mentioning WHICH teams. That's as bad as those Facebook teaser links. "What happens next..." is probably what you'd expect.