gridsleep said:
To hell with civilian regulation. How do we guarantee that our precious government won't use the drones against us the citizens? Seriously, our government appears to function along the idea that they don't have to answer to the people (unless they get caught) and that we are all government property regardless of how loudly we whine against that concept. I demand that any government agency must have a signed warrant before they can launch a drone for any reason. And armed drones must be forbidden from ever flying or operating in or around US air space. I would like to have all armed drones banned from existence but there is precious little chance of that happening.
this is a little naive. I have to agree to a certain extent to the accountability, but otherwise the system is actually working as intended; 'by a vote of the people representatives are selected to make decisions that represent the best interest of the electorate' in other words if every action an elected official made had to be scrutinized after being made then nothing would ever happen, and technically they are held accountable for their actions through following elections. saying that the military should not be allowed drone mounted weapons is actually on par with saying that military should not be allowed to operated armed helicopters, of fighter jets domestically. then you are also misunderstanding what a warrant actually does, or can do. a judge in the United States is allowed to only sign a warrant for the purpose of arrest to stand trial. a death sentence may only be handed down by a jury of their piers, and then these rules only apply to US citizens.
on the topic of using these items within US airspace we are in an ever changing military landscape, and disallowing the military to use any weapon in particular is potentially diminishing their ability to respond to potential threats. then we get to the oath of service that every service man/woman is required to take (including the president) "to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic" basically meaning that if a substantial threat is found at any location in the world that fundamentally threatens the United States then the US armed forces have the right, and the responsibility to respond with "necessary force to diminish collateral damage under the Geneva Convention"
my concern of these regulations is enforcement. so if an unidentified drone is found violating these rules then what do we do: start shooting ground to air rockets at it, or just shoot it down with pistols to potentially cause harm from a falling object? then what about the people who do use these for nefarious or terrorist type actions. as a civilian I can easily purchase for a few hundred dollars a flight capable quad copter that can carry up to and including 50 to 100 lbs + the frame and this is a very scary proposition considering that 1 gram of some compounds even released in open air at an altitude of 50 feet is still lethal, and we are talking about vehicles that can carry 50, or even 100 lbs of these compounds, and this is not even talking about the people who just mount explosives, or even mount mini-turrets on the things, and create Hatred UAV edition.
