If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Colorado town to issue hunting licenses and pay bounty for "killed" drones. For some reason the federal government has a problem with this   (wtop.com) divider line 20
    More: Stupid, Colorado, Federal Aviation Administration, legal liability  
•       •       •

8173 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2013 at 4:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-20 04:13:54 PM
14 votes:
They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.
2013-07-20 04:49:31 PM
4 votes:
In Colorado?

I think they may have a special "It's coming right for us" version of the SYG law making this drone shooting idear totes legal.

/Totes.
2013-07-20 04:25:32 PM
4 votes:

oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.


This reminds me of the time my obnoxious vegan friend put a whole shiatload of Styrofoam deer sculptures she'd made with packages of what she considered delicious nonperishable vegan food and an 'isn't this nicer?' note in their hollow bellies into the forest the day before the first day of hunting season.

...And no, I have no idea why the hell we're friends. I think she might be my comic relief, really.
2013-07-20 04:23:16 PM
3 votes:

oldernell: They're easy to shoot down, but difficult to clean and they taste horrible.


Try Frank's Red Hot.

I put that shiat on everything.
2013-07-20 04:30:22 PM
2 votes:

hubiestubert: So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...


A Republican plan, obviously.
2013-07-20 04:24:21 PM
2 votes:
An example of said government official:

4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-07-20 10:16:01 PM
1 votes:

Somaticasual: Or, maybe the government can have drones, and the public can have "right-to-privacy kinetic interceptors.."


Those are called "bullets."
2013-07-20 08:54:38 PM
1 votes:
The actual ordinance is hilarious, starting off with inventing the concept of a municipality having a "sovereign airspace":

An ordinance to defend the sovereign airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, Colorado [...]

And working up to the "Supremacy clause", the concept that the federal constitution, statutes, and U.S. treaties override state law and lower levels of municipalities,  which they handle by declaring it is exactly the opposite of what it says.

Further, the unsolicited or unwanted incursion of any unmanned aerial vehicle into the airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, represents an unlawful attack from a belligerent foreign power. Whether such incursion into the Town of Deer Trail airspace is committed on the part of any government entity or a non-government or corporate actor, each incursion of an unmanned aerial vehicle shall be considered an act of war against the sovereignty of the town and its citizens.
2013-07-20 08:28:48 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: mongbiohazard: So how about radio controlled aircraft in general designed to more safely disable drones? All you'd really need to knock most of them out of the air is to use a length of cord to foul a prop. Make it a net if you're feeling fancy. Could be a new (clandestine) hobby for citizens...

Or you could just use a slingshot and a fishing reel.  I use one to put up antennas, and you can get pretty accurate with it, and the projectile isn't going to go that far.

But again, you can fire some #6 shot at a drone and no one on the ground will be in any serious danger.


Until a few hundred pounds of drone crashes into their living room. But up until that point, they're perfectly safe.
2013-07-20 06:22:25 PM
1 votes:
Obama will fix this! He just needs a few more terms.
2013-07-20 04:52:07 PM
1 votes:

quatchi: In Colorado?

I think they may have a special "It's coming right for us" version of the SYG law making this drone shooting idear totes legal.

/Totes.


funnied.
/you should get notified automatically, dontchathink? or perhaps we do; just I've never been.
2013-07-20 04:51:28 PM
1 votes:
It is discussion threads like this that keep me coming back to Fark for all my news commentary.  Unfortunately, I am not being sarcastic.
2013-07-20 04:31:11 PM
1 votes:

Kyosuke: JacksonBryan: FYI, an R/C plane following a drone results in some serious one-on-one time with the State police...just saying.

That's your 'thank you' for watching the watchers.


I don't remember ever getting a thank you.
2013-07-20 04:24:15 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: hubiestubert: Or starts a forest fire that consumes a fair chunk of timber land. Yeah, that's going to make these folks SUPER popular...

Ah. So we go from destruction of Government property and shooting down an aircraft, to attempted murder and probably murder, given the average of at least one death during major forest fires.


Well, yeah, but hey $100.
2013-07-20 04:20:06 PM
1 votes:

mutterfark: Serious question, could you bring them down with some kind of radio "jammer"?


You REALLY want to mess with the people at the FCC? Their methods are..unspeakable.

i.cdn.turner.com
2013-07-20 04:19:27 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot. That would be pretty safe: The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.


Now that's a reality show I would watch.
2013-07-20 04:13:55 PM
1 votes:

itsumo: hubiestubert: So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...

Well stated.


The law was ghost-written by the drone manufacturer's lobby.
2013-07-20 04:03:28 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: And to think, here I've been thinking that shooting at an aircraft, especially with the intent to shoot it down, has been a federal crime since we've had aviation laws on the book.


Traditionally, that's because shooting at an aircraft meant you were shooting at a person.  Same as shooting at a car.

It's going to be funny when some nutjob decides to try to do that, and either has it crash into a house and kill someone, or has the bullet come down right into a kid's head. Not ha-ha funny, but "Dumbass" funny.

I'm betting that won't really be a problem.  For the type of drone that you'd have any hope of downing by small arms fire, it would be small enough that it wouldn't be a serious hazard.  Plus, for that type of drone, you'd be using a shotgun firing birdshot, and I'll let you pelt me with birdshot to your hearts content from 150 yards away, so long as I get to wear my glasses.

Now, if you wanted to get *REAL* fancy, you could arm a large-ish radio control model aircraft with a semi-auto shotgun and equip it with one of those real-time cameras, and go hunting drones like a half-assed WWII fighter pilot.  That would be pretty safe:  The shot would pose no serious threat to anyone on the ground.

/You'd have to dedicate two servos:  One for the safety, and one for the trigger.
//Ask me about how GPS-enabled autonomous gliders could make Japanese balloon bombs a viable and cheap weapon.
2013-07-20 02:58:45 PM
1 votes:
So, they want pay folks to shoot down drones, that their tax dollars fund, with funds raised by local taxes? Sounds like a fool proof, fiscally prudent plan...
2013-07-20 02:14:01 PM
1 votes:
Only a $100 bounty? Do they have any idea how much my surface to air missiles cost? Ridiculous.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report