Should someone be allowed to have an armed drone?

[Spider]

I'm not saying it would be instantly perfect. But if anyone wanted to do it...the tools are readily available.

These little pinhole video cameras weigh practically nothing. Lots of drones you buy at retail have one built in. As for recoil, my suggestion is use a small caliber.

If we wanted to get serious I guess we could build large scale fixed wing RC plane and hang a couple of semiautos under the wings parallel to the ventral axis. Then you could cancel the recoil with the vector of inertia while strafing, just like the big boys.

[barbarap]

[The Dharma Bum]

I don't see any problem with having them.

It's just a gun and RC craft, both of which are perfectly legal. The problem is people who desperately crave the illusion of control over others because of their own psychological issues.

[exploited]

[NAB]

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

How about drones with alternative weapons platforms, such as lasers or gas?

[Professor]

Well, as far as the legality goes, it'll be legal, until it's made illegal. Meaning, I think that it's legal under most laws, but would probably be specifically singled out and made illegal if it becomes a large-scale problem.

But, there is an argument for them being illegal already. Even in states that have generous "home defense" laws (where you can shoot anyone on your property, even if they aren't necessarily posing an immediate threat to your life), a homeowner may not install autonomous, lethal defense devices. For instance, you can't have a shotgun rigged to shoot whoever walks through the door.

A drone may not be "autonomous", but it's close. I could easily argue that a drone would not give you enough information to determine a threat level, and would therefore be autonomous in that sense. It's acting on your direction, but you don't have enough information to determine if a certain level of force is needed.

However, I think that holds true mostly for lethal force drones. If you had a drone that merely incapacitated someone (tazer, knockout gas, bean bag shooter, etc.), then I think it'd be perfectly legal. After all, it's fine to put up an electric fence (which is autonomous), so long as it doesn't deliver enough of a shock to kill.

[exploited]

All of that should be allowed.

The entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow Americans to wage war against an illegitimate government. That government will be armed with the latest in warfighting technology. It follows that all Americans need access to small nuclear arms, nerve toxins and other defensive weapons, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft guns, destroyers, frigates, nuclear submarines, fighter jets and other technology that will be used to overthrow the government. Any attempt to limit the type of weapons is an outright violation of the Second Amendment.

[The Dharma Bum]