Either way, the fuel or batteries would be located close to the center of gravity, around the central rotor, for instance, for weight distribution purposes.

and recorded on digital video by the robot police of our 1% Masters.

Anyone who does not want to have their every move watched by the robot police of our 1% masters must be doing something wrong, or they would not mind being under the just and rightful surveillance of our master's empire 24/7.

Anyone who suggests that they do not enjoy being spied on, and would disable the necessary robot police of our glorious 1% masters, is obviously a leftwing Paulbot gun nut racist traitor.

Even if they voted for Obama, have dark skin, and don't own a gun.

Then the drones got bigger, and bigger, and began increasing their firepower, finally hunting the hunters.

I hope that wasnt a premonition of things to come.

or maybe a Cessna?

ownership means possession. sending something off on its own under Common Law is abandonment of property. If I see of of those things hovering within reach, especially if it is hovering over my land, I'm doing my best to trash it.

They're specifically talking about privately owned civilian drones. That's why the statement was from the FAA instead of the DHS.

...I don't know about robots. Most drones are not governmental, or if they are, it is local police. The space above my yard is not navigable airspace. Under Common Law property rules, that airspace belongs to me as it is part of my yard. Anything in my yard ipso facto is mine.

So at what point do you stop kissing fascist ass and defend your basic, traditional, Common Law rights? Don't know about you, but I'm for the 4th Amendment and I'm not letting the invention of some gizmo undermine that.

I think what I will do is string fishing line at tree-top level across my yard. Gadget rotors tend not to like things tangling them up.

We need a way to overpower their signal with bursts of directed, radio static.

It's probably important to note that drones send back video in real time so anyone shooting at it would be caught on video.

Other towns allow firearm discharge within their limits.

There are other ways to bring those things down. Eventually, someone will invent something that messes with their radio reception. I don't think the basic, Common Law ever envisioned people being allowed to trespass by remote device on other people's property. So, I still say it amounts to the same as throwing something over the fence into the neighbor's yard. Once I do that, the object is his.

So, who ever is watching the video feed would watch me doing something that is completely legal. Maybe they will know better than to trespass next time.

Don't shoot it down. Take it out with an anti-drone drone.

Aerial dogfights.

I would guess that the majority of (if not all) commercial, civilian, drones that are being talked about in the OP article rely on rotors - I wonder if it would be more effective to fly another drone above one, with net or wires dangling below the hunter-drone? Certainly better than firing bullets up into the air...

You can only shroud a prop so much for protection.

You could design something like the old mine sweeper nets for them.

That means that the drone that the hunter can't see is capable of detecting not only his every movement but also that he has a gun in hand and even the color of the shirt he is wearing. These drones have not yet been reported to be armed, but as we have all seen, if it can be done it certainly will.

Now, what is it that some blowhard hunters think they are going to do?

to shoot at moving objects in the air. I am not talking bird hunting with shotguns, which have a relatively short range, but rifles. What could possibly go wrong

But that's okay because it's the American Way!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

I was being a wise ass.

A little .22, depending on wear it hits someone, can be lethal at one mile. The leave the gun at about 1100 fps. A 5.56mm AR15 round leaves the gun at almost 3000 fps.

I think about 99% of drones over the US are farmers observing their crops and herds.

This is a bad thing? I mean I suppose they could do it with manned aircraft for a much higher cost since the word "drone" freaks tin-foil hat americans out.

This is a good thing? I mean, I suppose they could do it with infiltrators and wiretaps, in a much more traditional way, but either way should keep military/industrial supporting Americans from freaking out about too much unchecked freedom.

should I be freaked out but bird watchers and musicians?

...around protests, while jotting down notes, you'd be all for it!

wouldn't "bird watcher" be an impractical disguise at a protest?

..an excuse to take the MIC at its word.

you want to get us killed by Obama's drones?

As long as the "greater glory" of whatever cause -- or individual --you imagine you're supporting is untarnished.

given the tyranny of the drones.

a drone gets really close, no one will be able to even hit one of these with a shotgun.

It's more likely that someone will come up with some mangled equipment and say that they shot it down.

If you really want to take one of these down, and even then it won't be a sure thing, get a remote controlled airplane. Can you say "Kamikaze".

The FAA only allows these UAV's to operate under 400 feet. The hobby of (First Person View) FPV multicopters is not nefarious by default. Like anything this technology will be abused by some. Please take the time to understand this issue before condemning everyone who pilots civilian "drones".

Here is a series of links to get you started if interested. Personal civilian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are an awesome, often open source, technology with serious potential for good. Clearly there is and will be abuse, UAV's should not be used above private property or to invade privacy, as with anything new, regulations will need to be adjusted to protect everyone.