Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-drone-bounty

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:54:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.

So?!

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:54:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-drone-bounty

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)


That should be an excellent way to hone your hand/eye coordination!

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:54:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...rs-drone-bount
y

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)


That should be an excellent way to hone your hand/eye coordination!

And most likely get arrested for any number of federal violations let
alone getting sued for the damages to the drone.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:54:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-drone-bounty

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)


That should be an excellent way to hone your hand/eye coordination!

What if the drone shoots back!!!!

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:02:54 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:54:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...rs-drone-bount
y

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)


That should be an excellent way to hone your hand/eye coordination!

And most likely get arrested for any number of federal violations let
alone getting sued for the damages to the drone.

Not all drones are operated by the feds. Some are privately owned.
The privately owned drones may be fair game over your property even
without the law.

"harryagain" wrote:
Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-drone-bounty

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)

It's not easy to shoot down drones. Low, they tend to go fast. High, well
you know.
I was in a drone battery in the army 70-71 . It was rare for a bunch of
vulcans, firing 100 rounds per second, to hit a target. On some demo's
someone would hit the Shute button, to make it look good.

Greg

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:02:54 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:54:36 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...nders-drone-bo
unt
y

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)


That should be an excellent way to hone your hand/eye coordination!

And most likely get arrested for any number of federal violations let
alone getting sued for the damages to the drone.

Not all drones are operated by the feds. Some are privately owned.
The privately owned drones may be fair game over your property even
without the law.

My guess is it would not make any difference since they are operating
under the authority of the FAA and subject to them. Thus you have
limited airspace where they can operate. I don't know of any reason you
could destroy someone else's property.
It is well established that the FAA has sole jurisdiction over the
airways in the US and has exclusive authorization on the use of the
airways. It also has already stated that it is taking that jurisdiction
over drones of any an all kinds.

the Supreme Court has recognized that a landowner had property
rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The
law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air
navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner
owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may
reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying
land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a
reasonable amount of the airspace above the property.
But they also went on to say that a landowner can't arbitrarily try
to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite
poles," for example. While probably not exactly on point, it would tend
to make the argument that you also couldn't shoot down drones.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Aww, Geez.

Now the NRA is gonna lobby for the legalization of Stinger antiaircraft missiles.
After all, the only protection against a crazy drone bent on doing harm is a citizenry well armed with modern surface to air missiles.

http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/201...3224023663.jpg
Jeb and Billy Bob bag an unmanned aerial reconnaisance vehicle on the first day of the hunting season. "I'm gonna take the tail in for the $100 bounty" said Jeb "and have the nose cone stuffed and hang it on my living room wall."

On 07-18-2013 02:54, harryagain wrote:
Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-drone-bounty

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)

Much as I dislike government (or anyone else) spying with drones, this
proposal is STUPID. How many cows, sheep, tractors, _people_ get shot
at during deer hunting season?

Anyone that thinks drone hunting season will fare better is INCREDIBLY
ignorant of what humans are like.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:

On 07-18-2013 02:54, harryagain wrote:
Colorado citizens considering a bounty for shooting down a drone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ers-drone-boun
ty

Jist thought you'd like to know. :-)

Much as I dislike government (or anyone else) spying with drones, this
proposal is STUPID. How many cows, sheep, tractors, _people_ get shot
at during deer hunting season?

Anyone that thinks drone hunting season will fare better is INCREDIBLY
ignorant of what humans are like.

Tom may have to change the song a little...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:F-

stuff snipped

the Supreme Court has recognized that a landowner had property
rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The
law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air
navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner
owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may
reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying
land.

You can be arrested and prosecuted for even shining a bright laser at an
airplane. Let's have Gordon shoot down an FAA approved drone, especially a
military one, and tell us what happens. My hunch is the outcome will not be
good and it will very expensive since Predator drones retail for four
million dollars and up, depending on the "option package."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General..._MQ-1_Predator

More importantly, they are designed to absorb a significant amount of small
arms fire and still function. Maybe a Vulcan minigun could do the trick but
I don't see any listed on Ebay . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

--
Bobby G.
AHR - Home of great home repair advice and not so great real-world advice

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:19:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Bobby G.
AHR - Home of great home repair advice and not so great real-world advice

Funny how folks are taking this seriously. One of the town's officials
has stated this is "symbolic" in gesture.

Heck, drones get shot down without buying a 'drone hunting license".

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAELplrEYu4

"Robert Green" wrote in message More
importantly, they are designed to absorb a significant amount of small
arms fire and still function. Maybe a Vulcan minigun could do the trick
but
I don't see any listed on Ebay . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan


Look here around the 2:50 mark for practice for shooting down drones.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:19:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Bobby G.
AHR - Home of great home repair advice and not so great real-world advice

Funny how folks are taking this seriously. One of the town's officials
has stated this is "symbolic" in gesture.

That probably means that at least a few people on both sides of the issue
are taking it seriously. Especially those who don't know what the word
"symbolic" means. Sadly you don't need to take an IQ test to either vote or
own a gun. I'd support both.

I haven't followed the story closely enough to know whether the declaration
of symbolism was right from the start or made after-the-fact in response to
cries of "you can't do that!" The FAA rules the skies with impugnity and
they've prosecuted more than a few helium balloon/lawn chair fliers on
various charges.

I'm sure that now the idea has been planted, they're primed to prosecute the
daylights out of anyone stupid enough to shoot down a recon drone that's
sending home pictures of itself being attacked. Or, as others have pointed
out, it could turn out the drone decides to stand its ground and starts
shooting back. If corporations are people, why not robots and drones? You
just know that when humanoid robots get realistic enough, *someone* is going
to want to marry one and will want it to share its employment benefits.

I'm sure in a year or two you'll be able to buy anti-drone drones from
China, probably on E-bay, that you can use to protect your airspace. Or
train a falcon to attack them. I just know that somewhere out there some
evil genius kid is modifying his model rocket as a drone interceptor. It's
the American way. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:48:40 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:19:46 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Bobby G.
AHR - Home of great home repair advice and not so great real-world advice

Funny how folks are taking this seriously. One of the town's officials
has stated this is "symbolic" in gesture.

That probably means that at least a few people on both sides of the issue
are taking it seriously. Especially those who don't know what the word
"symbolic" means. Sadly you don't need to take an IQ test to either vote or
own a gun. I'd support both.

Sadly, you have proven you didn't have to pass an IQ test to post.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
news:kscsg4

stuff snipped

I seem to recall small blimps in the air over London during WWII to
tangle up low flying enemy aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon

A barrage balloon is a large balloon tethered with metal cables, used to
defend against low-level aircraft attack by damaging the aircraft on
collision with the cables, or at least making the attacker's approach more
difficult. Some versions carried small explosive charges that would be
pulled up against the aircraft to ensure its destruction.* Barrage balloons
were only employed against low-flying aircraft; the weight of the longer
cable made them impractical for higher altitudes.

*That had to be a nasty sound, when the aircrew heard the cable snag and
then "twang" until the bang.

--
Bobby G.

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
stuff snipped

Sadly, you have proven you didn't have to pass an IQ test to post.

Oh, look! Little Gordy is trying to stand on his hind legs like a human
being!!! How cute!

Does anyone have a Milkbone for his reward? Make sure it's a plain white
one 'cause I don't think he likes the colored ones very much. (-:

Such a cute little doggie, trying to insult my intelligence when he doesn't
even know that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean "innocent." Now "sit"
Gordy. Good boy! Now roll over.

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:48:40 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

I haven't followed the story closely enough to know whether the declaration
of symbolism was right from the start or made after-the-fact in response to
cries of "you can't do that!"

"...The ordinance's author, Deer Trail resident Philip Steel, tells
ABC 7 News he has never seen a drone in Deer Trail, and that the
ordinance is a symbolic against the surveillance state and intended as
a novelty revenue stream.

Read mo
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/want-to-hunt-drone-go-to-this-colorado-town/#ixzz2ZazKK1HH

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:48:40 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

I haven't followed the story closely enough to know whether the declaration
of symbolism was right from the start or made after-the-fact in response to
cries of "you can't do that!"

"...The ordinance's author, Deer Trail resident Philip Steel, tells
ABC 7 News he has never seen a drone in Deer Trail, and that the
ordinance is a symbolic against the surveillance state and intended as
a novelty revenue stream.

Read mo
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...o-to-this-colo
rado-town/#ixzz2ZazKK1HH

Until some actually tries to shoot one down and say they had a permit.
WOuldn't be the first time.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 11:37:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Until some actually tries to shoot one down and say they had a permit.
WOuldn't be the first time.

G

Mr. Steel explains the proposed ordnance:

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2554115368001/

It does not seem to mean government drones.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Until some actually tries to shoot one down and say they had a permit.
WOuldn't be the first time.

Monthy Python fans might remember this cat license sketch:

Man: You are a looney.
Praline: Look, it's a bleeding pet, isn't it? I've got a license for me pet
dog Eric, and I've got a license for me pet cat Eric...
Man: You don't need a license for your cat.
Praline: I bleeding well do and I got one. He can't be called Eric without
it--
Man: There's no such thing as a bloody cat license.
Praline: Yes there is!
Man: Isn't!
Praline: Is!
Man: Isn't!
Praline: I bleeding got one, look! What's that then?
Man: This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written
in, in crayon.
Praline: The man didn't have the right form.
Man: What man?
Praline: The man from the cat detector van.
Man: The looney detector van, you mean.

I am sure I posted this before about real loons: A westerner was talking to
a 60 Minutes reporter about how the Federal government was just a nuisance
to farmers and the various EPA edicts were made by people in Washington who
had very little hands on experience with the problems of farmers and
ranchers out West. He was actually making a pretty convincing case until he
started to explain that the tiny metalllic strip that had just (at that
time) been added to US currency was there so that the Feds could track every
cash transaction by satelite.

Another time, when I was running cable to a CB antenna I was installing on
the roof of my *garden* apartment (not a plant in sight!) a woman leaned out
of her kitchen window and said "I know what you're doing, you're building a
wire trap for me!"

Why right here in AHR we have someone who routines complains about the
tracking chip the government put in his back. More likely his family stuck
a pet tracking collar on him so they can find him in case he wanders away
from his rubber room. (-:

--
Bobby G.