TexasCHLforum.com

For anyone that was thinking about it.
http://www.aviationpros.com/news/121832 ... zed-drones

I'm sure that will only apply to the subjects, I mean citizens and not to the Dictator King, I mean government.

Government declares a monopoly of force in unmanned aerial vehicles. Who didn't see this coming? Yet more "good for me but not for thee" tripe from a government too big to save. Reagan was correct when he said that "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" were terrifying.

One state government - Connecticut...

TangoX-ray wrote:One state government - Connecticut...

I am sure they are just setting the precedent that will soon be adopted by other states or the feds.

LSUTiger wrote:

TangoX-ray wrote:One state government - Connecticut...

I am sure they are just setting the precedent that will soon be adopted by other states or the feds.

Why would any state follow Connecticut's lead on anything? Connecticut, isn't that where the Stepford wives lived?

Eh... whatever, as we can't own the weaponized manned aircraft, not sure that I care.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence along with the 2nd Amendment it is pretty clear that the RKBA is not just about hunting or safety from petty criminals. Not that I would expect the King and his ministers to acknowledge this.

I predict that anyone opposed to a government monopoly on these and other weapons will be roundly labeled as "crazy" and "dangerous". The subjects have been completely subdued at this point, and as a result, the armament gap becomes the rulers and the ruled in this country is much, much greater than it was when our founders felt it was necessary to write the 2nd Amendment.

Let's just hope the rulers are gentle......

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If you look at the Declaration of Independence along with the 2nd Amendment it is pretty clear that the RKBA is not just about hunting or safety from petty criminals. Not that I would expect the King and his ministers to acknowledge this.

I predict that anyone opposed to a government monopoly on these and other weapons will be roundly labeled as "crazy" and "dangerous". The subjects have been completely subdued at this point, and as a result, the armament gap becomes the rulers and the ruled in this country is much, much greater than it was when our founders felt it was necessary to write the 2nd Amendment. Let's just hope the rulers are gentle......

What in the world was that about?

Why in Heavens Name would anyone WANT a weponized drone??? To shoot a deer, coyote, feral hog, etc, etc, etc anonymously, from afar? Not very sporting, I would say. Nope, no way, I say. To me, it's like complaining that the average U.S. citizen is denied the right to purchase a Stinger Missile. IMO, the thought process is the same. How about an Abram's tank to go dove hunting?

joe817 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If you look at the Declaration of Independence along with the 2nd Amendment it is pretty clear that the RKBA is not just about hunting or safety from petty criminals. Not that I would expect the King and his ministers to acknowledge this.

I predict that anyone opposed to a government monopoly on these and other weapons will be roundly labeled as "crazy" and "dangerous". The subjects have been completely subdued at this point, and as a result, the armament gap becomes the rulers and the ruled in this country is much, much greater than it was when our founders felt it was necessary to write the 2nd Amendment. Let's just hope the rulers are gentle......

What in the world was that about?

Why in Heavens Name would anyone WANT a weponized drone??? To shoot a deer, coyote, feral hog, etc, etc, etc anonymously, from afar? Not very sporting, I would say. Nope, no way, I say. To me, it's like complaining that the average U.S. citizen is denied the right to purchase a Stinger Missile. IMO, the thought process is the same. How about an Abram's tank to go dove hunting?

You used a hunting reference in your argument twice in just 1 paragraph... WHY? the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so why reference it in your argument?

E.Marquez wrote:

joe817 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If you look at the Declaration of Independence along with the 2nd Amendment it is pretty clear that the RKBA is not just about hunting or safety from petty criminals. Not that I would expect the King and his ministers to acknowledge this.

I predict that anyone opposed to a government monopoly on these and other weapons will be roundly labeled as "crazy" and "dangerous". The subjects have been completely subdued at this point, and as a result, the armament gap becomes the rulers and the ruled in this country is much, much greater than it was when our founders felt it was necessary to write the 2nd Amendment. Let's just hope the rulers are gentle......

What in the world was that about?

Why in Heavens Name would anyone WANT a weponized drone??? To shoot a deer, coyote, feral hog, etc, etc, etc anonymously, from afar? Not very sporting, I would say. Nope, no way, I say. To me, it's like complaining that the average U.S. citizen is denied the right to purchase a Stinger Missile. IMO, the thought process is the same. How about an Abram's tank to go dove hunting?

You used a hunting reference in your argument twice in just 1 paragraph... WHY? the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so why reference it in your argument?

Well, first off, go tell the NRA that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and observe their response. [Note: bold type is my emphasis.]

Secondly, I find that advocating the possession of a 'weaponized drone' is SO out of the purview of the Second Amendment that it's almost comical.

Do you actually believe that a remote controlled helicopter or plane, fitted with a gun, is actually a fundamental right of citizens in exercising their Second Amendment Rights? Why, and for what purpose would that thing serve???

joe817 wrote:Do you actually believe that a remote controlled helicopter or plane, fitted with a gun, is actually a fundamental right of citizens in exercising their Second Amendment Rights? Why, and for what purpose would that thing serve???

Sounds like arms to me. Should a CROWS turret be banned too?

joe817 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

joe817 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If you look at the Declaration of Independence along with the 2nd Amendment it is pretty clear that the RKBA is not just about hunting or safety from petty criminals. Not that I would expect the King and his ministers to acknowledge this.

I predict that anyone opposed to a government monopoly on these and other weapons will be roundly labeled as "crazy" and "dangerous". The subjects have been completely subdued at this point, and as a result, the armament gap becomes the rulers and the ruled in this country is much, much greater than it was when our founders felt it was necessary to write the 2nd Amendment. Let's just hope the rulers are gentle......

What in the world was that about?

Why in Heavens Name would anyone WANT a weponized drone??? To shoot a deer, coyote, feral hog, etc, etc, etc anonymously, from afar? Not very sporting, I would say. Nope, no way, I say. To me, it's like complaining that the average U.S. citizen is denied the right to purchase a Stinger Missile. IMO, the thought process is the same. How about an Abram's tank to go dove hunting?

You used a hunting reference in your argument twice in just 1 paragraph... WHY? the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so why reference it in your argument?

Well, first off, go tell the NRA that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and observe their response. [Note: bold type is my emphasis.]

Secondly, I find that advocating the possession of a 'weaponized drone' is SO out of the purview of the Second Amendment that it's almost comical.

Do you actually believe that a remote controlled helicopter or plane, fitted with a gun, is actually a fundamental right of citizens in exercising their Second Amendment Rights? Why, and for what purpose would that thing serve???

since when was the 2A about meeting a need test? you don't need that big butted 9 mm you carry, nor that assault weapon you have in your house, so please tell me where in the 2A it says a darn thing about need Joe baby if'n you kin find dat I will take yo word as gospel, till then hmm well

I will leave the issue to the arm chair commandos & spec ops types to continue the argument. Thanks to all that responded.

joe817 wrote:I will leave the issue to the arm chair commandos & spec ops types to continue the argument. Thanks to all that responded.

My question was polite, respectful and valid.. that you can only respond with snide personally derogatory language is as telling as anything you might have otherwise said.
I bid you good day, and hope that one day you spend some time researching what you think you know about the constitution and its amendments.