I'll Register My Drone When You Have to Register Your Gun | Hacker News Reader

I'll Register My Drone When You Have to Register Your Gun

motherboard.vice.com

20 pointssigna119 comments

I'll register my gun when it enters heavily regulated NAS and impacts emergency procedures and grounds firefighting efforts. See Page 13-16 of the FAA ruling.

The registration of drones is quite literally only because of how heavily regulated NAS is and it allows the government to grab a little more power and a little more metadata about its population.

Note: I am not pro-drone registration either.

[0] http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf

20 years from now, we might have countless drones of varying sizes and lobbyists arguing to put more of them into the hands of children to protect themselves from other drones. Best to nip it in the bud while we still can.

I don't believe that we should have to register these drones, but at least in the U.S.A, owning a gun is a defined right where as owning and operating a drone is not.

Voting is a defined right, but you still have to register for it.

That is a good point. There may be some who believe that we shouldn't have to register for that either.

Technically, the right is not gun ownership, but the right to use guns in a well regulated militia. Gun ownership is a privilege and it amazes me that as a country we entirely seem to have collective amnesia on the "well regulated" parts of the Second Amendment.

Not to mention that at the time of the Second Amendment's writing gun technology was primarily limited to muzzle loaders. If you want to argue that modern cartridge loading guns get grandfathered into an "ownership right" implied by the Second Amendment, then lets argue that drone technology is also a new technology development that is equally likely to fit within some auspices of the right to bear arms (or the right to a free press in view of camera drones) and thus is equally a so-called "defined right".

I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't understand what the second amendment does - scotus ruled (in DC v. Heller) that militias really have nothing to do with it, well-regulated or otherwise.

My attempted point was that modern interpretations of the Second Amendment vary greatly from the actual wording of the Second Amendment and that the supposed "defined rights" people think they have is an interesting modern twist in the story, and thus could be used to argue for "drone rights". Pointing to a 2008 SCOTUS decision in which handguns were explicitly redefined to fall under "arms" and that several clauses of the amendment were seen as "superfluous" seems to only amplify that point I was trying to make. Thanks for the help.

>Not to mention that at the time of the Second Amendment's writing gun technology was primarily limited to muzzle loaders.

The same way freedom of speech was written in before the advent of the internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com