


Oh, can't you see / You belong to me?


I. Plans for Domestic Drone Spying Escalate 



Reaper drones


Stalker Drone
[Image Source: LaserMotive]


III. Warrantless Monitoring?



Obama Big Brother


The Fourth Amendment states:









U.S. police trooper

It is unclear if any of these measures will pass.



Sources: FAS, CBO

Comments     Threshold


RE: Difficult at best
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/14/2012 4:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sniper rifles aren't that hard to buy from a kit. I think you would be surprised at how many gun enthusiasts own one....

Likely not legal in many regions, but has that stopped people with automatics?

I agree, though, for a higher fliers you'd definitely need something with a high effective range and narrow MOA.

RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best
Except most people don't have to.

RE: Difficult at best
Open-source weapons of war.. Hmm..

Well, I guess it was bound to happen.


RE: Difficult at best



RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best


RE: Difficult at best

RE: Difficult at best
By sandineyes on 9/14/2012 8:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you are at the point that you need a sniper rifle to hit the thing, which you probably won't, have you considered the inherent dangers of shooting a gun into the air? Those slugs will eventually land somewhere, and not as softly as a snowflake.

RE: Difficult at best
By mmatis on 9/15/2012 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
War, sir, is hell. And when the enemy has no concern about such matters, as is the case with the damnable swill using these drones...

RE: Difficult at best
By Schrag4 on 9/15/2012 9:15:46 AM , Rating: 3
There's nothing special about a "sniper rifle." Accuracy at range isn't going to help you hit a moving, flying object. The idea that "sniper rifles" are illegal in many regions is quite laughable - along with shotguns, they're pretty much the only types of weapons that gun-control advocates would go after last (handguns and the mythical "assault weapon" are first on their list). Just out of curiosity, where do you live? I'm guessing California or New Jersey, as those states have pretty much neutered gun ownership.

And automatics? Aside from the North Hollywood shootout, what other high-profile shootings involved automatics? Be honest, don't go googling for specific examples. My guess is you're generally thinking that gang-bangers use them in drive-by's or something. They're so hard to obtain and the penalties are so high for illegally owning them that they're much, MUCH rarer than I think you realize.


Again, MOA would be the very least of your concerns. Assuming your rifle could shoot zero MOA (impossible) you'd still need to know how fast the drone was moving, what direction it's moving, and how far away. You'd then need to line that flight path up with an arc that you know your bullet would take. It would be quite an impressive shot to call out, even with the most accurate of rifles. You'd have MUCH better luck with a relatively inaccurate high-capacity rifle and tracer rounds so you could see whether your rounds are leading too much, not leading enough, falling short, or whatever. It would not be a one-shot proposition.

At any rate, this whole notion that US citizens would be shooting down drones just seems so ridiculous to me. Have gun owners or the organizations they contribute to said they would shoot down domestic drones? Your article actually says it's NOT being talked about. It seems to be fantasy that you conjured.

By the way, I believe that most of the article is good food for thought. I just really question the title of the article. Are you actually hoping people will fight back by shooting drones down, or what? You seem to be asking a question that nobody else is asking.


