Drone gun

sauce> https://www.droneshield.com/dronegun

File: 1479794606562.jpg (43KB, 552x760px)

43KB, 552x760px

>>32174940
It's not even on the market yet. Just get a 12 gauge loaded with birdshot. If you miss the pellets don't have enough weight to damage anything when they fall back down.

>>32174983

You'd have to show that the drone was menacing your property in some way also and not just flying around.

>>32175001
Unless you go though the FAA and purchase airspace over your house.

12gauge is illegal at my place... was thinking about slingshot...

>>32175004
so when it's fucking around my windows it ain't enough?

>>32175017
Depends on local laws, but this is not federally mandated.

Go though the FAA, and you can purchase airspace quite cheaply, as long as you are not next door to an airport. Then you have a total legal right to pull out the ole flak 88*.

*assumeing you are able to legally fire your 88 on your property i.e. not in city limits.

File: remove_drone.jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

>OP relaxing in his back yard

>>32174940

How about stop being a grumpy old man and don't destroy other people's property

>>32175109
maybe the drone operator shouldn't have that shit hovering over someone's property?

>>32174940
or you can go tell them that it bothers you like an adult instead of destroying their things like some manchild.

>>32175109

Personally, the grumpy old man shouldn't have to put up with shit over his property.

Just as the grumpy old man should be fine with shit flying outside of his property.

Respect borders and shit

Anyone remember the days when multicopters used to be unstable, stick framed machines that only some people in the R/C community even tried?

No gyros, boards are either cobbled together or are Arduino derivatives, and rudimentary gyros. FPV was still in it's infancy and was prohibitively expensive.

As much as I like the R/C community growing, along it comes a drove of irresponsible people who get a hold of >muh latest tech. It's going the way of car and gun hobby.

/b/ is right. Normies do ruin everything.

>>32175222
Shit, contradictory gyro statements.

At least I got nice trips.

>>32175188
Who gives a shit, are you tanning in the nude in your backyard or something?

Also, it's irresponsible to destroy anything that's flying, due to weight and physics. Even if it's above your property, I don't imagine you'd be happy if it crashed into your roof or car after you took it down, or if it veered off and hit a kid.

Be an adult and talk to the user. Or are you too autistic to interact with other people so you have to use a gun instead?

>>32175230
>are you tanning in the nude in your backyard or something?
Maybe i am?
Its my property and i have the right to my privacy.
Why should i go out of my way to find the fucknut that flies the thing, if i can go the easy way and blow the dumb thing out of the sky?

>>32175270
Same reason I don't throw rocks through your god damn window. Quit diddling your dog in the back yard on your porch and there won't be any more problems.

Now, saying you DO take the "easy" route, there may be more bricks and less windows in your future

>>32175285
>Same reason I don't throw rocks through your god damn window. Quit diddling your dog in the back yard on your porch and there won't be any more problems.
>
>Now, saying you DO take the "easy" route, there may be more bricks and less windows in your future
Are you a mongoloid or something?
Because that entire post was just bottom of the barrel retard stuff?
Explain to me, why i should waive my rights at privacy on my own land?
You asked me if i was tanning nude, well maybe i am, maybe i'm not, fact is, i should be able to do it, since its not illegal or anything, and i should be able to do it in privacy, since intruding on my privacy on my own land is, in fact, illegal.
Not sure where you got the dog part either, must be some projecting on your part.
And then we get to the classic 12 year old tumblr/reddit/liberal mindset.
If you dont agree with me, then i will threaten you with violence or the destruction of property.
Why resort to that?
Do you not have any arguments in favour of your retarded opinions, so you have to resort to threats?
I dont come to your house and shoot down your drone hovering in the backyard, so why come to my house to fly your drone around and throw stones at my shit?
Your parents should be ashamed for not aborting such a retarded down syndrome child.

>>32175319
>asks the best way to destroy property
>STOP THREATENING TO DESTROY MY PROPERTY
Pro tip: it's not an invasion of privacy to fly quadrotors. If it can be seen from a public place, it's not private, now is it?

>>32175334
Its actually a legal grey area, cases are going though the courts.

I 100% own the airspace over my farm up to 500 feet (mainly for cropdusting, but it seems to have additional perks).

Any drone is skeet practice for me, and its 100% legal.

>>32175334
I'm not the OP, just someone that isnt a complete retard like you.
Since i'm a compassionate man i'll explain it to your microbrain.
You come to my property to observe me and my property.
You are the agressor.
I never wanted you to be here, yet you are.
So i defend my privacy by shooting your shit down.
So you come to me again to destroy my property.
The entire time, you were the agressor, while i just defended myself, my property and my privacy.
If you didnt come, your shit wouldnt have gotten destroyed.
As to your second "argument", my property cant be seen from a public place.
There's these new things called "walls", though you've probably never heard of them.

>>32175355
As long as it's over your property. Op is some entitled suburbanite talking about multiple neighbors AROUND him. I guarantee he's booty blasted about some kids flying an early Christmas present in front of his house on the street

>>32175361
So now you're leaving the confines of your home to protect your privacy by destroying the property of someone who ISNT on your land operating a quadcopter AWAY from your land?

Sure, kiddo. You're totally in the legal and moral right here.

File: 1460074215624.jpg (106KB, 450x361px)

106KB, 450x361px

>>32175270
>Its my property and i have the right to my privacy.
So if a neighbor buys a trampoline do you practice trap shooting when they're using it? I mean, they can see into your yard each time they jump.

Do you practice your aim when the dish install-guy climbs over the neighbor's roof, he can see into your backyard.

Do you turn into Robespierre and get out the guillotine when your tall neighbor acts like Wilson and tries to talk to you over the fence?

Are any second floor windows safe in your neighborhood? Does the google Earth satellite risk a missile launch each time it updates the imagery of your city?

Stop with this absolute privacy nonsense, spergking. Your backyard can be seen into in so many ways and for a drone to do so wouldn't even require it enter 'your airspace'.

>>32175361
Pure autism. No wonder gun control advocates exist when dangerous men like you are armed and 100% convinced in your moral and legal superiority.

A piece of advice, my friend. It's illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits, unless it is necessary to defend life and limb. A drone does not qualify.

>>32175373
Newsflash retard, the land surrounding my house is still my property.
So yes, i leave my home, enter my yard, which is still part of my property, shoot your shitty little drone down, which is on my property and then, when you come to complain, i call the cops for trespassing on MY PROPERTY.
Boy i dont give a shit if you're flying your fagmachine on some countryfucks farm.
But if you fuck around with your shit on my property, then your shit will get destroyed.
According to local law, i am in the right and morally speaking i'm also in the right.
Just because you dont like it, doesnt change the facts.
Now go back to r/eddit you retarded nigger faggot.

>>32175366
I really could care less if some guy is droneing about. Back in the day my neighbor flew model planes, and he always zipped around. No big deal, he knew not to fly when my guy was.

Now, if somebody was being a dick about it and flying around my house looking though my windows, yeah, i would probably splash it just because i fucking could. Be a cunt, get cunt rewards.

NOW, if i didnt own my airspace, i couldnt do it. Legally, its 100% ok to fly INSIDE dwellings with a drone due to lack of federal legislation. As long as it does not touch your property its no biggie.

Im just correcting the record. You can thank me for my cervix now.

>all these dudes with irrational fears of drones

>>32175397
>hurr the law doesnt apply to me or my property
Newsflash faggot, where i live, drones arent allowed to fly over any private property period.
But since you're straight outta leddit and apparently dont want people to have any rights, gun or otherwise, i dont really see the point in arguing with you.

>>32175408
Whoops. Just double checked, FAA, earlyer this year, said you cant fly inside covered dwelleings.

File: ancap-meme-generatorthisnametriggersyou.png (200KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 547x402px

>>32175404

>>32175334
So the drone hovering outside my 13 year old daughters window within my property line is OK?

Peeping by Proxy is still peeping. Recording a 13 year old undressing is illegal.

I find a good water hose works well to knock them down, when they come on property to recover drone I have police arrest them.

>>32175486

maybe she should stop being a whore and close the blinds when she undresses.

>>32175139
This

>>32175493
t.muhammad

>>32175493
kek

>>32175495
>>32175139
Destroying your toy is more fun though

>>32175416
>where i live
And where might that be, my easily angered friend? Care to show us the legal code you claim justifies endangering yourself, others, and also the very property you're claiming to defend with your foolishness?

Another piece of advice: just because something is illegal doesn't mean a gun is the proper response to it, unless you also feel that brandishing is a viable way to deal with traffic infractions. Pot is probably illegal where you live but it's not a reasonable response to pull a gun on anyone you see with a joint. Even if drones over private property is illegal in your area, I doubt the writers of the code intended for the owners of said property shoot down the pesky drone themselves. If it's illegal, then you have no need for the gun option, since the law will take care of the rest since you could quite easily gather the proof necessary (a photo, several, or a cell phone video) to show that the drone was over private property.

But since you would rather not take advantage of the law deliberately written to curb this sort of behavior it sounds like you just want an excuse to shoot something.

Also, your little 'reddit doesn't believe in rights' rant was adorable. Please give me another.

>>32175511
>reddit doesn't believe in rights
>implying they do
shiggy diggy

>>32175501

at least my daughter isn't the protagonist of a spicy exhibition doujin.

>>32175511
Good thing there are other devices, such as the Drone Gun™ so i dont have to shoot it down.
So then i can keep the drone, so you can visit and i can explain to you why you should value my privacy.

>>32175517
You should read the conversation otherwise you'll end up looking lost like you do right now. Our drone-hunting friend responded to my last post with this gem
>But since you're straight outta leddit and apparently dont want people to have any rights, gun or otherwise, i dont really see the point in arguing with you.
Do try to follow along.

>>32175534
Reddit is liberal retard land though.
Its not like they actually want us to have guns.
They're shilldog central my friend.

>>32175532
That drone gun is a broad spectrum RF jammer, the use of which is a felony.

>>32175542
Stop being dense. The guy didn't like my criticism so he called me a redditor. This has nothing to do with reddit and to continue on about it is a pointless aside.

Like I said, do try to follow along.

>>32175532
>DroneGun has not been authorized as required by the United States Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, in the United States, other than to the United States government and its agencies, until such authorization is obtained. The use of DroneGun in the United States by other persons or entities, including state or local government agencies, is prohibited by federal law. Laws limiting the availability of DroneGun to certain types of users may apply in other jurisdictions, and any sales will be conducted only in compliance with the applicable laws.

Good luck.

How much would one cost anyway? I'm sure it's more expensive than the drone you'll snag in using it. Why not spare the expense and just report the drone user breaking the law in the way I suggested? Or does that not tickle your angry grandpa impotent operator fantasies enough?

>>32175556
If i cant destroy it, whats the point?

>>32175542
>Reddit is liberal retard land though.
>r_thedonald is one of the most popular subreddits

you're being a giant stereotypical 4chan fanboy right now, i bet you've never even been to reddit.

You could always just, like, talk to your neighbor.

Anyway that drone gun is retarded.

File: sicko.jpg (23KB, 152x254px)

23KB, 152x254px

>>32175285
>if you have nothing to hide you should be okay with drones peeping into your house
Go around the neighborhood and ask who is flying the drones over your property and tell them to stop or you will have to shoot them down and bill the owner for the damage they cause once they crash plus that lawsuit for violation of privacy.
Also it doesnt matter what caliber you use because as long as you aim high enough the bullets terminal velocity will always be freefall and barely enough to scratch your cars paint let alone injure anyone not held together by water surface tension.

>>32175040
huh. not op, but this sounds like something i should look into.

>>32175397
>Does the google Earth satellite risk a missile launch each time it updates the imagery of your city?
If your city is Moscow, probably.

File: Drone-Munitions.jpg (50KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x451px

>not buying anti-drone shells

File: kek.png (130KB, 740x600px)

130KB, 740x600px

>>32175511
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/case.html#260
>Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Pp. 328 U. S. 261-262, 328 U. S. 264-267.
Get rekt faggot.

>>32174940
>making something that isn't a gun look exactly like a gun with some stuff taped to it

Why do people do this?

>>32175361
>im not op but im just as retarded

File: IMG_6945.jpg (1MB, 2459x2820px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2459x2820px

>>32175139
This. At least try once to be nice, if it continues mention how you know FAA regulations and they are not really supposed to be flying over houses. If you are within 5miles of an airfield you can totally fuck them.
Don't let these idiots ruin everyone who participates in the hobby. Please.
It could be a kid having fun, or someone unfamiliar with the rules.
Starting off as an asshole doesn't help you case.

t. Model aircraft pilot

>>32177439
>there's a webcomic about autistic /pol/ memes

wew

You do realize there are quite a few documented cases where a retard shot at a drone and went to jail for discharging a weapon in the air with little regard for safety?

Report those faggots to the FAA for not having a drone operating license, record their activities and submit it as proof to the FAA.
Or be a dumbass and start shooting in the air with a shotgun and enjoy prison.

>>32177476

>implying we're not shooting down your toys just for fun :^)

File: IMG_7021.jpg (3MB, 4032x1938px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x1938px

>>32177538
This desu.
If they crash, look for an FAA# on board

>>32177543
>implying I don't have 5lbs of napalm onboard •>•

>>32177512
There is also a supreme court ruling on just how wrong you are if you care to take a look.
>>32177476
Stap a 10/22 and a speaker to it that shouts shall not be infringed everytime you go in for a dive like the stuka sirens.

File: IMG_5294.jpg (62KB, 1408x805px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1408x805px

>>32177566
.....brb

>we brrrrrrrrt now

>>32177359
>Also it doesnt matter what caliber you use because as long as you aim high enough the bullets terminal velocity will always be freefall and barely enough to scratch your cars paint let alone injure anyone not held together by water surface tension.

I sincerely hope you're just an australian shitposter

you should not be allowed near guns

>>32177566
I'm not arguing with you, spergmaster

I'm just baffled by the amount of autism lingering in this discussion

>>32177574
he's not wrong as long as the trajectory is steep enough to sap the bullet of its discharge velocity

>>32175525
Nope, your daugther is the protagonist of an extra spicy incest rape doujin, shitskin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTScNHvVbyc

FLAK is for pussies, take him down the old fashioned way.

Wait wait wait...
How exactly do I purchase airspace over my home?

You can argue about it all you want, if a drone is on my property and I don't want it to be, I'm going outside and shooting at it with birdshot, and you can't stop me :^)

>>32177647
>:^)

>>32177647
>arrested for negligent discharge
>house gets robbed while in jail
>dronefag has drones and your guns

>not becoming a falconer and teaching a falcon to attack on command
>not using Falconbro to kill the fuck out of drones.


Or you could use bottle rockets, roman candles, or saturn missiles. Or...a slingshot and black cats.

>>32177659
>Implying I'm going quietly

Can I make a little BB gun C-RAM?

>>32177697
There already is a bb gun GAU-8 which someone put on an RC A-10

>>32177574
>basic physics is beyond me
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal
>>32177581
I know you arent otherwise an argument could be found.

>>32174940
Isn't it illegal to shoot down drones? Something about federally illegal to shoot down aircraft.

>>32175222
>cheap, stable, plentiful machines are bad because I'm less of a special snowflake

Hang yourself in the garage, m8

>>32175109
that doesn't damage the drone in fact

>>32177428
ferromagnetic shot
that's a lot of wasted energy damn

>>32177753
only if the drone is registered as an aircraft

>>32175004
>He thinks that you "purchase air space over your house"
You're fucking retarded.

>>32177753
see
>>32177439
Its a supreme court president set in 46 about airspace violation over private property for low altitudes.

>>32177825
You can purchase airspace over your property pretty cheaply through the FAA

>>32177833
That means if they build an airstrip near your house and your house turns to shit due to frequency overflight you should be compensated for it. Not "lol u can shoot drones"
To suggest the notion that 1946 judges have the foresight to see small privately owned aircraft zipping around remotely is complete horse shit

>>32177871
No you cannot.

You only have right to the space above your property that you can reasonably use and the FAA has no ability to "sell you" air space. They may purchase the air rights of your property if it's near an airport in order to keep flight paths open and to prevent you from bitching about said flight paths, but you can't buy it from them. It's already yours. In the same regard though, you cannot restrict people flying over your property. The supreme court has been through this time and time again that a private individual cannot lay claim to something that only belongs to the public. i.e. the air 500 ft. above your property.

File: SKYNET_FLYR_FRONT_1024x1024.jpg (123KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x683px

>>32174940
https://exoticammo.com/collections/exotic-ammo-for-your-firearm/products/12-gauge-net-rounds?variant=28972544771

>drone net ammo
>sold out

>>32177891
It also rules that low overflight with high frequency can be considered tresspassing.
>as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it
So what do you do when someone tries to appropriate your land in a more conventional method?

>>32177953
>Don't be a victim
Of what? Some kids playing with their christmas present?

Some people need to calm the fuck down.

>>32177759
Yea I agree, I was into RC when I was younger, I simply didn't have the time or money for what I wanted (FPV helicopter) but now I can fly one more safely, and it's great

>>32177956
It in no way says that.
It says they are appropriating your land though not by conventional means and you should be compensated for it. Please try to justify shooting at drones by a 1946 airport law
I would really like to read about your conviction on the internet some day

>>32175486
What a fucking sexist. Doesn't even care about a 13 year-old boy.

>>32175564
I'm still a ledditor, but most of t_d fucks are libs. Go on almost any subreddit, and it's all anti-fun.

You can find the communities that will defend the shit out of guns, but most of the big gun subreddits are ok with the death of the 2nd by a thousand cuts.

>>32174940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CzURm7OpAA

You don't need a gun

>>32175334
Wtf are you talking about? You must be really, and I mean deeply retarded. You have not the slightest idea that you're talking about and you are unable to formulate a decent response to the post you replied to. Please gtfo and consider suicide

>>32178025
It clearly states the appropriation of the airspace is to be ruled as a conventional appropriation of the land if low and frequent.
>Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it.
The compensation was in this specific case because the landowner had lost more than one hundred chickens due to the overflights and the subsequent sale of the property but thats beside the point that you want to ignore so badly which is that the airspace is ruled part of the property.
>Id., § 63-13. Subject to that right of flight, "ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this State is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath." Id.,
making it ridiculous to shoot down some kids drone but a completely viable defense in court.
This is of course including that the drones are registered as aircraft but if not there is no legal statute to even drag OP to court for shooting it down.

>>32175117
>>32175188
You own the land, not the air

>>32178208
Actually it is but its not defined how high your "property" reaches.

>>32175139
Fuck that, I was the one minding my own business, they're the ones violating people's privacy. Keep your shit away from my shit and there won't be a problem.

>>32175414

Everything changed the day the drone nation attacked.

>>32175486

Put a TV in front of her window with meatspin on a loop.

>>32177746
bullets fired into the air take on ballistic trajectories that can and have killed people.

google celebratory gunfire.

>>32178648

Cowboy loads, wax bullets, etc.

Problem safely solved.

>>32175222
>no gyros
>rudimentary gyros
So your quadcopter has no balancing method yet you plan to deliver Greek food with it?

>>32178091
pretty neat, thanks for this!

>>32175004
In the United States, the freehold (ownership) of a piece of land extends upward to infinity (this originates in English common law written before regulation of airspace or space travel had been envisioned.)

The FAA regulates airspace that is (in general at sea level and not near airfields) above 1200 ft or 370m. For practical purposes, a landowner owns the airspace out to the stratosphere above the land in question but only controls the airspace above his property not regulated by the FAA. Space above the stratosphere is governed by international treaty and maritime law.

Source: I'm a realtor and aerospace nerd.

>>32175397
ITT: city slickers.

>>32179072
/scribbles note

>>32178648
The bullet has to exeed a certain weight to inflict damage otherwise the angle has to be low enough or subject to winds unlikely strong. Now what sounds more likely a likely pretty drunk guy aiming too low while celebrating or a couple of hundred feet up the crosswinds being so strong that they redirect the projectile before it looses most of its energy and if you fucked up like that what would you be inclined to say to the police? That you were reckless or that a gush way beyond your reach is at fault?

Most documented cases of celebratory fire killing people (from above) that I heard of were with six shooters in former mexican territories where one should seriously be asking if celebratory gunfire wasnt simply used to cover up a killing whenever convinient.

File: fedorightly.jpg (71KB, 1023x633px)

71KB, 1023x633px

>>32179149

File: falconry.jpg (30KB, 1280x720px)

30KB, 1280x720px

>I want to stop a drone spying on my house

Say no more

The only way to get rid of drones without getting in trouble (aka getting caught by the camera of the drone) is simple.

22lr suppressed with sub sonics. No one hears it, no one calls the cops, and you just shoot at the drone and there. Just make sure no one catches you doing the dirty deed.

File: sperg.gif (973KB, 225x202px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 225x202px

>>32177359
>Also it doesnt matter what caliber you use because as long as you aim high enough the bullets terminal velocity will always be freefall and barely enough to scratch your cars paint let alone injure anyone not held together by water surface tension.

We have never seen levels of autism this high before.

>>32177476
nevada/reno bro?

File: 1456702180984.jpg (233KB, 400x422px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 400x422px

>>32175109
NAP
A
P

>>32175355
Lawfag here.

I would love to try a civil case where a firearm was used in an otherwise lawful manner to destroy an overflying drone that was, say, 100 feet or lower where the drone owner sued for damages.

Juries where I live would support the homeowner.

>>32177359
Haha
HAHA
oh god, I hope you don't have guns and never do, do bullets drop in call of duty now or something?

>>32179580
>he thinks you can reliably hit a drone with .22 LR

Only if it's flying very low and stationary. You'd need a shotgun to do it reliably. Even #7 shot would fuck up the delicate rotors.

>>32174940
These are still illegal as shit for civilians to own

>>32174940
Thread a web of fishing line between the branches of trees

File: there you are.jpg (9KB, 485x177px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 485x177px

>>32179670
>hyperbole
>autism

File: 1445675904103.gif (912KB, 240x176px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 240x176px

>"I am entitled to flying my dinky quadrotor around and above your house
>"if you so much as touch my drone, you are automatically the bad guy"
>"it's not like my flying camera looking at your house is suspicious"
>this is /k/ now

>>32175397
>Implying I won't walk into my backyard, cock swinging freely, with a field barrel shotgun to have legal reason to shoot down your gay little drone and get you charged with voyeurism when you whip out the SD card to "prove" I shot down your drone "4 no raisin bruh"

Someone post the PETA drone hunter screen grabs

>>32175270
>i have the right to my privacy
Fun fact, no you don't.

>>32179750
So what angle are you imagining for the sake of the argument or do you believe that the terminal velocity of a bullet fired upwards will be lethal and if so what caliber are you planning on using against a plastic drone?

>>32179898
>i have no human rights therefore you should be stripped of yours
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States

File: 1459628446292.jpg (150KB, 922x846px)

150KB, 922x846px

>>32174940
No, this is the LAW

you don't own anything above your grass

shooting anything into or out of the air is a federal crime.

so sorry that the law hurts your feelings.

>>32175040
no it doesn't depend at all on local laws

the faa srictly prohibits local laws governing FAA airspace


[spoiler]it's all faa airspace[/spoiler]

>>32178250


it is perfectly defined by the faa


everything above the blades of grass is not your property.

>>32178046
No Boys House full of girls~! 3+1

>>32175493
Why does she have to do something special for a window that is only visible from a ladder on my property? Any one there is a trespasser.

And it's a rhetorical question. I have a fence and pool with closed house structure. Why do you evade the critical point that drone use like this is criminal voyeurism. And yes I have noticed when the girls and their friends are out at the pool I occasionally get drones floating out beyond my property line. This is stalking but really unenforceable. Creepy was finding shoe prints under my windows one Sunday morning after such a event. At some point someone will do something actionable and I will probably make the papers as a "gun nut" and not a "concerned parent".

>>32179991
Talking about family has saved a lot of peoples' lives.

>>32179072
you are

1) an idiot
2) a liar

if I owned the airspace above my home, I could charge for access to it, like planes flying over my house


but you can't because you don't own airspace .

File: (((you))).jpg (38KB, 480x484px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x484px

>>32179985
>thinks the terminal velocity of free fall is deadly for smal arms projectiles
I bet you believe quarters will kill you if you throw them off a building just because simpsons taught you so.
>>32179991
The law is yet to be defined on drones you retard thats what this entire discussion is about.

>>32174940
shooting down registered aircraft, what could go wrong?

>>32179072
why would someone just go on the internet and tell lies like this

File: 1457038274213.jpg (21KB, 296x317px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 296x317px

>>32180064
look at faa regulations.


you can't fly a drone above 700 feet without a license

you can't fly a drone over a certain weight without registration

it is a federal crime to shoot down any drone, because you might miss and hit a plane or person


this is not open to interpretation

this is not subjective

this is the law, go look it up

the only people that thing this is up for debate are numbskulls like you who think that by closing your eyes and and singing la la la that the law will cease to exist.

File: 1271799829199.gif (872KB, 326x300px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 326x300px

>>32175117
>>32175188
>>32179704

>It was literally outside my window
>Takin video of muh daughters!
>A DAD HAS A RIGHT TO PROTECT HIS FAMILY
>video is recovered
>no where near your property, never recorded your daughters

Literally every time

You guys are like this woman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUlxEz4ozU

So self absorbed and egotistic that you think everything must be about you.


>>32177771

The deactivating wont, but the subsequent fall from the sky certainly will.

>>32179846

Yeah because these fucking horror stories of evil peeping tom drones defeated by valiant dads with shotguns keep getting lauded on /k/ and keep getting debunked the second the drone's video comes to light.

>>32179966
Actually no, my country has personal privacy written into its constitution, while the US uses vague and complicated legalese to derive its right to privacy from 3 separate amendments (hint, this doesn't make stronger).

>>32175397
>So if a neighbor buys a trampoline do you practice trap shooting when they're using it?

Not a good example as they are not invading your air space.

Imagine your neighbor bought a gigantic fucking crane and was mission impossibleing himself around your yard.

>>32180114
>you can't fly a drone above 700 feet without a license
in restricted zones yes but thats not hard unless you are technically illiterate which ill give you the benefit of the doubt
>you can't fly a drone over a certain weight without registration
which has nothing to do with the argument
>it is a federal crime to shoot down any drone, because you might miss and hit a plane or person
No its a federal crime to shoot down registered aircraft which btw the FAA wants you to register your drone as
>this that not subjecive
Absolute bullshit you can get a license to exeed limited airspace if approved prior by the FAA. Only without getting approval beforehand you can not which makes all of the above subjective.
>the only people that thing this is up for debate are numbskulls like you who think that by closing your eyes and and singing la la la that the law will cease to exist.
Thats all you have? The "everyone who disagrees with me must be in denial" excuse because it sounds more like you are lacking an argument.

>>32180042
How many planes fly under 1200ft over your house? Unless you live under an airport runway?

File: Data_with_pipe.jpg (574KB, 1044x1044px)

574KB, 1044x1044px

>>32180042
You are

1) an idiot
2) actually just an idiot, but I want to be clear

Would you like to tell us plebians how you are so sure of this? Does your professional or personal background relate to this and is that why you are *attempting* to refute this posters point?

Try again

>>32179742
I can see this being the case, btw side question.. law enforcement or officer of the court lawfag?

>>32180167
Mine too but its more of an ongoing conflict between states and federal government so unless the feds can rebrand their argument that privacy were an inherent danger to national security its pretty clear who is gonna win in court.

File: 1466398960613.gif (1MB, 318x161px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 318x161px

>>32180136
>Terrible strawman
Keep your shit off my property, or ill shoot it out of the sky.

>>32180339

I don't have a drone, I'm just against destruction of other peoples property in general.

Stop acting like an entitled nigger.

>>32180273
Haha nice

BTFO
The
Fuck
Out

>>32180383
This

File: 1446132095626.jpg (64KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 427x640px

>>32180273

>No its a federal crime to shoot down registered aircraft which btw the FAA wants you to register your drone as

wrong. Just wrong. any aircraft.

do you motherfuckers even know how to google?

>From Forbes’ John Goglia, who confirmed this with the FAA:

According to the FAA “regardless of the situation, shooting at any aircraft — including unmanned aircraft — poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. ”

To reach this justification, the FAA turned to 18 U.S.C. 32,

2. Aircraft Sabotage (18 U.S.C. 32)

Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. In addition, the United States is authorized under the statute to prosecute any person who destroys a foreign civil aircraft outside of the United States if the offender is later found in the United States or, effective as of April 24, 1996, a national of the United States was aboard such aircraft (or would have been aboard if such aircraft had taken off) or a national of the United States was a perpetrator of the offense. See USAM 9-63.221, et seq.

>>32180136
>deactivating wont, but the subsequent fall from the sky certainly will.
Good luck proving it was me

File: 1434411448748s.jpg (3KB, 107x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 107x125px

>>32180410


he agrees with me

lawmlo jkenkt
cuckt
rekyt
skrekt
kill yourself memelord.

File: go-be-a-nigger-somewhere-else_fb_1074447.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>32180383
>Other people have a right to violate your property and/or privacy
Nope. Now scram you filty liberal.

>>32180470


the air above the blades of grass isn't your property sister fucker

read the law

>>32180447

Man

You are like women who key cars or slash tires because you think you'd get away with it.

>Excuse me sir I am entitled to destroy your property, yes its against the law but you wont catch me haha!

>everything that counters my argument must be a strawman
>>32180136
Good vid prooves the point well but its not just about video material gathered. Some drones are flying modems and because most normies are like grandmothers using a computer for the first time they may connect automatically giving potential access via the drone.
But im sure you know drones can be misused for all kinds of mischief so people not wanting them flying around their homes souldnt be so scorned for some healthy paranoia.

File: 03+Lehm+tells+Jonah+about+Wiley.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>32180470

Niggers don't own property jamal, just because someone is flying around your projects doesn't mean you get to whip out your gat and pop a few shots off.

>>32180383
>AYO
>HOL UP
> I'm just against destruction of other peoples property
>JUST LEMME VIOLATE YO PROPERTY A SEC

>>32180481

> You are like women who key cars or slash tires because you think you'd get away with it.

Because this is random destruction and not protecting my family and my right to privacy.

Wanna fly a drone? Go to a park, just don't be a retard and think you'll get away risk free filming people's homes

>>32178250
it's SEMI defined. you own the space above your property that you could reasonably use. IE, you own 50 feet if you could theoretically build your property within the law to fifty feet. think of a box whose walls extend upward from the corners of your property and to about the height a man stands at above your house. than add two-four feet and you have "your" airspace.

>>32180523

>Ill take "things that didn't happen" for 500 alex

where exactly do you live that drones are constantly knocking on your door?

>>32180552

I don't want to fly a drone, I have no interest in it.

I just don't buy into this fantasy world of yours where the sky is blacked out by evil assault drones spying on everything you do.

Has this happened to you? It sounds a lot like fearmongering to me.

>>32180559
Mosul

File: 1466998439070.jpg (18KB, 250x325px)

18KB, 250x325px

>>32180480
>>32180497
>Go to firearms board
>The people on it are so cucked by the government and afraid of the laws they wont even use their firearms

Mfw

>>32180582
> assault drones

Nah man, I just don't want to live in an age where voyuerism can be considered to be risk free.

That being said, I'm not even American so if I popped off a round even on my land, I'd be doing my best to not drop the soap before the casing hit the ground

>>32174940
The army was testing their version of it this summer at West Point. Worked like a charm from what I saw. There was a captain with one attached to the platoon I was training and every time the opfor would use one against us he'd aim at it for a little bit, hold the trigger, and then it'd fall from the sky. Pretty cool overall.

File: get rekt nigger.jpg (85KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x533px

>>32180410
You know the joke is Im not even a murican but he seems incapable of just looking up the laws he supposebly refers to.
>>32180433
>any aircraft
Like your rc? see >>32177624
Oy vey what a crime and no the FAA demands you register your drones for just that reason.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/
See the fly for fun section.
> of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce.
So if you arent registered how are you supposed to fall under those statues?
I mean you are building up to an argument and not just copy pasting legal definitions for commercial drone use are you?

>>32180610
This.

Been on this board for the best part of 5 years. It's really gone to shit.

>>32180554
What if you want to build upwards on your property? But yeah i think general ruling is up to 300ft or so.

>>32180626

It isn't though

AS YOU KNOW THIS IS AMERICA

WE SHOULDN'T GO RESTRICTING RIGHTS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING SCARY THAT COULD HAPPEN

In the US you have a right to defend your property, but people need to understand that you don't own all of the airspace above your property.

If a drone is looking through your window, sure, blast it, I don't care, I just don't think that's happened, and i'm not entirely sure there has even been a confirmed case of that yet

>>32180640

No you haven't, or you'd know shooting recklessly into the sky is not only dangerous but it's illegal.

>>32174940
Fuck off old man Jenkins, sounds like you are out to ruin Christmas

>>32180651
Well that's what I'm arguing for, someone looking through my window or at my family and friends just chilling in the pool with the aid of a drone should accept that their toy's safety is forfeit

>>32180698

I agree with that, but what I'm trying to convey to you and people in this thread, is there have been a handful of cases that started off with "He was hovering outside my window" or "He was on my property spying on my daughters" which turned out to be completely fabricated.

A recurring theme with people angry at drones is they think it has endangered them or encroached on their privacy personally when that's generally not the case.

When I see post like OP's I immediately think of people like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEKafiDxhCc

>>32180659

implying we didn't have an entire book committed to blowing things up, making chemical weapons, and man traps

>>32180743

muh anarchists cookbook

>>32180480
>Intruder trying to kill you caught on camera jumping the moment you pull the trigger.
>Die in jail because you murdered an innocent man.

>>32180730
Yeah I see where you're coming from.

The drone flyer in the video in question though wasn't doing anything wrong, was just unfortunate enough to have someone like that walking through the park.

File: 1454718760741.jpg (1MB, 2048x3072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x3072px

>>32180659
You need to learn how to take risks sweet cheeks, we cant all live in our parents basement forever.

>>32180770
Your new is showing.
Anarchist cookbook wasn't /k/

/k/ wrote the do/k/ument

>>32180816
>>32180812

I hate neo /k/

Before /k/ was stupid but for the most part responsible, now its filled with 17 year old wannabe anarchists.

Also op just train an eagle to be maximum american

https://youtu.be/X27-2WDIZR0?t=275

>>32180610
>>32180610
>>The people on it are so cucked by the government and afraid of the laws they wont even use their firearms
Gangbangers and spree shooters aren't afraid to 'use their firearms' but I doubt that makes them model citizens in your eyes. If you're going to own guns, you should be responsible with them, or be willing to pay the price if your negligence harms someone. If you fire a gun into the air (to take down a nonexistent threat), don't be surprised when the projectile comes back down and hits someone, and don't try to pretend your rights are being violated when your're punished for harming another human being or their proerty. I like how the manchild newcomers to this board have decided that things like responsibility and maturity are now liberal plots.

Take your ancap fantasies elsewhere.

>>32177439
And you think this ruling empowers you to shoot down hobby aircraft over your property? Good luck with that.

>>32180730
>come any closer to me after i stole your property and ill kill you

>>32180846

You're hating Neo-/k/ for the right reasons but this thread isn't an example of it.
This thread is an example of the gradual liberalism of /k/

Also
> shooting into the air is dangerous and illegal.
Did you even watch the video/look at the product? There isn't a single solid projectile in the whole thing

File: not fbi.jpg (5KB, 184x184px)

5KB, 184x184px

>>32177566
>slap a 10/22 to a model plane and fly it

This is good advice

File: 1369621202594.jpg (127KB, 834x556px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 834x556px

>>32180633


>Im not even a murican


Well that explains a lot


and to think some americans actually believed you knew what you were talking about HAHAHAHAHHAHA

nice post, well meem'd

>>32180952

I know, but a lot of posters int his thread are talking about shooting drones.

Further, I don't know where you got the idea that /k/ is becoming liberal, ever since /pol/ there has been a struggle to keep /k/ from being /pol/ lite

File: 1433020980598.jpg (92KB, 680x478px)

92KB, 680x478px

>>32180812


t. Felon in his natural habitat

>>32180857
>empowerment
Its a legal basis if someone were hellbent on detesting it in court. I mean do you have anything beyond good luck with that shit? Because to me who just so happens to be another lawfag it sounds like you ran out of leverage and have nothing more than that verbal deterrent.

>>32177975
>>Don't be a victim
>Of what? Some kids playing with their christmas present?
>Some people need to calm the fuck down.

Thank you for being sane on /k/

File: thumbnail.jpg (652KB, 1800x1202px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1800x1202px

>>32180971
Totally FBI and I trust you are mature enough to handle this.

>>32180988
This was the board that came up with stuff like "can't corner the dorner" and "time for the borque to get to work" we've always skirted the border of being /pol/lite but this knee jerk reaction to anything being /pol/ is the beginning of liberalism. Also there's people in this thread right now who are saying that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself or your family from voyuerism using this drone shield or otherwise.

And finally, we've had an entire conversation about anti drone devices and not one conspiricist talking about the practical applications for insurgency. I miss old /k/

>>32180979
>Only burgers know how ballistics work therefor i can disregard everything that proves me wrong.
You know why its called rocket science?
Because despite being comprised of a single equation it has to be presented as a series of laws so that burgers can pretend they invented their own field of science.

>>32181083

I was on /pol/ during the dorner thing, I don't think it's anymore likely that /k/ made that meme than /pol/, and even if they did, it wouldn't make a difference because it was post /pol/ infection.

/k/ used to be a board about weapons, not politics, I remember when this board was filled with furries, but /k/ is now supposedly liberal?

I'm not buying it.

No one is saying you can't defend your property, we are saying you shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction just because there is a drone in the sky, because odds are it isn't your property.

File: accidents.jpg (143KB, 700x1244px)

143KB, 700x1244px

>live within 5 miles of airport
>3 drone shitters in neighborhood
>can't shoot or jam them down
>can't prove it to the FAA
>mfw thinking about picking up a drone for interception

>>32180024

so every time I jump off my lawn I'm momentarily breaking FAA airspace laws ?

Fuck.

File: 1464821982498.gif (391KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 500x375px

>>32180857
Having a drone in the air that has significant weight is much more dangerous than bird shot when it falls out of the sky.

>responsibility and maturity
Sitting on your hands because you're a bootlicker is neither of these things. Doing what needs to be done is.

>>32181155


no because everyone is allowed to use that airspace (even you!) up to 700 feet.

you're fine.

>>32181083
>Also there's people in this thread right now who are saying that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself or your family from voyuerism using this drone shield or otherwise.
Did you miss this?
>DroneGun has not been authorized as required by the United States Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, in the United States, other than to the United States government and its agencies, until such authorization is obtained. The use of DroneGun in the United States by other persons or entities, including state or local government agencies, is prohibited by federal law.
You can't get the drone shield or even use it. Even if you could, it probably is expensive enough that I doubt any single homeowner has enough of a drone problem to justify the expense rather than getting the job done within cheap and legal means.

>defend yourself or your family from voyuerism
If you saw a PI with a camera sitting in his car taking pictures of you, would you pull him and out and beat him or would you just shoot him? "Defense from voyeurism" is bullshit and if you ever tried to follow up on your big talk you'd realize the law won't defend you for it.

>>32181200
>bootlicker
Oh, just because I don't let my ego endanger other people because I so desperately want to shoot down a drone? You're pathetic.

Also, that's part of why shooting it down is dangerous. Drone's won't generally be falling out of the sky, unmolested. You're basically outing yourself as a retard if you admit a drone with weight in the air is dangerous but your recourse is to force it to crashland.

>>32181150
It's beginning to look liberal not "it is".
And yeah the furries were a shit meme, it's "traps aren't gay" now though, which is arguably better.

I'm
>>32180698
So I can see what you're arguing but if it's flying below my roof line in my yard then you can be sure it's coming down.

>>32181083
Non of those you answered to but its clear at least to me that protecting yourself from incursions into your privat sphere is legitimate enough to risk your neighbours cars paintjob or rooftiles or whatever else people like you giive a fuck about but you cant compromise with these people. I mean I am arguing against any drone use over private property not condoned by the owner.
You nigger lovers need too fucking set up a "drone highway" and i know it sounds retarded but heaer me out on this one.
If you have lets say 3 to 700 ft in which you can fly the drones you just set up routes entirely depentand on public roads and shit but give them a 700ft or whatever you want to set as a limit leeway. Given you loose the direct route but who gives a fuck its not that much longer and charging time just as the the costs for it are only gonna go down.

>>32179782
If you cant hit something within 100yards reliably with a .22 than you probably cant hit anything reliably with anything.

File: 1461731800089.jpg (26KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x400px

>>32181259
>Evreyone that wants to defend their privacy is desperate
The idea that you have the right to bring your little toys and play spy above someone else's property is ridiculous.

>unmolested
The only molester here is you, you peeping tom.

>>32179825
This is the only good reply

>>32180262
My sides

>>32181387
As far as I'm concerned people are free to fly their drones how they see fit, as far as they aren't being absolutely retarded and flying it into people's yards (ie. Under the roofline of a house). Of course that doesn't address the possible risk to privacy with private swimming pools but, I'm sure given how small private drones usually are weight restrictions would keep the camera from being to invasive if the limit was set at say 2-300 feet

>>32181454
I don't own a drone, I'm just against morons misusing their guns, endangering and hurting other people, and increasing the likelihood of gun control laws. Trap shooting in a residential neighborhood is not good optics for gun owners as a whole, and your support for it is a pointless and impotent exercise that will only embolden and inspire our enemies to legislate against us all.

>>32181454
Do you try to shoot down every Cessna that flies above your property too?

This whole debacle about drones is a non issue. Every conceivable transgression that could be committed by them is already restricted by other laws.

File: (you).jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px)

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>32175511
>You must validate the legitimacy of your argument on a tibetan high altitude basket weaving site

Fuck off

File: 1480471416298.gif (2MB, 360x203px)

2MB, 360x203px

>Drone, you say?
>Time for fireworks!
>Picture very much related

>>32181512
Sure its still more about the upper limit this can be applied to and then its more a question of the limits of video cameras of that point in time and other devices from thermal all the way to bluetooth so im not sure if anyone wants to bind their legal definition to that.

>>32174940
So u have a shotgun?
That's ur dronegun.
Wait for it to be in your property and claim they have been harassing you and trying to film you through the windows

>>32181564
The point is not the caliber or type of gun or weapon used, the point is that its your right to defend your privacy. A shot gun or a rifle proabably wont be the best choice in a neighborhood, but a pellet gun might just work fine. If you live is the desert, blasting a drone away at 2:30am becomes a little more acceptable.

>>32181632
Strawman

>>32174940
Tell your neighbors that you're scared of their toys and ask them not to fly above your property

>>32181930
>Defending one's privacy means destroying another's property.
You need to be 18 years of age or older to post on this site.

>>32175086
The filename made me chuckle

>>32181970
>>Defending one's privacy means destroying another's property

I have a lock on my door, glass in my windows, and a fence out back. Maybe you live in a nudist camp, but out in the real world its best to keep the general public out of your business.

>>32182118
If a kid is peeping on you with his drone, call the cops and take a video.

That will stop it. Shooting it down is a child's response and will likely get you thrown in jail. Solve conflicts with the right tool, retard.
>Acting like you own a home
You need to be 18 years of age or older to post on this site.

>>32175486
>Recording a 13 year old undressing is illegal.

In the state of Kentucky it isn't.

>>32180588
Very underrated.

>>32177759
I'm the one you replied to.
I didn't say that cheap and available=bad, damn, as a poorfag myself, cheaper is better.

Its just that casualization often brings a little batch of idiots that ends up demonizing the hobby.

File: 1236907_584161694974754_379066363_n.jpg (9KB, 187x187px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 187x187px

>>32179072
This may be the single dumbest thing I'll read all month, and it's only the first.

So, first off let me say you're neither a realtor or an aerospace nerd.
I'm an actual pilot and let me tell you why you are full of bullshit.

Unfortunately the FAA regulates all airspace, in some way, shape, or form.
Starting from 1926 the Air Commerce act, and subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Causby (1946) the navigable airspace above any freehold or leasehold real estate has, in essence, a permanent non-preemtable form of easement that grants passage to aircraft, and that you hold air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land.

Now, when you talk about federal aviation regulations and definitions pertaining to "navigable airspace," you are referring to minimum safe altitudes. These can mostly be found in 49 CFR Section 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Airspace definitions and regulations can also be found in 49 CFR Section 91.126 through section 91.145. Further information can also be found in the Airman's information manual chapter 3, sections 1-5. It's defines the hierarchy of overlapping airspace designations and general dimensions of airspace segments.

Sources:
>Titles 14 and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
>Air Commerce Act of 1926
>U.S. v. Causby 1946
>I'm an actual pilot

I've given you the tools you need to succeed, now there's no excuse for being this retarded.

>>32181930
>the point is that its your right to defend your privacy
No it isn't, not with force. Call me a bootlicker or liberal all you want but if you ever acted on your promises here (you won't) then you'd be wishing you listened to me once you're in a jail cell.

For that matter, why the hell would you care about a drone at 2:30 AM, how could you see it, how could its camera see anything? Who's flying their drone in the middle of the night?

>>32181688
>???
What did he mean by this?

Is he clinically retarded?

many locales have ordinances against discharging a firearm a certain distance from living spaces or roads

>>32180136
Should have slammed the Lipo on that bitch's face.

File: drone.webm (861KB, 800x410px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 800x410px

Just wave your dick at it, faggot.

You'll either make a new friend, or they'll stop coming aorund

>>32179991
you fucking idiot, you won the airspace above your property as high as you can effectively use.

you want a 200' tall radio antenna in your backyard
as long as it meets all zoning laws and safety codes you are free to do so

>>32174940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKV01YQX_w

File: Brushfire 1.png (80KB, 1233x580px)

80KB, 1233x580px

>>32174940
If you're in city limits and they're doing blatantly shifty shit like looking in your windows get good with nets or find a net launcher to buy. Pretty sure you can also make a jammer out of an old microwave, could swear I've seen plans posted on /k/ before. Could also use a fire extinguisher considering just about all of them mean vision blocking clouds of shit. Airshit is also an option. Just make sure you record the drone peeping or doing otherwise nasty things before you del with it, also record that and any interactions with the "pilot".

Outside of city limits far enough to shoot? Post signage around the property saying "no trespassing" and "drones will be shot down". Once it's clearly posted shoot them down. Again, record it for purposes of evidence.

That particular drone gun is basically feds and local LEOs only btw.

If you want to be a legend then do pic related.

File: Bird fucker.png (68KB, 906x319px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 906x319px

>>32186091
Alternately you could to this.

>>32178208

And you can use that argument for drones too

Since you don't own the air, you can't fly in it

>>32180136
He should've just exercised his right to defend himself and beat her ass down.

>>32175017
if you can prove there is a camera on it, you can claim that it was spying on you if they take you to court

>>32183098
As funny as that video is, it's a perfect example of a dick move.

But to be entirely fair we don't know the larger context. Some events do ban drones from the location, others have no policy and it could have been someone there for the faire who wanted an aerial view of the melee, or could even have been something the organizers had arranged.

It's literally the same kind of retarded knee-jerk shit you heard about the google glass (which I didn't care for, btw, but that's beside my point), where people would literally grab them off someone's face and run away, because OMG it has a camera in it!

>>32180650
if you wish to build upwards you own what you build into if it doesn't violate local laws to build into it. the ruling isn't 300 feet. it's what you can reasonably use. if your house is 30 feet and you build a spire on the roof that adds 20, you own 50 feet above your land.

>>32183098
I WILL DRINK FROM YOUR SKULL

>>32180293
>How many planes fly under 1200ft over your house?
Anything with one engine.
Source: I'm a pilot.
500 is considered the minimum (in a populated area)
1500 is polite
If you live by an airport it's regularly under 500. People do complain but they get blown off usually.

>>32180743
>we
>a compilation is equivalent to authorship

>>32181259
>If you saw a PI with a camera sitting in his car taking pictures of you, would you pull him and out and beat him or would you just shoot
his camera? (you retarded child)
No, I would call the cops and detain him with the help of a firearm until the police arrived.
>HERP DERP
>GUNS ARE FOR KILLING PEOPLE AND DRONES

>>32180316
Bird law advocate