Drone Hunters: Why Are Americans Lining Up To Shoot Down Drones?

Drone hunters: Why are Americans lining up to shoot down drones?

Many Americans are worried about the use of drones in spying by government officials.
In protest, one Colorado town is issuing "drone hunting" licenses.

President Obama says the US government doesn’t spy on ordinary Americans with aerial drones or any other technology.
But in the tiny Colorado prairie town of Deer Trail (pop. 500), residents aren’t taking the most powerful man on earth at his word. Instead, they’ve invented a new pastime: drone hunting. And there’s lots of interest. Over 1,000 people have already applied for the novelty license, though the town won’t actually vote on the proposal until Oct. 8.

Not only is it a protest, but the money collected for the licenses could raise money for Deer Trail:

It’s a half-serious initiative intended as a symbolic protest against what many in the town, and around the country, see as an emerging and increasingly sinister American surveillance state. At the very least, the $25 licenses could raise some revenue for Deer Trail, a rickety plains outpost in a state being considered by the Obama administration for experimental use of civilian drones.

Some still believe drones contribute to national security, but many have become more suspicious of these spying programs since the Edward Snowden reports he leaked previously.

While attitudes have become more critical in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA spying program, a majority of Americans still, by a slim margin, support such initiatives, and believe they contribute to national security.
But Republicans, especially, have become far more suspicious of such programs since 2006, when only 26 percent of GOP voters said the press should be reporting on covert surveillance programs; today 43 percent of Republicans think the press should report on secret counter-terror programs.

Read more here:
news.yahoo.com...

Any comments on this?

Its the latest fad, even the airheads are bored with the latest TV shows, ammo is not so scarce anymore, so better use up the life expired stock.

hi Mr.Sled..
i have one question..how they can get down the drone..? using what? weapon on you country is so ilegal isn't it?

but looks like drone open session bgining..

reply to post by cheesy

That's Ms. Sled.
You can read more at the link I gave. This isn't legal yet, but voting will be on Oct. 8th to see if it passes.

I'm not sure what type of ammo will be used to shoot them down, but it sounds like fun to me!

reply to post by sled735

Some still believe drones contribute to national security,

Yes, but these people can't see twenty minutes into future, much less twenty years. In my state (Massachusetts) you didn't have to use seat belts. A few years later an innocent little campaign started with signs here and there pleading with us to



This turned into



and finally ended up with



My daughter would have been killed when her car slid on ice into a telephone pole if she had been wearing a seat belt. The pole completely erased the driver's seat, but she was able to slide over and survive without a scratch on her. Seat belts should still be a personal choice.

Now, everyone might think that using drones to catch cold blooded killers is probably a good idea. Then once the drones are accepted as a societal norm they'll be used to find marihuana fields, drug dealers on the street corner, speeding cars on the highway, then speeding cars in the city... Then they'll be used to spot people not wearing seat belts, jay walking, homeless people in the park, people having sex in their backyards, people throwing down gum wrappers on the sidewalk...

Point being, if you give any government an inch, sooner or later they'll end up taking your freedom.

reply to post by jiggerj


I couldn't agree with you more!

My niece was in a car accident several years ago. She usually does wear her seat belt, but for some reason on this particular night she didn't.
She fell asleep at the wheel and went off an embankment. The car landed on its top and mashed the top down to the seat.
She had a broken neck, but lived. She spent many months in bed unable to move, but they said if she had been wearing her seat belt she would have been killed instantly.
Today, you would never know anything like that had happened. She gets around fine.
Not having it on made her slide down in the seat as it rolled over. But the belt would have held her in place and killed her.
I think it should be a personal choice too.

reply to post by jiggerj


I have to agree with you on the seat belt issue. I would have lost my mother years ago had it been the law like know. She was driving a 1960 Chevy Impala (lap belts bolted to the floor no shoulder strap or give), and as she crossed an intersection she was t-boned by a car witnesses said was doing about 90.

The car hit the passenger side and drove 1/2 through my mom's car, the bench seat slid out from under her leaving her sitting behind the wheel with a couple of broken ribs and knee.

The seat belt would have cut her in 1/2

The seatbelt issue is so off topic, not quite sure why it's in here, but wanted to add my 2 cents on that front. I lost my cousin a few months ago, and a good friend. Both would be fine today had they been wearing seatbelts. The driver was wearing his seatbelt and came out without a scratch while the two who were not wearing them both died. So...there's that.

As far as the drones, I can't imagine people being able to hit those things very easily, but agree that it does sound like fun. My only concern there is people firing shots up into the air and not hitting anything...those are going to land somewhere.

reply to post by sled735


my bad ms.Sled..
becareful Ms..now drone upgrade by anti human weapon..thats not funny..take care

Cool....a new extreme sport in town?....I'm in ...the ammo? heavy...target...tack driving projectiles of some caliber....
We might not actually be able to hit one, but~~~Wait a minute, that reminds me...is there a daily limit ?

This is something that all free people should think seriously on. Because using drones against the people is an act of war the government is committing on people.

Fukushima is an act of war.

Using depleted uranium weapons is an act of war.

GMO and poisons in food and water is an act of war.

They have declared an unofficial war against the human race and citizens of their own countries since WW2, to try and enslave and reduce us in population.

Drones used against us is an act of war.

I really hope people stop bending over and taking it.

Your thread title is silly...
WHY?
How about because Americans value their PRIVACY and DRONES are a blatant violation of that PRIVACY... get it? Sheez!!!

reply to post by coastlinekid


My thread title is exactly as it was in the news article. Go ask the journalist why he worded it that way.
It makes more sense when you read the whole article. If you had taken time to click on the link, you would know this.

We have to use the same title in our threads when it is a news article, so I have been told.

Maybe wild animals will be spared the sport of killing by issuing these licenses. I'm all for it cause ya gotsta shoot sumpin'...right?

Besides that...

They should just be shot down as a statement of our right to not have them over our heads and spying on us...period.

Peace

reply to post by sled735


It's because the drones will soon be shooting at us. Just think of them as satellites, with armaments, hooked up to fancy AI and RNM logistics, and a database the size of Utah with your face and file and everyone else's.

Obama may get us assassinated this term. He needs our HELP!

# 55