Those of you interested in personal armaments will be delighted to know that it is now possible to buy attack drones from China. Here are some of the specifications:
The SKY-02 small attack UAV uses a rear engine and wing integrated delta wing layout. The fuselage uses composite materials and the head is equipped with the image guided and payload. Once the ground finds and identifies the target, UAV immediately goes into the attack status: ball tripod head freely rotates to guide the UAV attacking targets. Engine uses mechanical and electronic three grades insurance with high security. The UAV is mainly used in the mountains, hills and complex terrain conditions; does effective short-range real-time attack to the fixed ground target or slowly move targets, such as artillery hole, command post, communication station, radar station, oil truck, oil depot and other small and temporary goals. Small attack UAV is characterized with small size, light weight, convenient carrying, rapid outfield expansion procedure, easy operation and maintenance; the system only needs 2-3 operators to operate, can be carried by surveillance personnel to complete the attack mission.Via Boing Boing. The quoted price is only $1,000-2,000, but it's not clear if that includes the ground-based guidance system.
These will be essential when our government tries to attack you to take away your freedoms, because our government has armored vehicles and RPGs, and you don't (probably...). Get several of these now, before Obama tries to ban them.
I think that would probably be considered a destructive device under the National Firearms Act 1934. So Obama (or, well, FDR) already has.
ReplyDeleteI have never noticed sarcasm in one of your posts before. :)
ReplyDeleteThere are times when raging and ranting are counterproductive; that's when sarcasm becomes useful.
DeleteI agree - the sarcastic tone definitely stuck out to me as out of the ordinary here. Enough for me to even leave the comfort of my RSS reader to make a comment on the actual site...
DeleteWhat differentiates this from any other R/C Plane, the fact they called it an "Attack" drone. Hobbyist have been pioneering remote vision and control systems on these planes for years. What would prevent someone from buying or building their own R/C plane and equipping it with a "payload" capable of destroying any "target?"
ReplyDeleteNothing. As a matter of fact I have read that this very technology may make the surface of conflict areas, like the Middle east, unsafe enough to live in that they will have to live underground.
DeleteUnlike Timothy above, I did not detect sarcasm in your comment, Stan, about getting one of these devices of potential mass death before Obama bans them. I must be missing something. I thought your implication was that you feel that if Obama is successful at taking away your freedom to own the weapons that can easily kill dozens of children and teachers in schools that he will later try to take away other freedoms. If people don't click to read the comments and then read about the intended sarcasm, they might think this of what you wrote.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
Delete"...to own the weapons that can easily kill dozens of children and teachers..." According to the CDC, more people in this country were killed yesterday, and will be again today, and again tomorrow, by drunk drivers than were killed by the maniac at Sandy Hook. If the debate is about what is senselessly killing Americans, then we need to look at the real devices of slaughter in our society. Banning cars and booze is unrealistic because only a statistical blip of the millions of drivers that drive the millions of cars in the US are hurting people -- just as the millions of gun owners that own the millions of guns in the US are NOT hurting people.
I take your point. Cars and trucks driven by people do cause the deaths of many more people than people with guns. But there are two aspects to your argument that I have issue with. One is that people are killed in motor vehicle ACCIDENTS. With very rare exceptions, the drivers of those vehicles to not intend to kill people. This is far from the case when people kill other people with guns. The second issue is that Obama is not talking about banning handguns or sporting rifles. He is talking about automatic or semi-automatic machine guns, with plentiful ammunition, of the sort used by armies throughout the entire world. It seems the NRA cannot see the difference. If murderers went to kill people at schools with ordinary guns, there is a greater chance that they could be disarmed while reloading, and overall less people might lose their lives. Why does this seem hard to understand?
DeleteUmmmm....plus cars have a rather important *primary* purpose, broadly spread across the spectrum of everyday life. We welcome cars in our lives *in spite of* the accidental deaths because we need them in too many other ways and have insufficient alternatives should we elect to ban them. Pretty hard (hint: understatement for effect) to make that argument about guns. Banning cars is unrealistic because of the almost unimaginable impact it would have on our modern society and economy. I'm always amazed at how often this hoary old trope is pulled out.
DeleteYou could make a better argument for alcohol, which is not necessary to sustain our economy and society. It's a want, no more.
And to forestall any argument that cars are evil, pollution-belching planet-destroyers, yes, absolutely we must work towards reducing this source - and many others - of pollution. That's not the point, of course.
You can have my attack drone when you pry my cold dead fingers away from the joy stick.
ReplyDeleteGeez, nobody buys American anymore.
ReplyDeleteEven nobody avoids american goods.
Delete"Get several of these now, before Obama tries to ban them."
ReplyDeleteHeh, heh, heh.