Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
I don't know anything about fundamentals and generators, but at our house, we prefer to use our Invisible Death Ray Machine (pat. pending) to deal with those pesky drones.
Another drone shooting. This is not going to go away.
- Thread starter Nemo288
- Start date
I don't know anything about fundamentals and generators, but at our house, we prefer to use our Invisible Death Ray Machine (pat. pending) to deal with those pesky drones.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,073
Rastoff:
I agree, but it might be all we can legally do for now.
It is ridiculous when the government says they can control the airspace above THEIR (our) property, but WE cannot likewise control the airspace above OUR property.
Good (drone) hunting! LOL
I agree, but it might be all we can legally do for now.
It is ridiculous when the government says they can control the airspace above THEIR (our) property, but WE cannot likewise control the airspace above OUR property.
Good (drone) hunting! LOL
Rastoff
US Veteran
OK, here's a little primer on radio waves and how they're used.
Just like the signal on your car radio, Remote Controllers use a modulated radio wave to send control signals to the car or plane or quadcopter. They use a fundamental, or carrier, wave to "carry" the modulated information. If you have a generator that is capable of producing a fundamental larger than the controller, it will over power or jam that signal.
It doesn't need a lot of power either. A 1mW 2.4GHz signal will stop most remote controllers. Unfortunately, it will also jam most cordless phones and cell phones as well. So, don't just leave it on.
What are we going to have to put up with next.
You want to fly a drone great, go to a park , public area, or on your own acreage type property, knock yourself out. You want to fly it in a housing type neighborhood or over someone elses property, you better get fined or people are going to get mad real quick.
I hate that there are photos of my house on google, someone wants to drive by my house and take a picture okay, but what gives google (or whoever) the right to put up photos of my house. I bet the CEO and others at these companies, homes are not on computer. Try flying a drone over some senator or congressman's house and see what happens to you.
Last week supposedly drones kept planes from dropping water at some fires here in CA. Thats pretty serious.
Unfortunately now we are going to need a whole bunch of laws to handle this mess, YUCK !!!
I like the jamming thing, maybe something that only goes out 100 yards or so... Wish I was a techie....Bob
Or maybe I will take up Falconry, I had a pet hawk when I was a kid he would attack anything flying, now thats an idea, Kamakazi Hawks!!
You want to fly a drone great, go to a park , public area, or on your own acreage type property, knock yourself out. You want to fly it in a housing type neighborhood or over someone elses property, you better get fined or people are going to get mad real quick.
I hate that there are photos of my house on google, someone wants to drive by my house and take a picture okay, but what gives google (or whoever) the right to put up photos of my house. I bet the CEO and others at these companies, homes are not on computer. Try flying a drone over some senator or congressman's house and see what happens to you.
Last week supposedly drones kept planes from dropping water at some fires here in CA. Thats pretty serious.
Unfortunately now we are going to need a whole bunch of laws to handle this mess, YUCK !!!
I like the jamming thing, maybe something that only goes out 100 yards or so... Wish I was a techie....Bob
Or maybe I will take up Falconry, I had a pet hawk when I was a kid he would attack anything flying, now thats an idea, Kamakazi Hawks!!
Last edited:
prplbkrr
Member
I bet you could duck tape a green laser on this and take out a drone at a hundred yards!
Assault with a deadly potato?
When we ran out of potatoes, we put gravel in a hanky and shoved it down the tube. About as much gravel as what a potato weighs. It was a really NASTY shotgun, with all that huge "shot" blowing out of the barrel. We stripped a maple tree with an 4"-6" trunk of all it leaves. I know it would work better than bird shot.
After reading all the posts, should I ever shoot one down, I am getting rid of the evidence. "What drone, officer?"
Last edited:
Capt.Jim
Member
I guess most of you gunslingers have no idea how a drone works. 
First of all if a drone is hovering 100ft above your property, does not necessarily means spying on your sexy body. Drones also used to video a scenery at an horizontal angle. Like if you are standing on a bridge it doesn't mean you are filming the bridge itself. You will be filming the city skyline!
Maybe it's a drone used by a realtor to show the neighborhood or maybe the outline of the next door property which is listed for sale.
I understand your fury if you see a drone 5 ft away from your teenager daughter's window. But still, even under that circumstance you need to find a way to bring it down without firing a shot in a populated area.
I didn't realize some of you were so sensitive about your privacy to a level that you'll agree that firing a weapon is ok towards a non-life threatening object.
What if your neighbor's teenager son on their roof looking towards your backyard and acting like fiddling with the dish antenna while checking out your wife by your swimming pool? Do you fire a shot towards him too?
When you see a helicopter hovering above your house do some of you guys run and grab your AR15s and start shooting at it ?
It's strange and also funny to me that some of you guys think only threat to your privacy is a toy drone operated by your neighbor deserves to be shot down! But in every other case your privacy is protected.
For example a drone camera does not have the zoom ability while a handheld video camera can zoom into your right eye from 3 house away.
Flying a drone below 400ft AGL airspace is legal. Just because you don't like drones, shooting them down during their legal operation with an excuse like it violates your privacy doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Again think about the consequences, if you take a drone down and if there is not even a 1 second long video file of your property or anything that violates your privacy on its sim card, that will be one hell of an expensive target practice for you!
If you have deep pockets and enjoy updating drone owners equipment go ahead by all means!
First of all if a drone is hovering 100ft above your property, does not necessarily means spying on your sexy body. Drones also used to video a scenery at an horizontal angle. Like if you are standing on a bridge it doesn't mean you are filming the bridge itself. You will be filming the city skyline!
Maybe it's a drone used by a realtor to show the neighborhood or maybe the outline of the next door property which is listed for sale.
I understand your fury if you see a drone 5 ft away from your teenager daughter's window. But still, even under that circumstance you need to find a way to bring it down without firing a shot in a populated area.
I didn't realize some of you were so sensitive about your privacy to a level that you'll agree that firing a weapon is ok towards a non-life threatening object.
What if your neighbor's teenager son on their roof looking towards your backyard and acting like fiddling with the dish antenna while checking out your wife by your swimming pool? Do you fire a shot towards him too?
When you see a helicopter hovering above your house do some of you guys run and grab your AR15s and start shooting at it ?
It's strange and also funny to me that some of you guys think only threat to your privacy is a toy drone operated by your neighbor deserves to be shot down! But in every other case your privacy is protected.
For example a drone camera does not have the zoom ability while a handheld video camera can zoom into your right eye from 3 house away.
Flying a drone below 400ft AGL airspace is legal. Just because you don't like drones, shooting them down during their legal operation with an excuse like it violates your privacy doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Again think about the consequences, if you take a drone down and if there is not even a 1 second long video file of your property or anything that violates your privacy on its sim card, that will be one hell of an expensive target practice for you!
If you have deep pockets and enjoy updating drone owners equipment go ahead by all means!
Last edited:
I would say people are sensitive because of the camera, people don't like to be spied on, what's so hard to understand about that? How would you feel if a registered sex offender is flying a drone around your house? How about some thieves looking to see if anyone is home? You are cleaning your guns one day and a drone sees that and you become a target for a rip off.
I don't think any teenager is going to follow any FAA regs.
Here is what I predict will happen in the future.
Civilian drones will be involved with the following:
Crash into commercial aircraft.
Bombs and guns will be mounted to kill people. Probably start with the drug organizations in the US and then possibly Mexican drug cartels.
Reporters will use them to spy on actors in their homes.
Private investigators will use them for spying.
I can see how a pervert spying on people will someday get shot. It would not bother me one bit when that happens.
I don't think any teenager is going to follow any FAA regs.
Here is what I predict will happen in the future.
Civilian drones will be involved with the following:
Crash into commercial aircraft.
Bombs and guns will be mounted to kill people. Probably start with the drug organizations in the US and then possibly Mexican drug cartels.
Reporters will use them to spy on actors in their homes.
Private investigators will use them for spying.
I can see how a pervert spying on people will someday get shot. It would not bother me one bit when that happens.
keith44spl
Member
The responding officers didn't know what to charge the guy with...
So, they went for wanton endangerment and criminal mischief.
It'll get bargained down to discharging a firearm in a city limits and pre-trial diverted.
That is, if the drone shooter doesn't cap any more of em in the next six months.
That purty much the way it works in the Commonwealth.
Also, if the county attorney is up for re-election, the charges may be drop all together.
.
So, they went for wanton endangerment and criminal mischief.
It'll get bargained down to discharging a firearm in a city limits and pre-trial diverted.
That is, if the drone shooter doesn't cap any more of em in the next six months.
That purty much the way it works in the Commonwealth.
Also, if the county attorney is up for re-election, the charges may be drop all together.
.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
People are "spied on" with cameras every day of their life. If they think they aren't, they're living in a fantasy world.
keith44spl
Member
Drones, are they the new 'Peeping Toms' ????
.
.
Last edited:
DD357
Member
The issue of drones being used by peeping toms needs to be addressed. A case of the law not catching up to the technology.
Seraphim
Member
A response I posted elsewhere:
Lee
There is no indication of voyeuristic intent on the drone owners. No peeping Tom. There was no trespass - one does own the airspace above ones property. There may have been an invasion of privacy, since the man said he has a six foot privacy fence. It depends on whether or not the fence provided complete privacy.
Whether or not the operator of the drone violated a law, the shooter definitely did. The drone could have come down on the street in front of his home and caused an injury accident, or struck another person. And even though shotguns have more limit effective range, the shotgun blast could have injured another person he didn't know was on the other side of his privacy fence. A single piece of shot, even falling at terminal velocity, could have blinded, caused other serious injury, or even caused a fatality. The shooter was arrogantly stupid. One potential violation of the law doesn't excuse another.
I'm not condoning the drone operator. But I think it's moronic to admire, condone, or emulate such wanton stupidity.
Lee
There is no indication of voyeuristic intent on the drone owners. No peeping Tom. There was no trespass - one does own the airspace above ones property. There may have been an invasion of privacy, since the man said he has a six foot privacy fence. It depends on whether or not the fence provided complete privacy.
Whether or not the operator of the drone violated a law, the shooter definitely did. The drone could have come down on the street in front of his home and caused an injury accident, or struck another person. And even though shotguns have more limit effective range, the shotgun blast could have injured another person he didn't know was on the other side of his privacy fence. A single piece of shot, even falling at terminal velocity, could have blinded, caused other serious injury, or even caused a fatality. The shooter was arrogantly stupid. One potential violation of the law doesn't excuse another.
I'm not condoning the drone operator. But I think it's moronic to admire, condone, or emulate such wanton stupidity.
Seraphim
Member
In addition, there was no legal defense for destroying someone else's property. The shooter made a poor choice.
keith44spl
Member
Me thinks, me's struck a nerve, eh.......
When ya turn over a rock...Ya never know what ya gonna find.
When the responding officers returned the craft to it's owner, thus losing the chain of custody
of the evidence, they shot their own selves in the foot. No prosecutor is gonna touch this one with a ten foot pole.
.
When ya turn over a rock...Ya never know what ya gonna find.
When the responding officers returned the craft to it's owner, thus losing the chain of custody
of the evidence, they shot their own selves in the foot. No prosecutor is gonna touch this one with a ten foot pole.
.
Last edited:
Engine49guy
Member
Tons of info online but if your interested I would call or email the FCC and ask directly, perhaps it only applies to communications jamming but my interpretation is jamming any legal radio signal is looked down on by the FCC.
I just Googled it and a ton of stuff came up , this one looked interetsing
https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement
keith44spl
Member
It looks like the Kentucky Legislators are going to be looking
at a bill addressing such issues as this one, this summer.
.
at a bill addressing such issues as this one, this summer.
.
gregintenn
Member
Season open year 'round
NO LIMIT
Now that we have that settled, and I like to fish, let's talk about jet skis.
You ever work with lithium polymer batteries? You ever seen one explode? Did I write anything stating that the shooter was right or wrong in his actions. You really shouldn't ASSume someone's opinion of a side of a story they haven't commented on.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
