Posted on 03/25/2016 9:44:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Imagine this: A disgruntled citizen borrows $30,000 from his credit cards. With the money he buys a sophisticated 3D printer off eBay and begins secretly printing and building a hundred drones in his garage. Then he downloads internet blueprints of 3D gun printing tech that can be adapted to arm his drones.
The terrorist decides he wants some of his drones outfitted to carry droppable Molotov cocktails and glass containers of hydrochloric acid. He pre-programs some of the drones to shoot or crash into specific targets using over-the-counter navigation software. Other drones the terrorist plans to fly himself.
He decides to target the downtown of a city, or a college campus, or a crowded strip mall, or even a football stadium during a playoff game. He's created a warzone with his drone army.
Welcome to the new world of terrorism. This type of attack hasn't happened yet, but the technology to do it is already here--and getting cheaper and more easily accessible every day....
(Excerpt) Read more at motherboard.vice.com ...
“A disgruntled citizen”
So, the assumption is that terrorists are disgruntled citizens?
Trans humanist tech bass turd punk can go straight to hell with his provocative dismiss of the US Constitution:
“So how can a nearly 230-year-old document keep up? Take a deep breath loyal constitutionalists—and repeat after me: It can’t. The US Constitution has to be gutted. We need to create a constitution that’s malleable and ready to adjust radically every few years to changing times and accelerating technology. And that document must throw nearly all historical precedent out the door.”
Eff him and his fellow Silicon Valley sociopath Dr. Frankensteins.
Same thing we do every night pinky..
No 3D printing needed, just the credit card and a modicum of mechanical aptitude. It’s all off-the-shelf.
I bought a cheap drone for myself last Christmas. It has a camera on it that transmits back to my Android phone. There is enough of a delay that it is not possible to fly using the camera. It also is fairly tricky to fly; it takes lots of practice. You could never fly more than one at a time. The range of the transmitter is a 1000 feet at most. The one I purchased can carry 3 or 4 ounces so you can put a higher resolution camera which is why I purchased it... to take pictures of our house when we put it up for sale.
The parts that could be printed are cheap to purchase so it wouldn’t really make any sense to do it. Buying all the other parts that would be necessary to make a working drone would cost far more than what I paid for mine. It could not carry even the lightest handgun that I know of and even if it could, trying to get it calibrated with the camera would be nearly impossible.
This article is more of a weird fantasy at this point.
it means MIDDLE CLASS WHITE GUY!!!
AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
so ####ing stupid.
The most dangerous weapon that can be possessed by a person of evil intent is intelligence.
We are lucky that most highly intelligent people are moral and sane.
The unibomber is an example of what a VERY intelligent man can do with just the common items anyone has at hand and almost nothing in the way of weaponry and cash.
A 3D printed drone army is a frightening possibility and would be a good plot for a movie... I suggest Christopher Walken as the evil genius directing the droid army of his own creation. James Woods would also be a great choice in the lead role...
I love the 3D tech posts 2DV! we need more of ‘em as a relief from the endless election posts.
This is the money phrase. It calls for a constitution that isn't a constitution, just a charade.
There is nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. It isn't outdated. It is just as valid today as the day it was ratified. Keeping and bearing arms is not the same thing as plotting and preparing for terrorist attacks on society. Something the author seems to equate.
I see this theme crop up every ten years or so; "Weapons technology has advanced so the Second Amendment is no longer viable." It's never true. What is true is that the Second Amendment is independent of technology. It was well thought out. And it distilled the essence of what was necessary for the individual to defend his freedom.
Does anyone ask these people why they trust the government so much more than the “disgruntled” person?
I would bet that the government has this already to protect against the pissed off masses they are parasites upon. It is probably funded to kill US citizens in a continuity of government program. Just my guess.
Exactly. Here's one example from a footnote in Slouching Towards Gomorrah =>
The Second Amendment states somewhat ambiguously: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first part of the Amendment supports proponents of gun control by seeming to make the possession of firearms contingent upon being a member of a state-regulated militia. The next part is cited by opponents of gun control as a guarantee of the individual's right to possess such weapons, since he can always be called to militia service.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government.
Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.
Robert Bork
Yes, the Second Amendment, as drafted, IS ready for that. What is NOT ready is the judiciary who imposes restrictions on the ability of “every village and farm” to answer the alarm with the tools necessary to do the job.
Pull!
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
-- John Adams
This is an absurd fantasy, written by someone who apparently has no idea that there is a vast gulf between military drones and the quad-copter things that you can buy here in the US. Either that or the author knows it and seeks to blur the distinction and generate fear where it isn’t warranted.
‘Droppable Molotov cocktails and bottles of hydrochloric acid’? Please. That’s the kind of thing kids come up with.
....let alone aim it. Then there's the little problem of recoil.........
Well, yes and no: the current state of telecommanded hobby drones at the bottom end are like you described. They require an operator to fly them. The upper end of UAVs are autonomous and have an autopilot and GPS and can fly themselves to wherever they are sent. There are even combinations of UAVs that fly as interconnected formation of drones that act as one unit.
The military stuff is a long way from the Radio Shack version you're describing - but easy enough to build at home.
The author is full of it when he links drone ownership to the Second Amendment, since an armed drone is no different than bomb making and not a self-defense weapon, any more than a mortar is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.