This may be what pushes me over the edge to purchase a firearm

[99th_Monkey]

So if one of these f*cking things starts stalking and spying on me,
I'll just shoot the damn thing out of the sky. Problem solved.

Drones Coming To A Sky Near You As Interest Surges
By MARCUS WOHLSEN 04/ 1/12 03:55 PM ET

BERKELEY, Calif. -- Sharp-eyed dog walkers along the San Francisco Bay waterfront may have spotted a strange-looking plane zipping overhead recently that that looked strikingly like the U.S. stealth drone captured by Iran in December.

A few key differences: The flying wing seen over Berkeley is a fraction of the size of the CIA's waylaid aircraft. And it's made of plastic foam. But in some ways it's just like a real spy plane.

The 4 1/2-foot-wide aircraft, built by software engineers Mark Harrison and Andreas Oesterer in their spare time, can fly itself to specified GPS coordinates and altitudes without any help from a pilot on the ground. A tiny video camera mounted on the front can send a live video feed to a set of goggles for the drone's view of the world below.

"It's just like flying without all the trouble of having to be up in the air," Harrison said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/drones-coming-to-a-sky-near-you_n_1395394.html

[Ian David]

1. You would need a damn big gun and have to be an incredible shot.

If you want to take down a drone, you need to buy a drone of your own.

Or a missile launcher.

But I wonder if you can train a falcon to hunt drones?

[99th_Monkey]

3. I'm a pretty good shot actually.

Did you go to the link and see the actual size? only 4.5 feet wingspan .. big enough to see from afar ..
just the right size for shooting down I'd say.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. I doubt you're a good enough shot to hit something 4' in size from hundreds of feet

away... when it's MOVING.

And if you're somewhere in public with a rifle? Good luck with that.

[99th_Monkey]

29. actually I'm just having fun with this string

have no intention of buying a gun, much less firing it "in public"
to shoot down these intrusive evil little machines.

Plus I actually can imagine one or two good uses for them, like
spying on the Police during Occupy demonstrations to use alongside
with the scanner-info.

But seriously, this is a troubling development and does have some
serious privacy-related issues associated with these being marketed
on e-bay for general use (of course ONLY for those who can AFFORD
to spend money on trinkets unassociated with basic survival like
food, shelter, transportation, etc. i.e. is one more tool for the very
rich to manipulate, bribe, blackmail, etc. those with less resources.

[Go Vols]

33. .

Its not that hard if you practice,especially if the target is at a constant speed.

[napoleon_in_rags]

37. A four foot target from 100 yards isn't that hard. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. with a pistol? um...

I would like you to hit a 4' stationary target at 100 yards with a pistol.

[napoleon_in_rags]

72. Oh, I didn't see the pistol part.

I can't hit the broad side of a barn at 5 yards with a pistol.

[magical thyme]

42. yeah, because nobody has ever shot a flying bird! nt

[madinmaryland]

64. Yeah. If Dead-eye Dick Cheney can hit a bird...

[magical thyme]

70. a lot of my neighbors eat by hunting

and yes, that includes shooting birds. From hundreds of feet away. While moving.

[Major Nikon]

32. It would be a pretty good trick

You have to be pretty close to shoot down something that's moving and be a pretty good shot. I would guess a surveillance drone is going to be flying at least 200' in the air, which is well outside the effective range of any shotgun shooting lead or steel shot.

[99th_Monkey]

34. Like I said here, I'm just having a little fun with this idea

nothing very serious, ok?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=505152

[Shankapotomus]

43. If shooting fails

send up your own drone and crash into it.

[slampoet]

10. Actually all you need is a GPS jammer. That's how Iran did it.

[99th_Monkey]

30. I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the tip. nt

[slampoet]

39. There is a 26 page white papaer on how to do it floating around the internet.

if you look you can find it.

[-..__...]

40. Bofors for the win...

and it's approved for civilian ownership and use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm

Only drawback is that it could get expensive feeding the damn thing.

[Ian David]

41. "Hey, you kids... get off my damn lawn!" n/t

[TheWraith]

46. Civilian ownership?

I REALLY doubt you could find one for sale that predated the 1986 machine gun ban.

[-..__...]

48. They've been in production since 1933.

I agree... there's probably not that many out there, but anyone out there with the money to spare
could probably pick one up.

[TheWraith]

58. Yeah, but it had to be in civilian ownership prior to 1986. nt

[-..__...]

61. Yes...

which comes down to how many pre-86 Bofors were/are in civilian hands.

Could be a dozen or more... maybe fewer.

Point is, if you have the cash, and can pass the background check, one can be yours for the taking...

Here's one for $145,000...

http://www.ordnance.com/content/1938-austrian-finnish-40mm-bofor

That's not too bad a price actually when you consider a transferable GE Minigun goes for around 400k (and
there are only 11-12 currently owned).

[Logical]

2. Nothing illegal about it. Neighbors can photo your house now. And shooting....

a bullet at it would be destruction of property.

[99th_Monkey]

4. When people are using their "property" to spy on me

they forfeit their right to whine about the person being spied upon shooting it out of the sky.

[Logical]

5. That is not true actually. A plane can fly over your house now and photo you all they want....

A neighbor on a ladder can take pictures of you in your yard all they want.

A person can stand on your road and take 100 photos of your house.

And you shooting at the device would be destruction of property (if you hit it) and a felony of reckless endangerment since the bullet will land somewhere else maybe hitting a house or a person.

Think more, react less.

[FirstLight]

7. how is that fucking legal?

Is that the part of the Patriot Act that tells people to report others acting suspicious?

That's fucking bullshit...I'm with the OP, I'd shoot that fucker down, or track down the bastard stalking me and fuck him up real good, or both.

this world is getting crazier by the minute, good thing I live in a relatively low populated area, cuz I sure wouldn;t want to be IN the crazy when the SHTF

[Logical]

12. "Fuck him up good", sounds like something Zimmerman would say!

[freshwest]

19. Don't do it. Possible consequences to you and others:

First, you miss and hit something else.

Second, you miss and the bullet kills someone.

Third, you might be being filmed and be arrested.

Fourth, they may have armed the effing thing or it may have a companion that is armed and shoots your ass.

Because science fiction isn't fiction anymore. We are living it now, and your neighbors, coworkers and others are making a living creating this, not just the government. Your best defense is to convince them to not do it. Shooting a drone won't change the people are making money off of this.

The Patriot Act was created to funnel tax dollars to defense contractors. Every region is getting this money, so are universities, police departments, and many other people. It's an industry that you or I don't support, but they're not going to give the money they're getting.

The enemy is not the drone! It is the mentality that mindlessly makes these things to make money. Think!

[99th_Monkey]

31. So we're supposed to just go along .. ho-hum .. and wave to the drone and smile?

Where's the end to this kind of intrusive shit? It has to stop somewhere and
this seems as good a place as any.

[freshwest]

35. No, you have to confront the people making them. That is the basis of this. Jobs. Love of high tech.

We are furious about this, terrified of some nightmarish world where we cannot breathe and stand under the sun without being interfered with.

But even here on DU, I've read people applauding the use of drones by Sea Shepherd to find the Japanese whaling fleet. And Tim Pool, and others involved with OWS in NYC, made a drone to film the action. It's one of his films archived on TimCast.

We applaud this when we say they are being used in a good cause... That does not stop the technology being used in a bad way. Tech is neutral, but the mindset that wants more and the number of people that are being trained to engineer and manufacture and operate remote control devices, is growing.

We can have this grid of control but we may never be able to say how it's used. Because the genie if out of the bottle, like the A-bomb, no going back. The fear comes from the bogeymen we've been told are after us and seek to harm us. I feel that privatization is the major evil here.

Imagine this database and the remote control of these weapons in the hands of a rabid teabagger. Do we trust them to do the right thing? What if they see the right thing as going after us?

We've got a big problem in this country and world, speeding toward a future that most of us have only slight glimpses of. Take a moment to look at the youtube videos of Michio Kaku. The powerful have their followers and they see great reward in this.

They are the ones we have to convince. Shoot down one drone, and another will appear. Keep on doing it and they'll employ some other weapon. The thing, the dead things running around are not the problem. It's the people who profit. They'll just make a new thing to do the job if they're not shown another way.

I am probably older than you, and this horrifies me more than I can say. All I know is that it is not the tool that we must fight, it is the hand that wields it; but more than that, the mindset.

Not well expressed but I tried. Don't fear this, don't accept it. Work to change people by using something different than the tools they are using on us.

[99th_Monkey]

36. On the contrary, you have expressed your views very well.

But I can't legally shoot the people sending the drones (not that I would anyway, but just sayin')

This is very troubling to me, extrapolating how this drone thing can easily become how
the 1% can ratchet up controls, hire creeps to use these things 24/7 to "go after" whoever
they have a whimsy to go after.

Whatever "right to privacy" we may have once had in some distant past, is being eroded quicker
than I can say "There's one of those damn drones again Ma, I'd best get my shotgun"..

I'm surprised Pakistan hasn't developed some "drone-killer" technology by now, since
they seem to be so upset (and rightfully so) about how they're being used to murder their
citizens, at will, who the US considers "suspect".

[Shankapotomus]

44. That it might be armed

is a good defense for shooting it down. What if some nut DOES attach a gun to one of these things and tries to kill someone without being traced or caught? Would you say it should be legal to fly one of those drones over somebody's house then?

[freshwest]

47. In the case cited, we're discussing government drones, which are armed and controlled remotely now.

The state of Texas has contracted for many military weapons and they have 'consent' manufactured by media generated fear of illegals, etc. But more than that, it's become a profitable industry.

I'm not saying it 'should' be. I don't want it to be, at all. And I'm scared of it. But there are plenty of people with vested interests in this and it's not just the CEOs. Explore those around you who are military, ex-military or work in these fields, if you have the chance, and you'll find out it's not just the government who will not only allow this, but support it and profit from it.

As far as a rogue neighbor employing a drone with a gun strapped on it, I believe we're still safe from that for the most part. I'm not sure what we're looking at down the road, though. One big national crisis as the CT folks say, and all kinds of things have happened. But look at all the media manufactured hysteria that Obama has faced down, despite their efforts.

First one, the Mexican swine flu epidemic, which the purveyors of medical supplies said should force everyone to get a shot. That they would make millions like they did with the anthrax scare, a much more serious one, was their desire for a repeat performance. Obama said it would be optional, not mandated, and not to be afraid, just be careful and the government would help pay for the vaccine for those who wanted it.

Since then, it's been this or that event the media has promoted to drum up their owner's business, such as the events in the Middle East. Obama hasn't folded, and there was the newspaper owner in Atlanta that called for him to be killed for failing to go to war for Israel and of course the traditional North Korean scare, like the Iran nuke scare. The fact is, the Chinese would not let them get away with it. And Iran's neighbors won't let them get away. But the media keeps on trying to get consent from the American people for it.

The ravenous corporate machines will not stop their push to make more profit from this and other things. But I don't see any desire on Obama's part to start getting everyone's business with drones. But see, he doesn't need to do that, even if he did. This is a state to state thing, and corporations to cities thing.

Okay, too much rambling for your question.

If you want to shoot at anything, it's your right. But you may not want to be wearing a scope and carry a gun every single minute of the day out of the terror that someone is looking at you from above, or even armed. How could you tell if something in the sky had a weapon, without turning into a Robocop or something, always on alert?

I bought my first atlas of China in the seventies. Lovely color pictures, close up, gorgeous. All taken by the CIA with their satellites at the time, as stated on the cover. This technology has been around for years, not just since Google Earth.

When I lived in a rural area twenty years ago and had an agricultural exemption, we were informed by the Farm Bureau that planes would be flying overhead and photographing to see if we were actually using the land to justify the exemption. We also had helicopters and planes going overhead from the big military bases that were flying very low to the ground, it seemed.

The DEA flew with equipment to see if someone was growing pot, and sure enough, we saw a raid one day on a piece of forested land. Inside the woods, the next door neighborhood explained, there was a clearing that could only be seen from the sky. Someone was expecting a level of privacy that they did not have.

In Oregon, an officer was filed after being charged with misusing a piece of military equipment to see through walls because he decided it would be exciting to see his next neighbors doing the deed in bed. Think of all this military equipment the corporations are selling around the country. It's hard to go up against this mentality when it's your locals doing this stuff.

As far as me wanting this? Permitting it? Hell, no! But the reality is, that other people do. And we don't know who they are, so it goes into the area of can't do it and have to avoid it.

It's all part of what I call the war on consciousness. Where we don't have the time or space to be free and unmolested anymore. I grew up thinking that there was nothing between me and the heavens, outer space, the planets, the sun, except the atmosphere and Van Allen belt. It made me fell more free to be myself, not answering to this hive mentality we seem to be herded into now. But I was ignorant, since the satellites were already there, but now we know more and the net is getting tighter. We feel trapped in this physical sphere of existance at times, in a state of stress. But that is NOT all that is happening. We are as free to be ourselves as we ever were, but with more awareness.

I'm sorry I can't answer any better.

[Shankapotomus]

53. "can't answer any better"?

Whoa, you deserve a rec and some R & R after that answer!

If I had more to add I would but you pretty much covered it.

For the record though, I don't own a gun and personally wouldn't shoot at something like that. But I would run and hide.

[randome]

56. Agree with Shankapotomus. Excellent points.

It's a much smaller and interconnected world than the one we grew up in. It has its pluses and minuses.

[krispos42]

27. Your only privacy is in your home...

...with the digital cable off and the internet idle. Best leave your cel phone off, too.

[ManiacJoe]

59. It is legal because no law declares it otherwise.

[slackmaster]

6. You need a shotgun for that

[99th_Monkey]

15. LOL - funny clip

I used to hunt ducks and pheasants, so I know how to use shotgun,
and how to "lead" the target, depending on how far away it is.

Good call.

[Art_from_Ark]

66. I remember seeing that in 1973 or 74

It was some skit about a prison talent contest, but I don't remember the name of the program.

[slackmaster]

68. The program was called Saturday Night Live

HTH

[Art_from_Ark]

69. I didn't think it was Saturday Night Live because I almost never watched SNL

At the time, it was on in the same time slot as the program I always watched, Monty Python (KOED Tulsa). Checking the Internet, it seems that the skit was broadcast on SNL in January 1976, so I guess that is where I saw it.

[tularetom]

9. If you can shoot waterfowl at a distance of 50 feet or so

you should be able to bring down a foam plastic drone aircraft with a 4 1/2 foot wingspan.

In California however, you'd have to use steel shot.

[seattleblah]

11. Murder is not the solution to...

the brutality and disregard of rights by the thugs in blue. Please reconsider your decision to escalate the violence.

[99th_Monkey]

16. WTF are you talking about ... "murder??" these are DRONES

definition: drone "a remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile."

[seattleblah]

18. And when he starts taking pot-shots at the sky...

you really think no one is going to get hurt? You should like one of those gun owners that doesn't understand the violent consequences of owning one of those things.

[OccupyTheIRS]

21. Good post n/t

[99th_Monkey]

24. I feel I have a right to NOT be filmed, monitored and spied upon by whoever

can afford to buy one of these intrusive little mechanized pieces of shit..

I guess we must agree to disagree.

[quakerboy]

17. While I do not think shooting down flying things is a good idea, generally speaking

I do not think that shooting down an unmanned drone can be considered murder. Unless we are a lot closer to skynet than I was aware of.

[99th_Monkey]

25. I don't think using such technology to spy on private citizens is a "good idea" either.

This is obscene intrusion into people's sacrosanct private space, and
they should be outlawed for that reason, or licensed like a firearm.

Short of that, be warned: any drone that comes after me had better
be prepared to be blasted out of the sky.

[Nye Bevan]

13. So to what height above your house can you legally shoot down flying aircraft?

Have you checked?

[99th_Monkey]

26. I seriously doubt that there is ANY laws about these hideous little machines

to date ..as they are just in process of being deployed willy nilly to who ever
has an inclination to spy on their fellow human beings; creating yet another
situation where those who can pay (the better-off folks) can spy on the less
well endowed financially.

It's bullshit, and I'm calling it for what it is.

[Fumesucker]

14. Good luck with that..

[99th_Monkey]

22. Thanks

hopefully I can avoid such a huge swarm. I don't think I'm so unpopular or "dangerous" to
warrant more than 1 or 2 drones.

[AsahinaKimi]

63. Thats like something out of a sci fi movie..

one in which a swarm of drones swarm in an attack.. with explosives or projectiles with poison darts. Scary!

[Ter]

20. Forget shooting it down

Since it's computer operated, it likely can be hacked by one of those elite hackers, and remotely flown under new control.

[99th_Monkey]

23. If it is "shot down" it won't matter what "new control"

may want to happen. It will be a little pile of rubble.

I think I can claim "self-defense" since it's now "legal" for my gov't to
murder me with a drone if they think I might have some affinity or
affiliation with someone who may be associated in some ill-defined
way with "al-Qaeda" whoever the fuck that is.

[Ter]

45. I think you misunderstood my post

I said the poster trying shoot it down would be a terrible idea.A much more effective way would be hacking and taking control, if it's even possible.

[Taverner]

50. Oh no, I'm sure the police, FBI, DEA and DHS all have our best interests at heart

Questioning them is bad for freedom

[99th_Monkey]

65. you are correct that I misunderstood.

I'm not much of a techy, so I'm stuck with shooting it down.

NOTE: I'm just having fun with this idea, I'm not REALLY going out to buy a gun.

[chrisa]

28. "It's just like flying without all the trouble of having to be up in the air,"

Eh?

[Fumesucker]

57. Lots of people who will never have the money to fly enjoy flight simulators..

This is basically taking the flight simulator one step further, First Person Video is actually pretty neat.. Semi wish fulfillment for those who have dreams of flying..

&feature=relmfu

[chrisa]

71. Incredible video!

[Taverner]

49. Welcome to the police state

Please leave your constitution at the door, thank you

[jpak]

51. Yeah - the Taliban and Iraqi Insurgents shot down a lot of drones with shotguns.

Good luck with that.

and Oh Yeah - the muzzle flashes will give you away...

yup

[randome]

52. LOL! Starting shooting out all the red-light cameras, too, while you're at it!

[Fumesucker]

60. Already been done..

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

[FSogol]

54. Rampant Paranoia is always something to consider when purchasing a firearm.

[randome]

55. I hear it improves the aim.

[fascisthunter]

62. lol

[Katashi_itto]

67. I predict an increase in DIY: Homemade Surace to Air Anti Drone Missile

1st Step Radar:

For about $250, you can make your very own space-age spy tech, following an MIT professor's instructions.

It can capture high-resolution images of small objects -- like a message written in push pins that had been hidden behind a foam plate.

Using a garage-door opener, microwave parts and a cordless drill, Gregory Charvat made a working synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system, the same kind of technology the military and NASA use. Charvat used algorithms to combine the back-scattered radar images into a high-res photos of things in his garage, like a Cannondale bike and a model F-14.

SAR is useful because it combines multiple radar images to create higher-resolution images than would otherwise be possible. There are a couple ways to do it -- by using a single antenna on a moving object, like an airplane or spacecraft, or by using multiple small antennae scattered over a large area. NASA uses SAR to create detailed maps of other planets, and it can be used to map the spread of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance.


DIY, Rebecca Boyle, DIY, diy projects, model airplanes, radar, radar sensors, synthetic aperture radar
Charvat notes that developing new SAR algorithms is difficult because the technology is so expensive. But his system is cheap: It's a frequency-modulated continuous wave radar with a homodyne radar architecture, made from a discarded Genie garage-door opener and an old microwave.


http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-06/diy-synthetic-aperture-radar-system-250

2nd step,
Surface to air missile