> How can anyone know these aren't a threat without knowing whose they are
They are - obviously - lying. This screams secrecy to me. All 3 know that these drones are not a threat. They aren't US military because they are a 3 letter agency program. They know there's nothing to worry about it, but they won't tell you any more details. Which has been the modus operandi for secret services for decades, so I'm surprised it's such an issue?
Exactly. That's what I think it is, government secrecy as their standard operating procedure. When unsure, don't say anything. After all, disclosing the public includes adversaries also knowing.
It seems to me what's happening is a "Streisand Effect" where the whole attitude of "go away, nothing to see here" is in fact maximizing attention and defeating the purpose of hiding this away.
If it were me I'd put a band-aid on a drone, fly it to a person, and say, "we are testing military capabilities to render first aid to our soldiers" or something similar. It's not a lie, it's good optics, adversaries can worry about it... then put whatever it is on ice for a while until the heat dies down
Can you think of a better way to normalize it? Think about the average persons response to online privacy these days for a good indicator about how people will feel about drone monitoring in a few years if this is normalized.
Please don't do this. You're not going to hit a drone at any appreciable altitude from a "high window" with a "nice rifle." One of the first rules of putting bullets downrange is to know what's behind your target, and you simply can't know that when you're shooting into the air.
If history is any indication it will be local police responding to shots fired. Many municipalities in NJ do not allow the discharge of a firearm within town limits. Morris Township has such a law in their code as well.
I don't think you understand. It sounds like you think I'm talking about defending youself against a human. I am not.
If a drone is trying to gain access to your home, do you have the right to defend against it using deadly force? Meaning; Force that would be deadly to a human attacker.
Or they will end up in situation that in most cases will end in their death. Which seems so obvious that they must be suicidal. Law enforcement can bring far more force to bear than a single person can defend against.
Not just that, there are plenty of documented instances of people being shot dead for being suspected of holding a gun. Do people really think they can just shoot a cop, close their front door, and go back to living their life?
All this talk about "2nd amendment is about deposing tyranny" and yet they weren't the ones protesting the wars in the middle east and the Patriot act, two recent and objectively tyrannical acts.
In fact, we know that the gun nuts in the US were broadly on the side of SUPPORTING those two things.
I think you're importing heavy bias into your interpretation. 2A types are interested in deposing tyranny when its directed against them by their own government. Not tyranny anywhere on the face of the Earth. If that's true, and I do believe it is, it is not at all incompatible with foreign wars, whether one believes they're tyrannical or not.
> 2A types are interested in deposing tyranny when its directed against them by their own government
The NRA's complete silence on the murder of Breonna Taylor by government agents, as retaliation for Kenneth Walker exercising his 2A natural right to self defense (at home at night!). I'm unable to find a kind way of explaining that away. "Freedom" culture seems to have become just as post-reality detached from effective values as everything else.
Full transparency: I think the only "Tyranny" that "2A types" care about is a law banning guns. They seem to love the militarization of the police, police having zero accountability ("They do a hard job", so do I but I don't get to shoot someone cause I was spooked and then go on vacation), and literally vote for Trump, who objectively has done more to remove gun rights than any democrat since clinton.
An absurd amount of the most aggressive 2A types are literally just cops, you know, the actual boot that would stand on the neck in any tyranny situation. They'll scream and cry about the ATF and then talk with their cop buddies while smoking some MJ, in a state without recreational cannabis laws.
In short, they are dishonest, whether they are smart enough to realize it or not.
To be clear, I have a lot of guns, but it's not because I have any special love of the US BoR or even a belief that they are useful against state actors. Or, even a real enjoyment of shooting.
I have guns because my neighbors all have guns and think queer/trans/atheist/lefty/etc folks are literally demonic. They are explicitly waiting for any suspension of regular government in which they can play their fantasy of a "purge". I'd much rather be collecting pretty dresses, but this is how it is where I live.
I would say that the parent comment is accurate in noting 2A loving folks don't want government authority applied to -them-, but it's -only- to them and many are living in the privileged fantasy that this power will never be applied to them and only to their grievances- hence the boot licking they do.
I don't think that's dishonesty, I think it is delusional. And they generally go from being "normal conservatives" to out right fascists just as soon as that fantasy weakens even a little.
I like the idea that the government will show up without identifying themselves just so people can live out their fantasy of shooting someone without getting into trouble.
They will absolutely identify themselves. The reason you should be worried is the endless, expensive process you’ll be subjected to after they knock on your door.
I don't know much about america, but after shooting down a secret drone, you really would assume that people knocking at your door really is the situation you think it is ?
You pay a bunch of money to someone who has a Dash 8 or similar common commercial aircraft. These drones probably don't have 1000mi range.
And even if you can't follow one all the way to its destination you can still take some real good pictures with flash and plaster them all over the news and wait for someone to say "I pump fuel and sweep floors at airport X and a bunch of dickbags with black suburbans and bad attitudes have a hanger full of those things".
Since you're replying to a question about tracking fixed wing it's worth mentioning that their range can be well over 1000 miles as some of the Iranian Shahed drones have a range of almost 1600 miles.
That's a 400 lbs, 11 ft by 8 ft UAV powered by a 50 hp gasoline piston engine. It's half the size of a Cessna 172 and makes a similar noise, observers would for sure classify it as an airplane.
A Dash 8 or other similar commercial aircraft lacks the radar necessary to track an aerial target. Most airliners have weather radar but it's not really useful for this purpose. In much of the airspace around that region a Dash 8 would also have to operate under ATC control; the pilot can't just fly wherever without getting violated.
Yeah, unless someone really really big is behind this (or it's aliens), then a US military drone should be able to track and follow one of the unknown drones for a while.
Nah. None of the publicly acknowledged US military drones carries the type of X-band air search radar that would be necessary to reliably track a small aerial target. There is some stuff in development with that capability but it hasn't been fielded yet, and for safety reasons it certainly wouldn't be authorized for flight in controlled civilian airspace or over populated areas.
These are the least-bad theories, but if an agency is desperate enough to deploy the drones night after night even after being noticed, then that's extremely foreboding. What would drive them to do that, a dirty bomb that needs to be found with drone sensors?
Personally I'd rather have evidence of this before dwelling on all the possible tragedies here.
They are - obviously - lying. This screams secrecy to me. All 3 know that these drones are not a threat. They aren't US military because they are a 3 letter agency program. They know there's nothing to worry about it, but they won't tell you any more details. Which has been the modus operandi for secret services for decades, so I'm surprised it's such an issue?