-39 votes

The Constitution supports Drones and so do I.

The issue of the United States’ use of drones typically draws and immediate and intense negative response from individuals in the liberty movement, and rightfully so. However, just as bad people and bad policy can give an unfair negative reputation to things like “assault” rifles, the technology behind drones and the potential positive benefit they provide has also taken an unfair negative turn.
As scary as drone technology can be, and the more I learn, the scarier it seems, it still doesn’t seem to be any different than any other technology which can be used by our military to be more deadly. The key element of drone warfare has been that it has allowed our President to commit acts of war without having to risk American casualties, which has unfortunately convinced him to commit those acts without a declaration of war. In addition, drones can fly at altitudes which keep them out of the site of civilians on the ground, so our military can carry out strikes virtually undetected. This appears to have emboldened our military leaders to the point that they are committing acts which they may have previously thought to be politically dangerous.
As bad as this seems, it isn’t much different from the change in warfare which occurred with the development of ICBM’s (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles). The President was able to order bombing strikes into countries without having to make political moves to allow an actual military presence in that country. Or, consider the development of stealth fighters and bombers which has given the President the opportunity to bypass Congress and the media and commit acts of war with a higher level of deniability.
As with many examples in our military history, drone technology has simply provided the military with a more efficient way to do what the military does. The real problem isn’t the drone, or the technology. The problem is simply that the same people who employ this technology illegally, are the same people who employed ICBM’s and Stealth’s illegally. The morality of the drone issue is no different than the morality of owning an AR-15. The devices are beautiful and a monument to the progress of mankind. The way our government has used them however, is something vastly less glamorous.
Having said that, the question then becomes, “How do we prevent the misuse of such technology”? The beauty of drones as compared to other instruments of government tomfoolery, is that drone technology is relatively cheap. It is accessible to the point that the private citizen has a very realistic chance of steering the market towards benefiting private home security instead of government war mongering. The undeniable truth of technology is that whether it is the government or the mob or your next door neighbor, someone is going to find an illegal use for nearly every new technology that arises. Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies, rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personal liberty.
As the police begin using tiny 4 inch drones to peak into a house to see the position of a hostage taker, some burglar will use the same technology to scout out a potential target. As the military develops drones with the ability to strike deep in enemy territory or defend our homeland from potential threats, some politician will decide to use that technology in monitoring civilian populations here at home, with complete disregard for our basic Constitutional rights.
As these advances take place, we can either sing the song of the left, who tend to feel that government regulation solves all issues, or we can think like free market capitalists. We can think like people who don’t fear technology. Instead, we embrace its ability to enhance our freedom. Whether it is a policeman, or a burglar, or a policeman/burglar who uses a tiny drone to invade my house, my job isn’t to rally for legislation against the existence of the drone, rather, my job is to see how I can legally, morally, and effectively use that drone technology to defend my home. If an AR-15 is good enough to protect my family, then so is a tiny helicopter.
Does this mean tiny micro-machine warfare outside my house between my ‘bots and their ‘bots? I don’t know. As with most developments in the free market, it is the innovators who see the future, and the public who votes on the outcome with their spending dollars. I don’t know what the future will look like, but what I do know is that in a world where the police and the mob will both have tiny drones small enough to evade me, and lethal enough to kill me, I’d feel much safer knowing that my Second Amendment Right extends to my ability to own my own personal defense drones.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A Very Dark Government

Whenever this very dark and evil government comes up with ANYTHING new, you can be assured that it is NOT for the good of "We The People" or for anyone on this planet who is not one of them!

Never forget just who these people are of, and who they serve!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

I'm getting my drone up and

I'm getting my drone up and running. In fact, I posted a video of the electronics testing not too long ago.


Parameters Of Drone Use are defined by the Constitution

Snakepit22 said, "Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies, rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personal liberty."

I disagree. First, the Constitution and Bill of Rights define the parameters of drone use, not the "free" market. Second, in a society based on the rule of law there is no "free" market. As with drones, market parameters are defined by our founding documents. For example, during the Cold War, US multinationals were prohibited from outsourcing manufacturing to the Soviet Union even though labor costs in the U.S.S.R. were much lower. Why were US/USSR partnerships prohibited? Because the Communist ideology is a direct threat to our unalienable rights and gov't is obligated to secure our rights. So allowing US companies to form economic relationships beneficial to the Soviet Union would've been treason.

The terms "free market" and "free trade" are euphemisms for the principles of anarchy. Multinational corporations are, by definition, loyal to no country. Their directors and financiers have concocted the free market scheme as a means to crush the sovereignty of nation states. In particular, nation states like the U.S. which are based on the concept of equality before the law and individual liberties. That's why US multinationals have partnered up with Communist China's totalitarian regime and are redistributing Trillions of dollars of capital, technology and hard assets to China's ruling Communist Party.

Chinese State owned companies, financed by Wall Street, dominate all major industries in China and are acquiring Trillions of dollars of assets around the world, including America. Wall Street traitors are using Chinense State owned companies as a backdoor way to create a command and control economy in America. This should be obvious to liberty lovers like snakepit because Wall Street supports gun control, amnesty for illegals, Obamacare, lethal drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and their business model is based on systemic fraud. Their clever free market rhetoric is a slick PR campagin designed to promote their lawless world view, and they're using U.S. tax dollars (0% money from the Fed) to do it.

For more info on the treasonous US/China partnership, check out my posts titled "China Tortures Religious and Free Speech Advocates" and "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy". Here are the links:


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

free market means anarchy?

On what planet does free market mean anarchy? Does capitalism mean anarchy? Because that is all that I'm implying here, an economy where the state doesn't control the means of production and the individual has 100% rights to the owner ship of their capital.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

On Planet Wall Street, a free market means anarchy

In a Constitutional Republic, capitalists are not free from the rule of law, so the term "free market" is a misnomer. We live in a hostile world where totalitarian regimes, like Communist China, want to destroy the individual liberties afforded by a Republic. U.S. law provides a legal remedy for those who would betray our Republic and give aid to our enemies, and that remedy is treason.

Jim O'Neill is Chairman of Asset Management for Goldman Sachs. He admits that Goldman was instrumental in structuring global markets in a way that gives competitive advantage to our enemies who run Communist China. On Planet Wall Street, this is called the free market. I call it treason because China is a brutal dictatorship and State Owned Enterprises (SOE's) control all major Chinese industries. Thanks to Goldman Sach and US multinationals who've partnered up with the Communists, Chinese SOE's are buying large chunks of the U.S. economy. Again, I call this treason. Pat Mulloy is a member of the US/China Economic and Security Review Commission. In this video clip, he says trade deficits are selling out America, and as a result, a foreign gov't (China) will end up owning large chunks of the U.S. economy.


Here's a link to Jim O'Neill on the Charlie Rose show taking credit for coining the term BRIC (emerging markets). When Charlie Rose asked him if he worries about a China bubble, O'Neill said "Some days I wake up and think, what have I created with this damn thing."


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Not one person in government

Signs their name to "uphold "this Constitution" thus not supporting "this Constitution" What is the Constitution of the United States? A label not a document. Citizens can say whatever they want to say about the document call the Constitution of the United States the citizens don't know how to require the ones in government to uphold the written Constitution the guidelines for this is in Article VI...time to get a frickin clue people. Government oaths are meaningless the oaths are legislated and based on an oral oath of the President of the United States, not subscribed and oral doesn't mean anything but to acknowledge a position of employment. GET A CLUE.

Drones in and of themselves aren't the problem...

it's their potential uses. Sure, there are plenty of ways that drones could be used to better society (such as, for example, helping police more easily track down criminals) but they could just as easily be used for political expediency and maintaining power.

Like with every contentious issue, it seems the only solution is to work our asses off to get as many virtuous, liberty-loving people as possible into public office.

I don't play, I commission the league.

The tab button can create an

Creating some indents can help make your dribble fascist non-sense easier to read, fyi

ecorob's picture

The "government" knows it can NOT defeat Americans...

under "normal" circumstances with everyday AMERICAN soldiers because these soldiers, marines, navy, air force, and coast guard people ARE STILL AMERICANS.

WE, the people, will OVERTHROW their nazi/zionist tyranny.

THAT'S why they must have 30,000 drones (and growing exponentially) so they can push a button somewhere and kill Americans all over the country without prejudice.

I hope people can wake up to this before it is too late.

You, snakepit, are nothing more than a snake in the grass. I burn snakes in the grass!

If you think the average American can have drone technology at their fingertips and the where-with-all to conduct warfare or even spying with it you are delusional, at best.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Vote for ED 209

You have 20 seconds to comply.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson


That's funny, I'm still laughing

Know me, and you will know of the men and women that forged my soul.

Aldous Huxley believed that:

"All war propaganda consists, in the last resort, in subsituting diabolical abstractions for human beings. Similarly,those who defend war have invented a pleasant sounding vocabulary of abstractions in which to describe the process of mass murder."

And so do I.

You Could Have a GPS Chip Stuck in Your Forehead......

AKA The Mark ofThe Beast (TMOTB).

Look at all the good it can do:

Find lost people, digitally process monetary transactions and Uncle Sam can kee his all-seeing EYE on YOU at all times; and it's all, for your own good, you know.....


See there's a lot of good in the bad sometimes. You just better weigh out the two pretty throughly....

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm- What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks
Strike The Root: There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

On your hand or in your forehead doesn't have to be a chip.

For every single financial transaction you INITIATE where you have to sign, what number do you have to recall and write down?

And what number links you to the beast's databases for going to school, banking, buying a house, driving, getting a loan, paying a loan, flying, buying a car, etc, etc?

It's LITERALLY on your mind or in your hand at all times lest you not be able to engage in commerce (buy or sell) without persecution from the beast. And having it means you're tied to the beast and bear his mark.

couple questions, for your thoughts

Do you think drones will instigate an arms race? Can this technology be pursued freely without an arms race? Is this arms race already upon us? What would curtail the violence or injustices that could arise from these technologies?

ecorob's picture

Yes, an Arms race against Americans...

(and maybe Canadians, too).

But, an Arms race in the world, NO.

Against China? Russia? NO.

Against Iran? Does Iran have the ability to develop "drones" for a 1000 pronged attack against America? Laughable.

How can you trump a nuclear Arms race?

These drones are for one thing ONLY and that is tyranny.

Tyranny against oil rich, uranium rich, precious metal rich countries to steal their resources and then tyranny against America to steal out guns and make us submit to their EVIL will.

Bob Marley was right!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

The issue isn't the tool

It is how the tool is being employed. Drones, per se, are just another weapon. Obama is using his robot berzerkers to murder non-combatants in areas which are not war zones in countries against which the US has not declared war. The anger against Obama's drones should be turned into anger against the White House murdering people without due process.

What's important for the future of drones is that Americans rapidly escalate use of drones for hobby and more importantly commercial purposes. Make drones so common that suddenly banning them seems ridiculous and no one will cooperate.

If drones are outlawed, only our outlaw government will have drones.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

ecorob's picture

OPR, you are right!

Idealistically, this is what SHOULD happen.

I just don't believe this current government will allow this technology to flourish.

Could we, the people, have drones with cameras and home "bases" to view their flight? Yes, I suppose that is easily achievable but will the government "allow" it?

No, they won't. And they will make it a "capitol offense".

Bob Marley was right!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

fuck drones

fuck drones

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

f assault rifles...

..what's the difference? Both can be misused by a corrupt government. Both can be properly used to defend one's life, liberty, and property.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


what's your definition of an assualt rifle ?
cuz, last time I checked there is no such thing.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

ecorob's picture

Fuck snakepit22...

The difference?

Americans have weapons at our disposal NOW (you say, assault rifles) to keep our tyrannical government in "check".

We DON'T have drones and are, at this point, trying to stop the nazi's from using them on us.

That the difference.

Both can NOT be used to defend one's L, L, and Property if we, the people don't freaking have them!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

One isn't pointed at you day and night

literally/physically, day and night.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

assault rifles don't invade privacy

a drone is not a "gun"

assault rifles don't fly and

assault rifles don't fly and spy on you

I don't disagree to the existence of drones, just their use

They're used to spy domestically and murder abroad. If they were used only to spy abroad (in war zones, if we had one) I wouldn't mind that. If the technology were enhanced and they could pursue targets without collateral damage then they would be/will be fine for actual warfare purposes. What I disagree to is their use in the "war on terror" and their use in countries where no war, let alone a Congressionally authorized war, is taking place (especially any use within the US.) They shouldn't be used to execute or survey the non-accused or to police laws. They should be used for war only.

Really? Love this line...

"The key element of drone warfare has been that it has allowed our President to commit acts of war without having to risk human casualties."

Classic 'incomprehension'! Political rhetoric at it's best!

I think you will loose constitutionalists at that point.

No president, nor any congress, may commit 'acts of war'! Congress may take upon their shoulders the burden of the people's lives and fortunes, and on their behalf declare war with just cause! What then follows is simply and tragically, WAR!

Anything less than a constitutional declaration is criminal, if an 'act of war'!

All else is thin milk in the pulpit!

Glossing over this point and focusing on tools of warfare for their modern technical qualities, though having it's proper place, is Orwellian under the circumstances in which we find our nation today.

Nearly the whole world groans under the cloud that has enveloped American politics! Now Americans themselves begin to feel the oppressive force being turned back upon their homeland!

Patriots have never been lacking in resources when fighting for freedom! That discussion has it's place! But it pales when we are faced with the glaring criminality and perfidious oath-breaking of those elected to serve!

It is that battle which should be our focus; and it is that fight alone for which precious time and resources should be spent!

Philosophizing for the next two years will lose potential delegates the third! It is time to enter the precincts to light fires of understanding and freedom.


I guess you stopped reading right after that line eh? You seem to have missed the the point of the article. Even if you were confused by that sentence, if you'd kept reading, your confusion would have been cleared up. I clearly state that the power of the president to commit these acts is a bad thing. I guess in writing this, I just assumed you all knew that so I didn't have to explain it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

How do you rationalize Individual Rights with collateral damage?

There is no justification for the collateral damage of killing innocents in the Constitution. Drones kill indiscriminately if innocents are close enough to be in the way. This kind of collateral damage is not compatible with the Individual Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Just like the assault rifle...

...gets grouped with weapons of war, you are assuming that all drones are bombers which are used to blow up civilians. This is the very point of my article. Drone get a bad name because of how our government uses them, however, they are no different than any other weapon or technology which can either be used to defend freedom, or take it away. I think you may benefit form more research on what sorts of drones exist and what sort of uses they have.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).