-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.

Really? Show me where in the constitution....

... what language in the constitution authorizes drones... pray tell.


"keep and bear arms"

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

The second amendment protects INDIVIDUAL rights.....

...and RESTRAINS government power (or is supposed to).

Read much?

ecorob's picture


I think we're good here.

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

I have a hard time agreeing

I have a hard time agreeing that any weapon is "beautiful and a monument to the progress of mankind" but I agree with your post. Drones itself are not inherently bad, only the governments abuse of them.

I have an issue with predator

I have an issue with predator drones because of the "not-declared wars" we are fighting. I have an issue with the double-tap policy too. I have no issue with the technological advancement.

so your problem...

...is with the non-declared wars, not with the drone. Do you also have a problem with the M16's used in the non declared wars?

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

Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

When a government-owned device is allowed to determine the exact configuration of my shoelaces while I stand on my own property, is it not considered an unreasonable search?

I agree...

..I'm not defending the government's use of drones, I'm defending the drones themselves. As easily as the government can mis-use an M-16, they can mis-use a drone. The issue however, is that these drones now exist whether we allow the government to have them or not, so we better think like inovators about how to use them to secure our freedom rather than allow them to take away our freedom.

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


I was talking to my friend the other day and we both agreed that nobody really has a problem with drones per se, we just have a problem with when they use it. Like when they use drones to attack innocent civilians in Northwestern Pakistan. Now THAT I am against! But drones are not illegal per se, they're just another instrument that we have in our military arsenal like a tank or a fighter jet that can shoot missiles.

However, in regards to domestic drones, I just don't see how it can be legal in the U.S. In regards to the debate on WHEN to use drones, I don't see any proper function even for unarmed drones domestically except if they are used for special purposes like tracking down Chris Dorner for a weird example, especially if drones are better at tracking down targets than helicopters. Not sure if anyone would agree, but that's the cool thing about DailyPaulers we agree on 95%, it's just the other 5%, like which emergencies would reasonably legalize drone searches that we differ in opinion.

The Constitution supports skiing

Or anything else it doesn't prohibit, I guess.
Sort of like not voting for Rama is voting for Obomney.
Algebra has its place...

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued

good point.

But I just can't think of a better title.

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