Comment: "What's the difference?"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Why is this controversial? (see in situ)

"What's the difference?"

Are you kidding me? Have you lost your mind? There is absolutely no acceptable reason why weaponized drones should be in our skies at this point in time. Actually, there's really no acceptable reason for weaponized drones in the middle east either... I guess I'm a radical?

You'd think any human with any survival instinct left in tact, would be opposed to this technology being beta tested over their home. Let's bear in mind, this technology is still in it's infancy, and no amount of test flights can approximate what it's going to actually be like when there are thousands of weaponized drones flying in the skies over our neighborhoods.

"Stand with Rand"? Are you kidding me? Have some of you folks really devolved to that level of unconditional support for a political figure? I like Rand and I hope he actually stands up for our liberty up there, but this isn't just a little misspeak as some have suggested. This is a complete 180° from his filibuster. I'm sorry, but the only reason it is acceptable for a police officer to shoot a robber, is if the robber is armed, and if he poses a threat to the officer or another citizen. A robber with a pistol poses no threat to a drone, and it is absolutely OVERKILL to fire down bullets or missiles at a person who knocked off a liquor store. Do the words collateral damage mean ANYTHING to you? Is that the world you want to live in? If it is, get the hell out of my country!