You must have won something. I suspect it was a participation at the Special Olympics. Do try to keep up. It is not even a difficult topic. If you need help with big words, ask one of us or your mother to help you.

In my particular case there can only be one reason, realistically. And hundreds of feet? Meh... Two I can deal with. Double that? Hmm... I am probably not going to waste a round on it. More realistically, I would never notice.

You certainly implied it when you claimed it was based on fear. When, really, you know it is no such thing but is about privacy. However, yes - you should bow out now. It will make you feel as if you have some sort of mythical upper-hand and will boost your poor self-esteem and that, really, is important for some folks. I wish you luck.

You are mentally ill (or were drunk). No. No modern military teaches you to hate the enemy. That would be stupid because the soldiers will realize that the enemy is just like them, just as smart as them, and is fighting for the exact same reason you are. Hating them will cause you to underestimate your enemy. If anything, you want to respect them for so very many reasons including how they will treat you should you become a captive.

No, I am going to stick with you are an idiot actually. It makes more sense, logically.

If you have no direct experience with something then, perhaps, you should avoid attempting to make factual statements about it. What you think, what you feel you know, has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Lesson: Do not be dumb.

We have an existing and quite inexpensive container ship network. Is this rail project going to be cheaper than that?

Container ships are cheaper than rail. Their disadvantage is the labor-intensive step of loading and unloading the containers to/from the ship. For a couple hour trip across the English Channel, the loading/unloading cost is disproportionately large compared to the transport cost of the ship, so it makes economic sense to replace it with a tunnel or bridge.

But for cargo across the Pacific, the loading/unloading cost is roughly on par with the fuel cost. So based on the link, even if you doubled the cost per mile, container ships would still be price-competitive with rail. So there's no economic benefit to be gained by shipping goods from China to the U.S. by rail over a Russia-Alaska bridge. Add in the cost to build the bridge and it'll actually be more expensive than container ship. The only advantages you'll get are reduced transport time (from about a month to a week), and the ability to send containers directly by rail to more destinations than just port cities.

True. I am not all that large nor all that small. I dare say I am about average for my height and build, a little heavier than some. I suppose you have no real point and just wanted to discuss our physiques? We can have this discussion if you want but, really, I do not see how it is relevant.

Fear vs. privacy... Can't be anything else...

No, some of us not afraid, we're just ornery. I realize you think you have a right to use my property and I will happily cede that right to you but for one thing... You must ask permission. I have acres and acres of land - all open to the public with custom printed signs that encourage folks to make use of it (and to call). However, this chunk is mine. I will still let you use it but you must ask. There is not one legitimate reason for a RC toy to be hovering and returning to film me on my property. I will shoot it and take it to court. I will win and you know it. I *can* afford it. I will set precedent if need be.

Hell, earlier tonight I posted directions to a landmark from my house, follow it in reverse - look for the signs and find the longest driveway on the left, lots of vehicles with a blue BMW sitting outside most of the time - and you are able to come test this theory out if you want. It may take some tries because, honestly, I am far more likely to not even notice it but - on the off chance that I do AND I am able to retrieve a firearm in time, I am going to shoot it. Obviously we can not set this up as a test case. It would be implied permission. So do not tell me if you decide to do this. I'd love to take this to trial. (Actually I'd just pay the fine. You know I am not going to get in any real trouble for it, right? It is not as if I live in the middle of a town.)

It was a Remington in your last comment. Nobody would cheat on their Mossberg 500 with *any* Remington. Unless you have one choked and the other is your defense weapon. Given that they are in a safe... They are probably not for defense.

However, I still want to know (they said the same thing in the last thread) who are these people hunting with? If you shoot me and it does not hurt me then, no! I am not going to be okay with that. I may fire back and that is going to escalate quickly.

KGIII (Stupid post limit.)

Using the 2nd Amendment, as written, I think we could make that argument logically. Obviously it is not logical to allow it BUT if we use the 2nd, as written and intended, we could actually argue that. Mind you that this has nothing to do with how it is interpreted and I am not, by any means, suggesting we use SAMs (or any weapon of mass destruction) but, in order to defend ourselves from invaders or from a tyranny we should be allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that are capable of doing so. So, yeah, we could actually get a good legal team on it but it is not going anywhere - ever - as no sane judges would even accept the case as it fails at face value. Well, someone would hear it but it would likely be in Texas and not actually make it past a circuit judge. The supremes would just refuse to hear it no matter how good the argument is. Quite frankly, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that we probably should err on the side of caution as opposed to the spirit of the law or the letter of the law.

I agree entirely. I can make that shot easily. I have a slight advantage over most. "First and foremost a Rifleman."

Again, I would make this shot. It would not be gleeful, and I would likely buy the person a new drone (perhaps a nicer one) once the legal dust settled. However, I have no problems facing the courts and think it should be decided. I would take that responsibility in a heartbeat. Incarceration is not an option, really. We all know that. Not for the drone shooting at least - not in this type of situation - and certainly not where I live. Now, he was in a residential section where discharging a firearm is usually illegal. He should face a trial by his peers for such (or a bench trial if he wishes). I do *not* live in a residential area and regularly fire as many rounds as I damned well please.

More realistically? I probably would not even notice the drone. :-/

KGIII (Stupid post count limit... So, AC it is.)

No, reality does change my opinion. The height does not change reality enough for me to alter my opinion. This may be a troubling concept for you.

I am 5' 11" and 172 lbs. Thank you. Your stereotypes do not really suit. Wait until you find out I am a leftist by any definition of the word.

but i get to punch you in the face after you shoot me...right ?

.70 ft-lbs per pellet, and there could be more than 1 based upon spead versus apparent cross-section of the drone. All you have to do is destablize the drone to get most to automatically shut down.

As to your question - yes. From a standing position 2 yards away. (:P) Distance tables are handy.

I'm offering to give you that actual experience. The shells and Mossberg 500 are sitting in a gun safe about 25 yards away, along with my other firearms.

Blowhard.

"The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps."

Source.

I can keep this up all day. Vague references to your so-called "hunting experience" don't trump actual data.