Yes, I do. And, even in the 4,000 pound helicopter I fly, a drone strike will absolutely take it out of the sky.
Did a little looking around and found one case of a 2.4 pound bird taking a helicopter out of the sky. The windshield had been intentionally replaced with a weaker one, and even then the helicopter only crashed because the bird hit the fire extinguisher, which then hit the engine controls. So don't swap out your windshield.
This is just totally made up and wrong. First of all there are battery powered ADS-B-IN systems (I use a Stratus 2 with about 8 hours of battery life while doing ADS-B plus AHRS plus providing a WiFi hotspot plus built in GPS) - an ADS-B system running for the length of a typical drone flight would use very little power.
The Stratus 2S, according to the web page, requires an iPad to work, is 10 oz, costs $900 on its own, and isn't a transponder anyway, so it's completely irrelevant. Their transponder with GPS is $3500, not battery powered, and looks like your average drone won't carry it.
The only reason there aren't battery powered ADS-B-OUT systems is the FAA won't currently allow it
Exactly. And there's no reason to expect the FAA to be any sort of reasonable concerning drones, since they haven't, instead first banning them entirely and now banning them unless you meet a rather ridiculously onerous set of requirements -- including being a certified pilot.
In my opinion, and given that the drone already has a functioning GPS system
Wait, what? Who said it does? A fully-autonomous drone which follows waypoints has to, but a simple camera drone operated FPV or LoS quite likely does not.
And... are you willing to limit drones to a maximum weight of 2.5 pounds or would you like to be able to fly larger ones in the airspace?
I'd certainly like to fly larger ones, but I don't think the same requirements need to apply. If someone builds a drone as big as a Bell 206, certainly regulations similar to those of the helicopter (except those related only to crew and passenger safety) should apply. The kinds of regulations pilots would like to impose on all drones would eliminate small, inexpensive drones entirely, which is likely the point. You want a transponder which is a significant percentage of the weight of the drone, and you want the thing to automatically land when a piloted aircraft is around -- which not only rules out small drones, but means the drones have to be disposable, because much of the time it automatically "lands" it won't be recoverable.
I really disagree with this. We were doing a lot of construction and real estate photography work which went 100% away to drones and no pilot I know ever complained or tried to stop it.
Well, a lot of them DID, and succeeded in getting the FAA to send out a bunch of threatening letters and to stop some real estate sites from accepting pictures taken by drones (I imagine this isn't effective as real estate agents will just omit that fact or lie outright, but it happened anyway).
The pilots I know just want to share the airspace without getting killed by someone with a drone who doesn't know what they're doing. It'll take some time to figure out a good way to coexist, and all pilots want is to avoid loss of life while we're figuring it out.
Right. So initially ban drones, then drag this "figuring it out" process until the heat death of the universe. The FAA appears interested only in setting the barriers for using drones so high that only a multinational could afford to jump through their hoops. And that's probably a compromise; they'd rather just ban them entirely as they did before some recent laws were passed.
If you'd like access to the airspace, I suggest you tone down your attitude and try cooperating with the people who are on the side of drone usage
Except drone pilots and manufacturers, there really aren't any. The multinationals interested in using them are fine with ridiculously difficult procedures, because a high barrier to entry keeps competition out. Pilots don't like them because they're competition for airspace (and there's the elitist thing about not using the airspace unless you're a pilot). The FAA doesn't like them, seeing them as a distraction from their mission of keeping the airspace safe for real pilots. Even the Academy of Model Aeronautics doesn't like them (they only approve of line-of-site flying, and they're still not sure about those new-fangled rotary wing things), though they took the opportunity to figure out a way to become the official body for regulating non-commercial model aircraft operations.
If I want access to the airspace in my lifetime -- hell, if I just want to continue flying my models non-commercially without paying the AMA's Danegeld -- I'm just going to have to disregard the regulations and risk a life-ruining fine. This will likely make things more rather than less dangerous, especially for helicopter pilots, but as the princess said "The more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers". Asking nicely won't get anywhere. That's been tried and the answer was "Are you a pilot? Do you have a special certificate of airworthiness? Then, no".