I just watched the video. Depending on the size of this toy helicopter I don't see much of anything reckless about this. He stayed well below the tops of the surrounding buildings. The toy probably had some sort of protective plastic ring around the rotors so even bumping into a building because of some wind gust probably wouldn't have even scratched the windows. And landing 20 feet away from someone is not even close. I wouldn't have done it because of the risk of overreaction with all those people around and the thing is noisy, but the reality is that this was no more risky, dangerous or reckless than riding a bicycle down the street or playing with marbles on the sidewalk.

I think that we need Congress to step in and limit the FAAs jurisdiction to above 500 feet and above a certain size. Giving the FAA jurisdiction over frisbees, bows and arrows or toys with propellers is an absurd use of Federal government regulations and a complete waste of resources for them to be trolling You Tube for videos for accidents with toys that didn't actually cause any serious harm.

We would all be better off without the need for guns or weapons, but we haven't figured out how to make that work yet so the next best thing is to be prepared to defend yourself in the hope you never will.

Yes I think the anti gun laws of the 1920s were a big factor which allowed Hitler to rise to power. He could have never used such level of petty street thuggery against an armed population before he came to power. It isn't about a lone gun against tanks and planes, then it is obviously too late, it is about not being afraid of the guy with a steel pipe that wants you to vote for that well spoken young fellow with the neatly trimmed mustache.

You do just fine... except for the occasional genocide and periodic continental war where millions and millions of people die. Pretty sure that is not a good trade off.

Well that is the beauty of these magical electronic gun locks.... it will now be prima facie evidence that you committed the crime because how could anyone steal your gun, figure out how to disable an electronic device and use your gun in a crime. Police won't even have to leave the donut shop to solve that one.

Actually it is pretty clear from the historical context that the reference to militias has an intended double meaning. Militias made up of local citizenry are both necessary to the common defense and therefore must be armed and armed militias are recognized as a danger to liberty so they must be regulated by an armed citizenry.

Well, I certainly wouldn't install one if I already had a perfectly good heart.

Government usually doesn't make money from a regulatory shakedown, corrupt individuals do when they take bribes to circumvent the rules they made and enforce and/or they make money when they leave government to go into private industry and are rewarded for their "service" and their knowledge of how to make money in and around the corrupt system they helped create.

When a rule is purely based on commercial use and has absolutely no safety justification, not even a remotely reasonable one, then yes I think an accusation of blatant corruption is appropriate and likely.

We are talking about for the most part glorified toys that any 13 year old can buy at the mall and take home and fly around. To prevent news organizations from using those same toys to take pictures from the air or to prohibit any other intended commercial use of aerial photography is about as perverse a use of regulatory authority as I've ever seen and does cross a line the FAA had never crossed before.

The judge was right to throw out that rule and I hope the FAA will just drop that particular rule altogether rather than try and rewrite it.

The meaning of a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment is that it is necessary to have a well regulated militia... and the only way that the people can effectively regulate that militia is by being armed themselves. The argument of the day was whether to even allow for a standing army at all. The red coats were seen as a bunch of free loading thugs who could show up at your house armed and demand that you give them shelter and feed them. It was a compromise to recognize the necessity of having militias for the common defense, but that to regulate a group of armed men would require that people themselves also be armed.

The second amendment isn't about arming a militia, the second amendment is about balance of power. A right of the people to bear arms is about balancing the need to live in a peaceful society with the needs of the individuals to defend themselves, their property and their families.

Agreed on the marketplace. And that was my point. Right now you have a set of politicians and anti-2nd amendment activists who are actively lobbying to make electronic disabling devices mandatory features of all new civilian guns sold in the US. That isn't the free market, that isn't freedom and these new devices aren't even proven in the free market let alone for mandatory adoption.

It makes sense to have standards and regulations for safe gun storage. Which for the most part it seems that all states already have such standards. But the "use case" for a gun is that you shoot someone in order to kill them. It is never a good thing, but it could be necessary for self defense or to protect your family. In that unfortunate "use case" anything that could prevent you from firing the weapon at your intended target is what is dangerous.

I agree that fewer guns or guns kept safely locked away would be better for the day to day safety of society, but these absurd anti-gun laws do nothing but cause gun hording and force otherwise law abiding people to become scofflaws. Undermining the rule of law by passing bad laws is not good for Freedom. And having an unarmed population that can't defend themselves isn't either.

How is it a "safety regulation" if I can do the same exact thing with a small UAV and it is legal as long as I am not getting paid in some way?

The issue here is the FAA is issuing rules not based on common rules for safely operating a small remote controlled aircraft, but based on whether or not the operator on the ground is getting compensated for his work. The FAA should issue safety regulations not restrict freedom of movement just so it can figure out ways to make more money for the government off of the commercial use of the airspace. The whole thing seems like an inherently corrupt way for the FAA to be operating.

For the most part these micro UAVs are too small to be much of any hazard and it seems that you would have to be either reckless or intend to cause harm to be of any trouble with a micro UAV in which case FAA regulations would be pretty meaningless anyway.

Like I said, this whole UAV regulation thing at least as it applies to very small UAVs seems like more of a shakedown than a proper exercise of government regulations

I think once the police and military adopt this kind of gun locking technology in large numbers, then we can start talking about whether it is ready for adoption. If it is a compelling safety feature without great expense, proves reliable and gun owners find it worthwhile to add to their safety and the safety of their families, then they will buy guns with these features.

Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.