When Gun Control ‘Logic’ Takes To The Skies

By now, the fight for civilian disarmament has become predictable. Gun control laws are becoming increasingly unpopular as more people across the political spectrum realize that personal empowerment is better than empty promises of collective safety. To have any chance of success these days, the anti-gun grift has to lay in wait for highly unusual incidents like mass shootings and then ride that wave of emotion to maybe score some kind of legislative victory. This is basically the only play they have left in the 21st century United States.

Another anti-gun ploy we’re familiar with is the idea that the Second Amendment was written in a time when there was “only muskets” and thus it shouldn’t apply to more modern, effective firearms like the AR-15. Those of us in the know on such things readily counter this argument by pointing out that privately-owned warships, cannons, and even higher-capacity repeating guns were all in existence and completely legal at the time. The First Amendment’s unquestioned application to modern tools of mass communication is another glaring problem with that argument that the gun control industry never really wants to talk about.

Sadly, though, both forms of this flawed anti-rights thinking can easily fly under the radar when firearms aren’t the topic of discussion.

Talked about this with @YukonK9 on the podcast we recorded yesterday. Drones are the frontier of defense. Restrictions on them should be interpreted as restrictions on 2A.

These bill will come dressed, as always, as bills for safety or bills against the foreign threat du jour. https://t.co/kCJTE47dyh

— Open Source Defense (@opensrcdefense) December 19, 2024

As Open Source Defense points out, recent hysteria over drones is being used to push legislation that would empower the government to limit everyone’s access to the technology. Crenshaw the Texan wants government officials to quickly respond to reports of suspicious drones and even be ready to down the drones at a moment’s notice.

This idea may sound good on paper, but when we consider that most reports of drones and hysterical videos of them posted on social media are actually legitimate civilian aircraft, the idea of sending out Barney Fife to shoot at drones and perhaps make an airliner crash into your living room probably isn’t the best approach.

Even the FAA is worried now about people misidentifying and taking action against perceived aerial threats, as many people are trying to blind the “drones” by hitting them with lasers.

In recent weeks, pilots flying in New Jersey reported almost 300% more laser incidents than during the same period last year. Shining lasers at aircraft is a federal crime and a safety threat to pilots. #LoseTheLaser! https://t.co/wkECkNA6pW 📽️warning: strobing lights pic.twitter.com/6FnqVgLjoe

— The FAA ✈️ (@FAANews) December 19, 2024

But, local police aren’t expected to know what’s going on in the sky. What we need are experts to make these calls, right? However, even the FAA is also overreacting to drones with a smattering of “no fly zones” around New York and New Jersey.

Wow – whole lot of TFRs (no fly zones) over New Jersey now. All over critical infrastructure – and only for drones. pic.twitter.com/PUI37TMPNB

— John Monarch | papajohn56.eth (@realjohnmonarch) December 19, 2024

Again, when you aren’t thinking about individual rights to own and use drones, this may seem like a “common sense” precaution. But when you put your pro-gun thinking cap on again and consider all of the legitimate uses of drones that could be needed in these areas, it starts to look a whole lot more like the knee-jerk calls for more gun control.

It’s far from clear how much of the recent activity over places like New Jersey was actually due to drones, and if there were drones, who was operating them. But the first inclination here, just as with guns, is to shut it all down…ban everyone from using them, law-abiders included.

But just as with guns, that will have some significant negative consequences. Banning everyone from operating drones, including licensed pilots who’ve passed a background check and underwent training, means no real estate photos, engineering scans, power line inspections, roof leak analyses, and even search and rescue operations. Missing out on the benefits of drones has real financial and public safety costs that should be considered first.

And just as with guns, any bad actors won’t obey the ban. Criminals, spies, and foreign adversaries have no respect whatsoever for the law. Just as with guns, the people who are ostensibly targeted by these anti-rights laws simply won’t obey them. Just as with guns, only people who will be affected by the drone crackdown will be the good guys.

Another sighting of a Ukrainian “Dragon Breath” thermite drone seen setting fire to Russian positions in a woodline.

The Russians are trying to shoot it down but don't appear to have any success…#ukraine #russia #war #drone #incendiary #fire #flames #evolution pic.twitter.com/yilco1N0sS

— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) September 14, 2024

It’s also important not to let our emotions blind us to the fact that drones can be “arms” and are protected, at least to some extent, by the Second Amendment. There are currently policies that ban civilians from mounting guns or dropping objects from drones, but those policies really have no historical backing (something required by NYSRPA v. Bruen). If eighteenth century civilians could own an entire warship that could lay waste to parts of a coastal city, the idea of a thermite drone in private hands really isn’t that radical. Is it?

Instead of giving in to the current anti-drone hysteria, pro-gun people should be consistent and resist the idea that scary things means that we need big government to regulate what we do in the interest of…safety.