this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
294 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
69391 readers
2527 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So we need to defend the First Amendment again. They should probably have constricted the 2nd before the 1st for their own good.
Don't worry, they fully intend to use drones to wipe out any resistance. I always wondered when we'd live in the terror of the skies like they have in the middle east for two decades now.
Kind of hard to use a handgun or shotgun to deal with a Reaper drone that's nailing you from a mile away.
I think drone warfare so far has shown that one of the advantages of drones, for a weapon, is their ability to be produced cheapy, en masse, and with a relatively limited manufacturing infrastructure. Assuming you have the computer parts anyway, which are abundant in today's society. One of the implications of that, I think, is that in future asymmetric or civil wars and the like, they're not going to be like fighter jets or tanks, where one side will have them and the other must improvise countermeasures. They're going to be like guns and explosives, where both sides are going to have access to at least some degree.
Oh absolutely agreed, I was mostly just responding to the idea that the 2nd amendment would be a safeguard. Last I checked, drones don't seem to be considered a weapon in most cases, and thus are not seemingly covered by the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Instead, they're a free-for-all, which is both a good thing and a bad thing, of course.
I wonder how effective at 308 round is to a drone, even just putting a sizable hole in the wing. And that's assuming it's causing at an altitude that's within range.
Seems like there's better ways:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident
Iranian here, it is was revealed that it was sheer luck and an IRGC commander once said that "God sent it for us."
Huh, thanks for the perspective!
308 has horrible ballistics.
.30-06 any better?
Better than 308, yes. But still, shooting at something moving that fast, at that range, straight into the air, don't expect to hit anything except the neighborhood kids when the bullet comes back down.