Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SickSix wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

Small bodies of water on Private property.

Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution.

Interstate Commerce Clause I think. Thats the usual standby. however it may be its ability to handle interstate conflicts or control of waterways or something.

 kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

This is like the EPA wanting authority over every body of standing or flowing water.

Name a body of water, standing or flowing, that the EPA should not protect.

Small bodies of water on Private property.

Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution.

The Environmental Protection Act give them their authority. http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/about-us/legislation/acts-administered-by-epa A quick google would help you.

You know what else isn't in the constitution? That you have to have a driver's license and insurance or you can be fined for operating a motorized vehicle. Get over it.

If that small body of water can affect the ground water of your neighbor's land, then yes, you can't just dump motor oil and Agent Orange into it.

However, these two sentences are telling: "Tell me where they even get their authority in the first place? Because it sure isn't in the Constitution."

I forgot why I had you on ignore. Thank you for the reminder. Please go back to lining your hats with tinfoil and sending money to the Cliven Bundy Defense Fund.

I apologize to my fellow Dakkanaughts for engaging in this discussion. The error was mine.

Sorry I forgot that 'regulate interstate commerce' is a trump card for the Federal Govenrment to do whatever they want.

Also your use of drivers licenses to try to counter me really highlights your tenuous grasp of this argument.

Drivers Licenses are regulated by States; which are given authority over all things not specifically given to the Fed in the Constitution.

So please tell me again where the EPA even has the authority to exist? You realize just because congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional?

 SickSix wrote:
You realize just because congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional?

Well, if you fail to grasp that simple concept, then it becomes obvious why you are so wrong on so many other things.

The Constitution created congress and gave them the authority to pass laws, and all laws passed by this constitutionally authorized body and signed by another constitutionally authorized office are constitutional until another body that is authorized by the constitution says it isn't.

 SickSix wrote:
So please tell me again where the EPA even has the authority to exist? You realize just because congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional?

The Environmental Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1970, has not been struck down by the Supreme court. 46 years old. It could be a grandfather if it, and it's children, were uneducated rubes.

I guess it's constitutional.

What's that over there? It looks like a...yep...it is...

Scoreboard.

 kronk wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
So please tell me again where the EPA even has the authority to exist? You realize just because congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional?

The Environmental Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1970, has not been struck down by the Supreme court. 46 years old. It could be a grandfather if it, and it's children, were uneducated rubes.

I guess it's constitutional.

What's that over there? It looks like a...yep...it is...

Scoreboard.

I guess you can argue to repeal the EPA on the basis of it's ineptitude. I mean, this ain't good:


Or, even this calamity:



At least one of the GOP's planks is to disband the EPA and replace it something simliar to the non-partisan Nuclear Regulator Commission.

Arguing whether they are competent or not is a completely different, and 100% more valid, discussion than whether they are constitutional or not.

SickSix, are you also a Return to Gold Standard guy? Have you ever said sheeple un-ironically?

There is help for you, friend.

Gold Standards...

shudder...

One of the good things that Tricky Dicky did for us.

Careful, you are treading into talk of fiat money where the goldbugs will try to convince you that paper money has no value because it is only based on belief but yellow shiny rocks have inherent value because reasons....

Republicans trying to dismantle the EPA surely has nothing to do with large businesses not wanting to follow their regs regarding dumping, clean air, etc. Ironically, at one time Republicans regarded conservative as also conserving natural resources for the public good instead of just handing everything over to big businesses for exploitation. Nixon created the EPA after all!

You guys have buzzkilled my fine thread. No Four Roses for YOU!

Interesting, this could have repurcussions for Battlebots, as flamethrower armed aerial drones have been showing up quite a bit in the newest season.

I do find it funny that the man couldve fired that pistol himself into the woods no problem more than likely, but the moment he attaches it to a drone he's in hot water.

 Frazzled wrote:
You guys have buzzkilled my fine thread. No Four Roses for YOU!

Leave to OT to take something beautiful, like setting something on fire from a distance, and remove all sense of romance and fun from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I do find it funny that the man couldve fired that pistol himself into the woods no problem more than likely, but the moment he attaches it to a drone he's in hot water.

Many things are a matter of degrees so it really isn't all that surprising. For example a man paying a woman to have sex is illegal but a man paying a woman to be filmed while having sex is legal.

 Frazzled wrote:
You guys have buzzkilled my fine thread. No Four Roses for YOU!

Sorry.

Man I realized how much I could have used that for the girl scout campouts.

Protip: if your troop goes to camp near Halloween with a bunch of other troops, and they make a haunted "path" complete with webs and fake scary spiders, take it from me and being careful playing with the fake web and fake scary spider. It may not be fake, and now ticked off...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 Frazzled wrote:
Man I realized how much I could have used that for the girl scout campouts.

Be quiet or I'll set your tent on fire like I did Becky's!

There isn't even a Becky in our troop!

Not anymore...

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I do find it funny that the man couldve fired that pistol himself into the woods no problem more than likely, but the moment he attaches it to a drone he's in hot water.

To be fair, there's a rather significant difference in safety between the two.

malamis wrote:
The next 'logical' step wil be self propelled incidiaries - model rocket engines with an electric ignition, and a load of, say, lighter fluid.

It's a question of when...

We need those to intercept the incoming drones with flamethrowers!

Flamethrower on a drone, eh. I do some volunteer work with the County Forest Preserves, clearing invasives, fixing trails, etc. and we do scheduled prescribed burns for the praries we maintain...daddy wants a new toy.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I would love to fly one of those near a nest of wasps or some other nopes like that and play heavy metal music while obliterating hundreds of them

Well that seems wrong, and I don't think that should be allowed... The only acceptable theme music to play while murdering things from a helicopter is Ride of the Valkyries.

 Smacks wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I would love to fly one of those near a nest of wasps or some other nopes like that and play heavy metal music while obliterating hundreds of them

Well that seems wrong, and I don't think that should be allowed... The only acceptable theme music to play while murdering things from a helicopter is Ride of the Valkyries.

Wagner was heavy metal before heavy metal was a thing.

Gold standard, no I don't think that policy is sound anymore.

However the Federal Reserve is one the worst things ever done.

And yes the EPA itself poisoned an entire river. Do you think they brought them selves up on charges or fined themselves?

Laws are only for the people, not the rulers.

 SickSix wrote:
Laws are only for the people, not the rulers.

Excellent point; laws are only for people. Robots need not follow petty meatbag limits. Especially robot rulers.

I for one welcome our flying flamethrower robot overlords.

This in the wrong hands...

That's why they want to regulate it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If we ban flamethrowers, then only bad guys (and WWII re-enactors) will have flamethrowers!

Actually I think flamethrowers are generally not regulated at all, although YMMV depending on jurisdiction. I only have a minute to check but I think they're only restricted in California.

I think there is some regulation check out forgotten weapons has a few videos on flamethrowers
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/us-m2m2a1-flamethrower/

So Pizza delivery drones will have flamethrowers to keep the pizza warm and for if you don't tip it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I do find it funny that the man couldve fired that pistol himself into the woods no problem more than likely, but the moment he attaches it to a drone he's in hot water.

To be fair, there's a rather significant difference in safety between the two.

Yeah. If your arms weaves around as much as that flamethrower drone, I have a problem with you personally holding and shooting a gun, too. I have a certain hesitancy when I think about remote-controlled weapons that can leave no evidence at a crime scene operated by any Joe Shmuck- or that might randomly go off in any given direction because they are backyard-engineered.

 Ahtman wrote:
Many things are a matter of degrees so it really isn't all that surprising. For example a man paying a woman to have sex is illegal but a man paying a woman to be filmed while having sex is legal.

So does filming the drone firing the flamethrower give him an out? It isn't a breach of air traffic laws, it's art. And if anything could be defended as art, it's putting a flamethrower on a drone and roasting a turkey. That is the kind of art that makes life worth living.

 sebster wrote:
It isn't a breach of air traffic laws, it's art.

I suspect you aren't serious about that question, but the FAA does not have a sense of humor or art or anything like that. No amount of clever excuses will get you out of trouble with the FAA, and they'll probably add a few more violations for annoying them.

I do think there are some pretty serious questions about their authority to regulate drones in general and this drone in specific, though. I'm not going to take it to the extreme of "the FAA has no right to regulate drones because my understanding of the constitution doesn't allow it", but that doesn't mean I have to shift 100% the other way either.

The current weight limit is 250 grams, which is ludicrous - the FAA has no business regulating a drone the barely over the weight of 2 sticks of butter flown in a backyard. In my opinion, the FAA really only should regulate drones which have enough weight to endanger aviation at large - i.e, weights equivalent to bird strikes. Lets say a pound and a half.

At that point, the best way to regulate it is, in my opinion, by requiring all GPS based flight controllers used or imported into the US to have a geofencing database restricting flight within a few miles of the airport. The most popular off the shelf consumer drones all already do this. It's a wholly reasonable product safety measure, much as we require milk to be pasteurized when sold commercially.

Their current regulations are awful, but they have been improving them, so there is no reason to think they are going to stay awful - they've only had 2 waves of published rules, and the second ones are much better.

Well, if 250g is sufficient to cause problems, why shouldn't that be covered? For example, lasers don't weigh anything, but pointing them at pilots is a big no-no. But the question should certainly be "Are these regulations reasonable?" not "Where does the Constitution say a federal agency can regulate things that Congress has authorized it to regulate?"