Texas Drifter: About Drones By Texas Bumpkin
Marshall’s Law Dateline – Following writing exercise submitted by what city slickers disparagingly refer to as Texas Bumpkin. Drones do not kill people; people kill people. Issue is not type of weapons system, drones; would not manned flights accomplish same objectives if drone technology were not available?
Reader can reference definitions of slicker and bumpkin to remember meanings longer.
This writing exercise will evolve into how Texas Legislators are about to adopt legislation that will make it harder for private rural property owners to protect themselves and property from cartel smugglers and terrorists crossing Texas Southern porous border.
Reference following: Representative Lance Gooden, Republican of Terrell, said he was sponsoring legislation to prevent this futuristic technology — increasingly used by everyone from aviation hobbyists to law enforcement authorities — from capturing “indiscriminate surveillance.” Gooden wants to make it illegal to use a drone to monitor private property without express permission or a search warrant.
Primary media issue is strategy of neutralizing not capturing terrorist liabilities. Let me remind you my reader, environment in which drones are currently being used concerns national security foreign war, not domestic tranquility involving law enforcement.
Advantages of using drones is cheaper to operate for longer periods of time at less risk to America’s patriotic warriors.
As for collateral damages, compare collateral damages on contemporary battlefields compared to collateral damages during World War II and places like Dresden and Hiroshima.
Using military drones to neutralize American citizens on American soil, different Constitutional issue than using them on Americans on foreign soil helping America’s enemies destroy America. Then again using drones with lethal capabilities along America’s Southern porous border to control terrorists entering America at will is also separate issue.
Still another issue, perhaps primary issue of this writing exercise involves private citizen’s use of smaller in size drones for private security. Moving a step further, should private drones be limited to surveillance or possibly include self defense for private citizens?
Going even a step further, what happens when sneaky people learn to “hack into” drone control systems and turn drones on original operators? There is a concept for Texas Drifter non-fiction short story: good guys obtain control of drones and use them against bad guys.
All these drone issues are getting Texas Drifter so confused; then again, drones do not kill people is same old issue with new toys. TRUE or FALSE
Question, Americans should be less concerned about technology neutralizing Americans on foreign soil who have joined Islamic-fascist terrorists at war against America and all Americans everywhere. Americans should be more concerned with domestic federal agencies who have stockpiled more than one and half billion rounds of ammunition for public bureaucrats to possibly use on conservative American patriots on American soil. TRUE or FALSE
Question, All federal agencies have their “own SWAT teams”; why when feds’ SWAT teams are unified, feds will have physical superiority over all municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies should feds choose to suspend U.S. Constitution. TRUE or FALSE
Question, feds are trying to horde by buying all ammunitions not only from private citizens, but also from all non-federal law enforcement agencies. TRUE or FALSE
Next question: governments requiring “background checks” for “private citizen to private citizen gifts or sales” of second Amendment protected guns. Despite bold face lies by anti-gun pro-fascists; it is quite possible a grandfather’s estate would have to do background check on grandson to leave gun as inheritance to grandson. A widow would have to do background check on brother-in-law to sell him her deceased husband’s deer rifle. Only really stupid Americans would tolerate private citizen to private citizen back ground checks. TRUE or FALSE
Still another question: Texas politicians acting like Yankee carpet baggers with rabid souls seeking cheap attention by trying to pass un-thought out anti drone Legislation? Texas anti drone legislation will make it easier for cartel drug smugglers, illegal immigrant smugglers, Islamic-fascist terrorist smugglers, and generally sadistic criminals to cross Texas Southern porous border to victimize rural Texans living within miles of Texas southern border. Perhaps these Texas politicians should stop mimicking Obama. TRUE or FALSE
Texas Drifter can hear whining now; Texas Drifter must have been suffering from part time dementia when he wrote “About Drones By Texas Bumpkin”
Pay attention reader, it does dot matter if issue concerns owner of twenty acre ranchette, or owner of twenty thousand acres dotted with gas and oil wells, if the private citizen wants to use private drones to protect their private property for security surveillance; what business is it of any Texas or federal politician, none – not a darn bit.
Especially since all Texas law enforcement can do in rural areas is show up to investigate and fill out reports of porous border crimes, not prevent a single crime. How could they, feds do not even patrol border areas between U.S. Highway 83 and Rio Grande River? Now who is suffering from part time dementia, Texas Drifter or Texas politicians acting like fools in a mob to seemingly make it easier for bad guys to victimize border rural residents?
How, reader asks, by making private citizens criminals who “use a drone to monitor private property without express permission”. By "who" an important left out detail so says Texas Drifter.A message to these seemingly want to be Obama Texas politicians, this is Texas and in case you have forgotten it is not customary for Texans to ask politicians for permission to protect their families and private property from bad guys; which includes using private drones on private property.
Texans do not have tradition of approaching any politician (state or federal) hats in hands staring sheepishly at ground while whimpering: Massa do I have your permission to protect my family, property, and neighbors from bad people?
Texas Drifter, not as gambling man, doubts above attitude will ever become Texas tradition; for all us, Texas country folk again disparagingly referred to as Texas bumpkins by city slickers. Hope reader remembers definition s of both bumpkin and slicker.
Would some one please explain to Texas Drifter when Texas politicians started acting like Hollywood stump rangers? A word to those obviously part of Austin liberal crowd, perhaps you should consider returning to having faith in rugged individualism of rural property owners that made Texas one great example for America’s other forty-nine states?
How, by not interfering with rural residents using private drones for surveillance of their private property; answer is TRUE because anyone too stupid to not know answer should move to a blue state.
Reader’s final assignment this writing exercise, do not let unrelated drone issues distract from primary issue of this writing exercise: private owners using private drones on private property for security surveillance. Texas Drifter feels confident America’s Founding Fathers would have included such technology if it had been available when bill of Rights were created and added to U.S. Constitution. TRUE or FALSE
