Well provided they don't use frequency hopping encryption (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum), that too would be illegal. Your jammer itself would be sending a signal and unless you have FCC clearance, that also would be illegal. Again, drones are not your enemy and have little to do with "big brother". Your electronic and public business transactions, let alone your taxes reveal far more info about yourself, than could possibly be gleamed from a drone.
Will someone please explain to me how SiliconMagician and the Mello Guy are different? Because they claim to be. Just as republicans and democrats claim to be, yet, another PF thread speaks volumes as to the "difference".
we walk on 2 feet....I take it you walk on all fours? or are you just like us? fact is CONSERVATIVES talk about the constitution and states rights, yet most seem to think none of that matters when they are ascared of a drone
There are many progressives who claim to not be progressive because they disagree with other progressives. However, under analysis, they just have slightly different preferences when it comes to the involuntary redistribution of other people's productive endeavors. They adore totalitarianism, with just a few differences of opinion as to how it should be implemented.
The Constitution matters nothing to statists whether of the liberal or conservative bent, except to the extent that it can back up their argument for some intervention or other or protection of some favored privilege. It's just a document. Either one has a principle on which to objectively derive right and wrong in human interaction, or one makes it up as one goes along according to one's feelings about authority.
great, so show me where the federal govt can dictate what local security measures the states can use. or was your point that you dont care?