Congress seems to be inching closer to banning DJI Drones

[Droning on and on...]

The great majority of ALL of our debt is continually being refinanced, not just that held by China.

Of course, but it misses the point.

China holds enough that they could cause us some serious grief in the refinancing process by dumping it on the market.

 

[Droning on and on...]

No comment.

So you're just another metaphorical bomb thrower.

 

[AZDave]

Of course, but it misses the point.

China holds enough that they could cause us some serious grief in the refinancing process by dumping it on the market.

Yes, of course. But if China decided to do that to its largest trading partner we'd be having much worse problems with them.

Besides, the post I originally responded to said "If Congress is serious about this imagined threat and "state ownership"it would stop selling them our future prosperity." and that is just silly. Our "future prosperity" doesn't depend on the debt that China holds ... we have far bigger factors involved than that.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yes, of course. But if China decided to do that to its largest trading partner we'd be having much worse problems with them.

And that might just be acceptable and desirable if they're invading Taiwan.

Not saying this is going to happen, but you have to apply a different set of equations to China geopolitical calculations than you do for a western ally.

 

[mavic3usa]

So you're just another metaphorical bomb thrower.

No, just trying to keep this on topic and not try to venture into political territory. Because I offered up a different effective compelling strategy to the drone community and they rejected it; they rejecting WINNING. what was the excuse? you don't have a constitutional right to fly a drone; you fly your drone will the full permission of the government and you'll do what they say and when they say it. how's that working out? I guess we'll see how this goes if the fight continues or if we just give up. There's no amendment for flying drone but it doesn't mean you don't have rights and you can't adopt strategy that works.

It's asinine to believe only bumpstock owners fight for bumpstocks. the entire self-defense community recognizes when they are under attack from their own government and they rally around the cause even if it's an attack on a small segment. They realize how the threat grows and eventually engulfs *everyone* not just the current owners under attack (which there were millions). Something the drone community hasn't yet learned.

Instead, we have hundreds of millions in our cohesive community paying and pushing back and fighting and suing and it in for the long haul; we don't change hobbies or change to a different make or model and leave the rest of us swinging in the wind. It took years but we got it done *and* we set it up so it will never happen again (to any segment of the community) and we don't have to take repeated weak attacks by individual legislators disguised and hidden bills reconfigured to pretend to defend against yet another non-existent problem. We are "bulletproof" and when these unfortunate catastrophic events happen, we are shielded from the knee-jerk. A single flyaway drone drops onto the White House lawn and the free recreational drone community is finished.

An attack on DJI is an attack on all drone manufacturers. An attack on government-use drones is an affront to all drone flyers whether recreational or commercial. We shouldn't stand by and watch them going after public sector drones. When they come after their own, they next come after you. But we don't stand together, we are divided and that's how we'll fall, they are picking us off. Next up is the state and local governments flooding in with some many rules and regulations, the feckless FAA will be powerless and it will be the beginning of the end to largely unrestricted recreational drone flying.

if you want help, just ask. but you have to be willing to fight and something it's not pretty.

 

[Droning on and on...]

TL;DR

You referred to a strategy used successfully in the bump-stock case without any detail. You were then asked to detail what you were referring to, and replied, "no comment".

That's bomb-throwing. A.k.a. "trolling".

 

[AZDave]

And that might just be acceptable and desirable if they're invading Taiwan.

Not saying this is going to happen, but you have to apply a different set of equations to China geopolitical calculations than you do for a western ally.

That's a very good example of what I just said ... China invading Taiwan would be a LOT bigger issue than whatever they decided to do with our debt that they own.

 

[Droning on and on...]

That's a very good example of what I just said ... China invading Taiwan would be a LOT bigger issue than whatever they decided to do with our debt that they own.

Again, missed the point.

If China decides to invade Taiwan, there will be "attacks" on the US on many fronts, cyber, financial, commerce, political, etc.

A smart adversary will attempt to distract and weaken us as much as possible before the invasion. A strategy of fomenting domestic political strife, weakening and questioning US support for Taiwan, would be very effective.

It's worked quite well for Hamas.

 

[mavic3usa]

TL;DR

You referred to a strategy used successfully in the bump-stock case without any detail. You were then asked to detail what you were referring to, and replied, "no comment".

That's bomb-throwing. A.k.a. "trolling".

No comment means I decline to go any further into the details because it's off topic and more political in nature. In this forum, I prefer to stick to the strategy at a high level which is take it to the judicial system. Besides the 230+ year Constitutional strategy and the Amendment details are widely known and available; you don't need to hear it from me.

 

[AZDave]

Again, missed the point.

If China decides to invade Taiwan, there will be "attacks" on the US on many fronts, cyber, financial, commerce, political, etc.

A smart adversary will attempt to distract and weaken us as much as possible before the invasion. A strategy of fomenting domestic political strife, weakening and questioning US support for Taiwan, would be very effective.

It's worked quite well for Hamas.

OK, look ... I said that China's debt is a small fraction of our debt. I said that if China wanted to mess with us on that debt we'd be having far greater problems with them. None of that is missing the point of anything. You can hypothesize any other scenarios you want but that doesn't make anything I said invalid. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing and you keep wandering off into new territory to perpetuate it. I'm done with my side of it.

 

[MS Coast]

No, just trying to keep this on topic and not try to venture into political territory. Because I offered up a different effective compelling strategy to the drone community and they rejected it; they rejecting WINNING. what was the excuse? you don't have a constitutional right to fly a drone; you fly your drone will the full permission of the government and you'll do what they say and when they say it. how's that working out? I guess we'll see how this goes if the fight continues or if we just give up. There's no amendment for flying drone but it doesn't mean you don't have rights and you can't adopt strategy that works.

It's asinine to believe only bumpstock owners fight for bumpstocks. the entire self-defense community recognizes when they are under attack from their own government and they rally around the cause even if it's an attack on a small segment. They realize how the threat grows and eventually engulfs *everyone* not just the current owners under attack (which there were millions). Something the drone community hasn't yet learned.

Instead, we have hundreds of millions in our cohesive community paying and pushing back and fighting and suing and it in for the long haul; we don't change hobbies or change to a different make or model and leave the rest of us swinging in the wind. It took years but we got it done *and* we set it up so it will never happen again (to any segment of the community) and we don't have to take repeated weak attacks by individual legislators disguised and hidden bills reconfigured to pretend to defend against yet another non-existent problem. We are "bulletproof" and when these unfortunate catastrophic events happen, we are shielded from the knee-jerk. A single flyaway drone drops onto the White House lawn and the free recreational drone community is finished.

An attack on DJI is an attack on all drone manufacturers. An attack on government-use drones is an affront to all drone flyers whether recreational or commercial. We shouldn't stand by and watch them going after public sector drones. When they come after their own, they next come after you. But we don't stand together, we are divided and that's how we'll fall, they are picking us off. Next up is the state and local governments flooding in with some many rules and regulations, the feckless FAA will be powerless and it will be the beginning of the end to largely unrestricted recreational drone flying.

if you want help, just ask. but you have to be willing to fight and something it's not pretty.

You offered a solution to the drone community and they rejected winning? That's a bit grandiose, don't you think?

You've defined several "fights" against government and "them" and predict dire consequences. And then there are pep rally calls to unite and fight for the cause. But you never offer actual suggestions. Instead you allude to behind-the-scenes mysterious movements that we'd all be part of if we were wise enough and motivated enough.

How about a little more substance and a little less drama?