Previous Post
Next Post

“The next to last thing we need is guns that people can send flying around. There’s no accountability for it. Someone can be flying this thing from God knows where.” – Michael Ruscoe in Feds Investigate Dystopia-Hastening Teen Who Posted Video of Gun-Shooting Drone [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The last thing we need, as in singular? Well, shit, Mr. Zimmerman. There’s actually a whole lot of things we don’t need. Like, for example, gun control advocates and FUDDs losing their damn minds over this.

    Keep calm and carry on.

    • Whats the big deal with this anyway? It’s not like our Govt. doesn’t have dozens of these flying over us everyday. The same people who think this is a horrific idea are the same ones that don’t believe the Feds are looking in their windows right now, likely with a weapons lock…

      • thats the point. only your highly trained federal gobernment can be trusted with armed remote controlled killer robots

  2. Looks like the future of infantry backup to me. Send those things out ahead and let them force the enemy to expose their position and number to feel with them.

    • Sniper fodder. With enough shooters (or counter deployed drones) flushing out an enemy position will be harder than that.

      • One or two may be sniper fodder, but try sending a dozen of them, and even if they get taken out, they’ll cause panic, and distract the shooters from your assault. Besides, a dead drone is better than a dead soldier.

        Also, sorry for the typo in my previous post. I was typing with my phone and auto-correct must have changed a word. “to feel with them” ? I can’t even remember what I was trying to say.

      • I’d like one that could shoot a Barrett or even 338. Imagine being able to deply up high while you hunker down and shoot the enemy from a mile away. Would take two guys and the platform would have to be stable.

  3. His problem is, he didn’t arm it up enough. The original armed drone was a home-made, too, iirc, like putting gun pods on the F-4.

    If he had put some model rockets on it instead and called it the “Reaper Lite” he’d already have Boeing and Lockheed in a bidding war.

    • I’ve read that in WWII they converted some B-17s into drones and used them to attack the submarine pens. Bombs wouldn’t penetrate the roofs so they flew drone B-17s into the pen entrances.

      • Yes. As I recall ,one of the Kennedy spawn was vaporized in an onboard explosion while flying one of the B17 prototypes over England. The Germans had several similar fighter/light bombers modified in similar manner.

  4. Hopped up kids on a joyride to hell.
    What’s next, remote controlled planes that can have missiles mounted to them and somebody can use them to attack targets half the world away from recliner in Florida or something?

    • You should see what I’m doing with a Raspberry Pi, a refurbished Wingman Extreme Joystick, a pair of stepper motors and a bearing from a Lazy Susan… Oh, and its wireless and solar powered with an optional cellular connection…

    • Yep. My thoughts exactly– what’s the problem with folks who want to do this on a range/area where shooting is legal? They have the same responsibilities as if they were holding the gun.

      Someone who wants to do this for nefarious purposes is going to do it anyway. If the hoplophobes are concerned, they need to figure out how to defeat the system with things like jamming- that’s security. Not just passing more laws, putting words on paper.

  5. I suspect after a visit from the feds a few defense contractors will offer this budding young engineer a job.

    I want this kid on our side.

      • Actually, he made some very serious good work with that drone.

        The engineering geek in me loves seeing how stable that thing is while firing.

        The next generation should have the rotors further out and the bore axis closer to center mass. Or a longer barrel…

        I can see why the feds are a bit concerned just seeing how stable it is in it’s current config.

        As it is, it’s nearly a turn-key remote weapon.

        • The relative lack of recoil was the first thing I noticed too – impressive. Not sure what would be the basis of a complaint.
          1. Under 500′ is OK (generally FAA has no authority unless higher or in a controlled airspace zone)
          2. Evidently on private property, legal weapon, no creatures were harmed or endangered.

          Also tough to understand why no fuss over Youtube of kids on Chicago’s Southside using a Roman candle drone to fire at pedestrians didn’t trigger a similar “investigation”. At least 2 laws were broken with that stunt.

          Seems like a matter of time before drones are weaponized with super soakers, Nerf or paintball guns. Feral cats that crap on my lawn take notice!

  6. Those pesky humans just keep inventing things!!!
    In Australia and Colorado there a groups of people who have mounted BB guns to scale model battleships. Their You Tube videos of naval war games are great.
    If you are worried and you shouldn’t be, take up clay target shooting.

  7. These aren’t the drones you are looking for.

    Seriously, I would be more worried about a generic quad copter and an IED.

      • It wasn’t ever claimed to be real, so it never had to be debunked.. It was for the launch of a call of duty game.. (Black ops 2 I think..)

    • I think MIT already has the software for that swarming stuff. A TV show featured it. They used tiney drones and flew them in preprogrammed swarms doing acrobatics and such like a flock of birds. Fascinating, but kind of disturbing,

  8. One does not merely stop the signal. This kid is awesome and if he doesn’t already have one he should get a full ride to MIT or Georgia Tech. Plus, the PSH by our opponents who were caught completely off guard by this wholly foreseeable development in basement technology is quite delightful. Bravo!!

    • MIT scholarship? Hardly. Thirty years ago I mounted a camera to a radio-controlled plane. Flew it and took pictures. Landed safely. It wouldn’t have been any more difficult to mount a gun instead. And I’m not really all that smart (just ask my wife).

  9. “The Federal Aviation Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are probing how the thing got built.”

    It’s pretty obvious how it got built: some guy strapped a pistol to a drone. Does it really take two federal agencies to figure this out? I mean, it’s cool and all, but it’s not exactly a cutting-edge feat of engineering.

    • Only two? You wildly overestimate the competency of our federal agencies. More will be dragged in before the investigation is complete, and possibly new bureaus created within them.

  10. This is just a logical outcome of the advance of technology and design engineering…oh, and, of course, “Yankee Ingenuity”. If this young man built the thing, I admire and commend his engineering skills! If he only posted the video of someone else’s work, then I thank him for sharing.

    But where does a commercially available drone with a firearm grafted on it fall with regard to the Second Amendment? Does flying a machine remotely controlled by a private person (aka “Us Ordinary Folk”) constitute “bearing” an Arm?

    There’s already a flap over drones privately deployed bearing digital cameras being an “invasion of privacy”/ Does deploying such an armed machine privately present an unreasonable threat to others?

    Given that the U.S. Government deploys and kills regularly with sophisticated drones (more airplane-like than these quad copters), where do we draw the line (if we do at all) between types of drones and what they can be equipped with, or what form they can take?

    Just thinking out loud, but there’s little doubt this will become an issue in the near future. Have to say, you could have a helluva lot of fun with one of these, though (in a suitably “safe” environment).

  11. Haha. I’m glad this caused an underpants discharge for them.

    Connecticut police told reporters Haughwout is in the clear at the state level, but the Federal Aviation Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are probing how the thing got built, according to WFSB.

    How do you think it got built? WTF.

    “The next to last thing we need is guns that people can send flying around,” Ruscoe said. “There’s no accountability for it. Someone can be flying this thing from God knows where.”

    Sure there is – the guy piloting the drone – they are the one accountable.

    Seriously, the world is plenty scary with the U.S. government secretly assassinating American citizens by drone strike without due process, and maniacs shooting up movie theaters, churches, and military bases with regular old-fashioned firearms. It’s hard to think of something good that could come of enabling anybody with a grand to spend at Walmart to send weaponry airborne.

    I agree. The US gov is definitely leading by example. How can anyone blame them? If the US gov does it – ? Why can’t regular people? I thought the Gov “was us” after all right?

    But there’s no holding back the future, only wondering what it will look like. Will drug cartels duke it out with the DEA and each other using quadro-copters? Will the default mode of a bored youth shooting his eye out be from above? Does the Second Amendment cover bearing arms remotely?

    Given the purpose of the 2nd amendment – if the gov has them, the people should probably have them too, and if the Gov “is the people” then why not share with all people – not just government employees.

    This isn’t the first time Haughwout’s drone use thrust him into the spotlight. Last year, he made the news after a woman, upset with him for buzzing over a beach with a camera-equipped drone, beat him.

    People these days get so upset about drones. I promote drone use – especially for the people.

  12. The last thing you need is the mental image of an elephant in a tutu riding a unicycle.

    Go ahead, I dare you to NOT think of that.

  13. So what’s the last thing we need?
    Maybe I’m just getting too old, but that was a very common saying when I was young.
    Answer – Another hole in your head.

  14. OMG, a gun on a quadcopter, OMG! Next thing you know the government will want one too! Oh wait, never mind…..

  15. We’re Americans, so if it flies we attach a gun to it. If it rolls we put a bigger engine it. The contradiction isn’t lost on me, in that when our government does this it is OK, but not when a citizen does it.

  16. the last thing we need is great white sharks armed with tethered harpoons. They’d be dragging folks off the beaches.

  17. I heard of a law prohibiting a remote controlled trigger apparatus. That is likely the reason for the visit if any. Once he is able to show the gun went off all on its own as we know they all do, he will be fine.

    • I was going to mention the same thing. I am pretty confident that the ATF frowns on remotely fired firearms, regardless of whether or not they are attached to a drone or a clamp on a wall.

      • “I was going to mention the same thing. I am pretty confident that the ATF frowns on remotely fired firearms, regardless of whether or not they are attached to a drone or a clamp on a wall.”

        I’m not so sure about that.

        Wasn’t there a company a few year’s back that let you fire a rifle at game via the web?

        And the (mostly feigned) outrage it caused…

  18. I think a federal debt greater than $18,000,000,000,000.00 is much more scary than a Glock rigged to a drone. I’d much rather have drones in civilian hands – as long as they are used responsibly – than exclusively under government control.

    In fact, I may be purchasing a high quality drone for aerial photography and videography if I’m able to sell me condo. (And maybe a Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor, too.)

  19. Wait, wait….the taxpayer is suppose to shut-up and and fund things like this…… But when a free citizen straps a completely legal gun to a completely legal quadrotor and plays with it on their own property, the FBI has a shit-fit and launches an investigation? You have got to be yanking my chain!

  20. I don’t know, I’m sure there are plenty of Hollywood screen writers that can imagine a scenario where having a drone take the chances against the bad guys would be preferable to the good guy getting aerated while taking those same chances. Plus the drone is smaller (harder to hit with a bullet) and drone doctors are cheaper than people doctors.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here