[etanazir]

Its one thing to make it illegal to use drones to harm other people; and another thing to say that only Google, Amazon, and the U.S. Government can own drones.

[baddox]

I'm not a legal expert, but I think it's already illegal to use drones to harm other people (unless you work for the government).

[stcredzero]

How does this amazing "unless you work for the government" clause work? Seriously, what is the legal basis of such exceptions?

EDIT: I'm not criticizing the parent comment. This is a legitimate question! (As usual!)

[etanazir]

"Government for the people by the people" implies the democratization of power; such as drones. Maybe its a bad idea.

[baddox]

I threw in the exception lest anyone point out that the US military regularly uses drones to harm people.

[stcredzero]

I'm not criticizing you. It is a legitimate question. There have always seemed to be exceptions for the government. Does this stem from "war powers?" What is the basis?

[baddox]

I suppose so. Most people agree that it's legal for the government to perform military actions. Which military actions are legal is controversial, of course.