guns

Means it has to take off, detect the target, destroy with missiles/guns, and return.

One nation with guns and a goal is an invasion.

Isn't Switzerland one of the few countries with a higher proportion of adults having guns than the US?

And yes, machine guns plus cars did produce the Dillinger gang and the like for some short time.

Actually, more than the working conditions, the Americans didn't want to go back because of the guns.

It's a whole different beast when it involves cops for hire in armored golf carts, driving around with guns.

If you enforce the regulation with automated anti-drone guns, then yes it will make a difference.

It also explains why people are quick to anger and/or show up with guns blazing: these feelings are already in cache.

That fact is enough reason not to like the plane for situations involving guns or the program that led to that situation.

A lot of the time, it's just a matter of who has bigger guns.

It quickly ends up being 'because the guys with guns say so' and any distinction between government and organized crime quickly dissolves.

The best small players are doing some pretty cool bombing run stuff with guns -> speed -> shield, but it's often not enough.

The non Irish came armed (guns and knives) and forced the mill owner to put up a sign saying "No Irish Need Apply".

Machines without "subjective experience" or "semantic content" can still fire guns.

What people have an issue with is that he has repeatedly defended major shortcomings in the design of the craft with shoddy reasoning such as "oh, guns won't come into play in most combat scenarios, so it's OK for the guns on the F-35 to not work." If that's the type of low-quality discourse you want on HN, fine.