Adventures in TSA land

[Michael]

Today is October 19, and it's starting to look like 49 CFR Part 1552,
which covers flight training for aliens and security procedures for
flight schools, is going to become effective tomorrow, unchanged. For
the full text, check out
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FINALSanctionGuidance.doc

If you're a US citizen looking for flight training in an aircraft of
less than 12,500 lbs, or a flight school providing such training, only
one aspect of this rule actually affects you starting tomorrow. But
first, what's a flight school? If you provide flight training, you're
a flight school – even if you're a solo part-time freelancer. Check
out p.20.

The aspect that kicks in on the 20th is the requirement to establish
citizenship. That means you as a student must present proof of
citizenship to your flight school, and the flight school must make a
copy of it and keep it for 5 years. What constitutes acceptable
proof? Well, at least the TSA is specific here. The full list is on
p.37-38.

So far, not too bad. But it gets worse. Within 90 days of the
effective date, which is tomorrow, all flight school employees (and
again, that means everyone including contractors, freelancers,
independents – and even the people working behind the desk – see
p.47-48) must receive initial security awareness training. New hires
only have 60 days from date of hire, so be careful about hiring anyone
in the next 30 days.

Why? Because while TSA has promised to develop the initial security
awareness training program, it's not here yet but will be ready "real
soon now." Watch this space – or, rather, watch
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=180
for updates. They're promising to be ready no later than October 30.

Of course you need not use their training program – you can develop
your own, and the TSA lays down some guidelines (see p. 49-51). What
the TSA will NOT do is evaluate your program for compliance. Instead,
it reserves the right to audit your program at a later date.

What happens if you're found not to be in compliance? Expect civil
penalties (p.54) You can get a good idea of what to expect by
examining the TSA document on civil penalties (remember, these can be
assessed without judge or jury) by checking out
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FINALSanctionGuidance.doc
Pay special attention to Page 7, which discusses penalties for flight
training providers failing to comply with any requirement of the alien
pilot training rules. You're looking at up to $10,000 per violation
if you're not an aircraft operator, and can expect civil penalties in
the maximum range. If you are an aircraft operator, you can be liable
for up to $25,000.

A year after you complete the initial security awareness training, you
need recurrent security awareness training – that year and every year.
The TSA will NOT be developing it – you are on your own. They also
will not evaluate it. See above – how lucky are you feeling?

So how about if you are an alien looking for flight training or a
flight school looking to train an alien? It's substantially worse.

For the alien, you're looking at being photographed, fingerprinted,
background-checked – all at your own expense of course. There will
be, as a minimum, a $130 fee. It may go up later (p. 46). That
doesn't include the photographs or fingerprints (p.47). The flight
school will need to keep a copy of all this stuff too – except the
fingerprints. The fee is waived for recurrent training – but that's
for people operating under a certificate only. No operations under
Part 91 (except subpart K) are recognized as recurrent training. The
cost and hassle of BFR's, IPC's, and aircraft/FBO checkouts has just
gone up...

You will need to register through a special TSA web site, and your
flight school will need to verify that registration. Don't count on
them being able to do that any time soon, though.

A flight school needs to have a user id and password issued to access
the web site and verify the registration of alien students. The way
to get that user id and password is to register with the local FSDO
(see p. 24). Since I trained an alien student last year, and expect
that I may train another soon, I called the FSDO. Remember, the
deadline is tomorrow; I called last week. This caught the FSDO
totally by surprise. I was the first person in the Houston FSDO to
call. They had no idea they were supposed to register anyone. The
matter is being escalated to Washington. I still haven't gotten a
call back.

A careful reading of the document (which includes both the text of
1552 and the official explanation) indicates that there is no
grandfather clause – the fact that an alien is already taking flight
training does not mean said training can continue without meeting the
new TSA requirements.

Michael

[zatatime]

On 19 Oct 2004 13:17:10 -0700,
(Michael) wrote:

>New hires
>only have 60 days from date of hire, so be careful about hiring anyone
>in the next 30 days.


New hires have until Jan 18, 2005 per the link you provided:
<snip>
For current employees (those employees employed by the flight school
as of January 18, 2005), initial training must be completed no later
than January 18, 2005. For employees hired after January 18, 2005,
initial training must be completed no later than 60 days after the
date of hire. Recurrent training must be provided to employees each
year in the same month as the month they received initial training.

z

[David Brooks]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Today is October 19, and...

a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:

> A careful reading of the document (which includes both the text of
> 1552 and the official explanation) indicates that there is no
> grandfather clause - the fact that an alien is already taking flight
> training does not mean said training can continue without meeting the
> new TSA requirements.

A letter written yesterday, and added to the docket today, by the TSA chief
counsel says that it can continue. The letter doesn't use the same
terminology as the IFR, but hey. It says "flight students" who are already
"enrolled" in such flight training are not subject to the regulation. I
support it's up to us whether we regard the guy who takes 6 years for his
Part 61 instrument rating and goes through three instructors continues to be
enrolled in the training.

They don't say how they justify that opinion, but here's my attempt. The
definition of candidate is "an alien... who *applies for* flight
training...". This definition thus provides the context for everything else.
(The definition, by omission, excludes citizens, which can make it easy to
misinterpret the rest of the rule.) My emphasis on "applies for", not
"undergoes". If you are already in flight training, i.e. you already
applied, you are not defined as a candidate.

The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to a
*candidate*... unless...".

The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning recurrent
training for a *candidate*..."

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

I > wrote in message
...
> I
> support it's up to us whether we regard the guy who takes 6 years for his
> Part 61 instrument rating and goes through three instructors continues to
be
> enrolled in the training.

support -> suppose. Sorry.

[zatatime]

On 19 Oct 2004 13:17:10 -0700,
(Michael) wrote:

>Today is October 19, and it's starting to look like 49 CFR Part 1552,
>which covers flight training for aliens and security procedures for
>flight schools, is going to become effective tomorrow, unchanged. For
>the full text, check out
>http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FINALSanctionGuidance.doc


You've provided this link twice in your post. I think you meant to
put a different link than this at the top of your post (this is only
the 10 page penalty document). If you could provide the link to the
whole document I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for the info.

z

[Jim Burns]

I wonder if John and Martha, our buddy Hal, and the AOPA are busy trying to
produce some kind of TSA training video course that will qualify. I can
hardly wait to see what shape Martha's hair takes next.

My biggest disappointment over all this does not come from the rules
themselves, but from the orgainizations, especially NAFI, that claim to keep
CFI's informed and represent them.

Thanks for the update.
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/19/2004 13:17, Michael wrote:

> Today is October 19, and it's starting to look like 49 CFR Part 1552,
> which covers flight training for aliens and security procedures for
> flight schools, is going to become effective tomorrow, unchanged. For
> the full text, check out
> http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FINALSanctionGuidance.doc

This is not the rule, but is the Sanctions document. I looked around
and was unable to find the full rule (although I could find interpretations
of the rule on various sites).

Do you have a link to the actual rule?

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Egads. I am a Canadian who is in the US as a grad student
(non-resident alien) and was planning on doing flight training this
spring. It sounds like these new rules and fees would be a
significant burden. This sucks.

I wonder if the fact that a went and took an intro lesson a couple of
months ago makes me already "enrolled" by their definitions. ;-)

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

[Roger Long]

>
> I wonder if the fact that I went and took an intro lesson a couple of
> months ago makes me already "enrolled" by their definitions. ;-)
>
Nope. It makes you a potential terrorist by their definition.

Remember back to the 911 hearings? They asked someone from the FBI if there
had been any red flags before the attack.

"Senator", was the reply, "We were in a sea of red flags. We just didn't
know which were the important ones."

I think this was one of the most important lessons to come out of the
hearings.

TSA's response to threats is to red flag EVERYTHING! Then, if there is an
attack, they'll be able to say they had a red flag on the target. The folks
who make the U.S. flags that clip onto your car windows will make another
bundle and everyone will overlook the fact that the TSA didn't actually
secure anything.

You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.

--

Roger Long

[NW_PILOT]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > I wonder if the fact that I went and took an intro lesson a couple of
> > months ago makes me already "enrolled" by their definitions. ;-)
> >
> Nope. It makes you a potential terrorist by their definition.
>
> Remember back to the 911 hearings? They asked someone from the FBI if
there
> had been any red flags before the attack.
>
> "Senator", was the reply, "We were in a sea of red flags. We just didn't
> know which were the important ones."
>
> I think this was one of the most important lessons to come out of the
> hearings.
>
> TSA's response to threats is to red flag EVERYTHING! Then, if there is an
> attack, they'll be able to say they had a red flag on the target. The
folks
> who make the U.S. flags that clip onto your car windows will make another
> bundle and everyone will overlook the fact that the TSA didn't actually
> secure anything.
>
> You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.

Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take it
over.




>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
>

[Roger Long]

>> You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
>
> Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take
> it
> over.
>

There's oil in Canada?

--

Roger Long

[jawilljr]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message =
...
>>> You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
>>
>> Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then =
take=20
>> it
>> over.
>>
>=20
> There's oil in Canada?
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> Roger Long
>=20
>=20
Yep... lots of it:

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf

Jerry

[Dean Wilkinson]

Yes, and lots and lots of lumber (trees)... take off hoser.

"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> >> You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
> >
> > Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take
> > it
> > over.
> >
>
> There's oil in Canada?

[Michael]

Mark Hansen > wrote
> This is not the rule, but is the Sanctions document.

Mea culpa. Inadequate proofreading on my part. Sorry.

> Do you have a link to the actual rule?

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf

Michael

[Michael]

"David Brooks" > wrote
> A letter written yesterday, and added to the docket today, by the TSA chief
> counsel says that it can continue.

Yeah, that showed up after I posted.

> They don't say how they justify that opinion

Irrelevant, really. It's the chief counsel opinion, so it's official.

> The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs)

No, it does not. It does not cover ANY recurrent training under Part
91 except subpart K (which isn't us). See specifically:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf
Refer to p.36: Only those getting recurrent training under Part 121,
125, 135 or Subpart K of Part 91 (fractrionals) are covered.

Michael

[SelwayKid]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message >...
> I wonder if John and Martha, our buddy Hal, and the AOPA are busy trying to
> produce some kind of TSA training video course that will qualify. I can
> hardly wait to see what shape Martha's hair takes next.
>
> My biggest disappointment over all this does not come from the rules
> themselves, but from the orgainizations, especially NAFI, that claim to keep
> CFI's informed and represent them.
>
> Thanks for the update.
> Jim
> Jim
I concur wholeheartedly. I was a member of NAFI nearly from its
inception with a number #0962, and of the AOPA with #1950330. Neither
of them seemed to do anything but shake like a dog shi&&ting prune
seeds and bend over to acquiesce to more ill thought out government
legislation. I suspect it was written by some college grad with no
real world experience who slipped in to suck on the government tit and
the rest of us have to pay for it.
Why should I have to do the TSA's work in determining an applicants
citizenship and keep records of it, and to further be the TSA snitch
at MY expense? It stinks. If the INS can't do it with their billions
of dollars, why in hell should I be subjected to extreme fines and
penalties for making a paperwork error and at perhaps $25 per hour of
my instructional time. Something is really wrong here with this
picture.
In case you didn't notice, my independent back is really up on this
one...and I'll still vote for Bush. Kerry would have the UN determine
what is best for us and we all see what that portends.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

[David Brooks]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "David Brooks" > wrote

>
> > The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs)
>
> No, it does not. It does not cover ANY recurrent training under Part
> 91 except subpart K (which isn't us). See specifically:
> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/296897_web.pdf
> Refer to p.36: Only those getting recurrent training under Part 121,
> 125, 135 or Subpart K of Part 91 (fractrionals) are covered.

As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their submission
filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear mistake.
The legal document is the IFR itself, not its preamble. In the rule itself,
definitions section, recurrent training includes training required under
Part 61, without qualification.

However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket today.
One of them affirms that Part 61 is included in "recurrent training", but
then goes on to exempt flight reviews etc, and specifically 61.56 and 61.57.
There is no logic provided; it is clearly an attempt to use a hastily
written counsel opinion to put a band-aid on a poorly researched regulation.

Another "clarification" grants a 60-day extension for aliens who already
have a pilot certificate.

Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the docket.

-- David Brooks

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> >> You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
> >
> > Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then
take
> > it
> > over.
> >
>
> There's oil in Canada?

For all your idiotic claims about Iraq, we sure haven't seen any from there.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the
docket.

Could someone please provide links to where I can see this "docket" for
myself?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[David Brooks]

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket,
and hit "Reverse Order" to see the last few days' postings from TSA.

As I just posted in r.a.s, one clarification is to narrow the definition of
training to that taken in pursuit of a certificate or rating. That answers
the protests around safety/currency, but is still a major burden on flight
training. No new alien students, and citizens in training still have to
provide proof of citizenship.

-- David Brooks

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Sorry, I have work to do, and I can't read any more. It's all on the
> docket.
>
> Could someone please provide links to where I can see this "docket" for
> myself?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
>
>

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:20:52 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket,
>and hit "Reverse Order" to see the last few days' postings from TSA.
>
snipped....

Thank you very much for this link. I read the document that Michael
provided a link to but I couldn't find any current information
anywhere. Definitely worth the price of admission.
Rich Russell

[David Brooks]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:20:52 -0700, "David Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchT
ype=docket,
> >and hit "Reverse Order" to see the last few days' postings from TSA.
> >
> snipped....
>
> Thank you very much for this link. I read the document that Michael
> provided a link to but I couldn't find any current information
> anywhere. Definitely worth the price of admission.

Of the, by my count, 254 comments on the docket (not counting those by TSA),
35 are dated today. 6 were added since I started typing this. They've even
given up trying to convert the comments to PDF before posting.

[Newps]

Roger Long wrote:
>>>You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
>>
>>Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take
>>it
>>over.
>>
>
>
> There's oil in Canada?

Of course. Same puddle as ANWR.

[Peter Duniho]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Of the, by my count, 254 comments on the docket (not counting those by
> TSA),
> 35 are dated today. 6 were added since I started typing this. They've even
> given up trying to convert the comments to PDF before posting.

They never tried to do that in the first place. Every time I've ever
monitored comments for various NPRMs, the most recent comments are almost
always text-only (for a document that is still actively receiving comments,
of course).

Though, that said, I don't really understand why there's the delay between
posting the text comments and posting the PDF version. Presumably, the
delay in seeing one's comment at all is so that it can be reviewed (for
profanity maybe? though I've seen some pretty offensive comments so maybe
that's not even it). The conversion to PDF ought to be able to be made
automatic, and should take no more time than getting the text comment into
the database.

Pete

[Michael]

"David Brooks" > wrote
> As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their submission
> filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear mistake.

It may be clear, but it's authoritative. Same as the letter exempting
current students.

> However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket today.

They're coming fast and furious now. And they're all authoritative -
straight from the chief counsel's office. In a way, the TSA is better
than the FAA - at least they're willing to tell us exactly what the
rule means, from an authoritative source, rather than intentionally
keeping it vague so they can bust us later.

Michael

[Judah]

"Roger Long" > wrote in
:

>>> You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
>>
>> Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then
>> take it over.
>>
>
> There's oil in Canada?
>

No. But they have Flu Shots. And it's an election year.

[TD]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message news:<pridnR14gcOiMOjcRVn-> >
> Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take it
> over.

Please take us over. My earnings would double and I would actually be
able to afford to buy a new plane!!

BTW, all countries are threats to the US, in different degrees,
especially since this perception was polarized by your sitting
president. What amazes an outsider like myself is how the US public
has been swayed by the political spin doctors in believing that a
highly educated, highly decorated loyal veteran would be a worse
commander in chief and would somehow be less capable to protect the US
from threats than who you have now. This is so, John Waynesque.

Tien

[Larry Dighera]

On 21 Oct 2004 05:58:28 -0700, (TD) wrote in
>::

>What amazes an outsider like myself is how the US public
>has been swayed by the political spin doctors in believing that a
>highly educated, highly decorated loyal veteran would be a worse
>commander in chief and would somehow be less capable to protect the US
>from threats than who you have now.

You must remember, that 50% of the population have two-digit IQs.

[Roger Long]

> You must remember, that 50% of the population have two-digit IQs.

And 50% of the other half have been so brainwashed by talk radio that they
act like it.

--

Roger Long

[Gary Drescher]

"TD" > wrote in message
...
> What amazes an outsider like myself is how the US public
> has been swayed by the political spin doctors in believing that a
> highly educated, highly decorated loyal veteran would be a worse
> commander in chief and would somehow be less capable to protect the US
> from threats than who you have now.

Many of us insiders are amazed too. :)

--Gary

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> What amazes an outsider like myself is how the US public
> has been swayed by the political spin doctors in believing that a
> highly educated, highly decorated loyal veteran would be a worse
> commander in chief and would somehow be less capable to protect the US
> from threats than who you have now.

Oh no! Here we go! I refuse to trash you for saying this, but I can only
imagine what others are going to say. Thankfully, I keep my monitor encased
in asbestos whenever I read this forum. For what it's worth, I just want to
point out that both candidates can be considered "highly educated", given
that they attended more or less the exact same schools.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[David Brooks]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "David Brooks" > wrote
> > As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their
submission
> > filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear
mistake.
>
> It may be clear, but it's authoritative. Same as the letter exempting
> current students.

I was referring to the contradiction between the preamble comments and the
actual text of the rule. They can't both be authoritative, and I was working
on the belief the rule overrides its own commentary

> > However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket
today.
>
> They're coming fast and furious now. And they're all authoritative -
> straight from the chief counsel's office. In a way, the TSA is better
> than the FAA - at least they're willing to tell us exactly what the
> rule means, from an authoritative source, rather than intentionally
> keeping it vague so they can bust us later.

Well, in a legal sense they are telling us what it means. Less kind
observers will say they are just plain changing the rule, wholesale, with
zero comment period. At the very least the rulings amount to a rewrite of
the Definitions section.

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:54:45 GMT, "Geoffrey Barnes"
> wrote in
et>::

>For what it's worth, I just want to
>point out that both candidates can be considered "highly educated", given
>that they attended more or less the exact same schools.

You're overlooking the grades they received at those schools.


http://www.guerillastickers.com/opinion_gbush.htm

When It Comes To Hypocrisy, He's Brilliant!

By Ellis Henican Newsday

"To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I
say, well done. And to the C students, I say you too can be
president of the United States." George W. Bush, Yale commencement
address, 33 years after graduation

He was a C student at Phillips Andover. He got a not-so-stellar
1206 on his SATs - 566 verbal, 640 math. That was a full 180
points below the median score for the Yale University class of
'68. But boola-boola for him! In the fall of 1964, George W. Bush
was welcomed inside Yale's ivy-covered walls as a "legacy
admittee." And why not? The wisecracking Texas teen had something
far more powerful than dumb ol' test scores or silly grades. He
had a father, George H.W. Bush, who was a rich and prominent Yale
alum. And a grandfather, too. Prescott S. Bush, the aristocratic
Connecticut senator, was even a Yale trustee.
...

Freshman year, his grades put him in the 21st percentile of his
class, meaning four-fifths of his classmates did better than the
Future Leader of the Free World. And in the years that followed,
young W never pulled his average above a C. His college
transcript, in an eye-popping leak to The New Yorker magazine,
showed a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a
71 in Introduction to International Relations, to cite two
examples that could mean something in hindsight.

[Roger]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:54:45 GMT, "Geoffrey Barnes"
> wrote:

>> What amazes an outsider like myself is how the US public
>> has been swayed by the political spin doctors in believing that a
>> highly educated, highly decorated loyal veteran would be a worse
>> commander in chief and would somehow be less capable to protect the US
>> from threats than who you have now.
>
>Oh no! Here we go! I refuse to trash you for saying this, but I can only
>imagine what others are going to say. Thankfully, I keep my monitor encased
>in asbestos whenever I read this forum. For what it's worth, I just want to
>point out that both candidates can be considered "highly educated", given
>that they attended more or less the exact same schools.

Both educated, both wealthy although one is more so, and both have had
questions raised about their military service. One is pro firearms
and the other con. One is "upper society" while the other is not.
Neither is a man of the "little people" and one didn't make it to
very many sessions to vote. The two are polar opposits. Hence the
stark division between the people who see one as good and the other as
.... well not from both sides of the fence.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
>

[Newps]

TD wrote:

> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message news:<pridnR14gcOiMOjcRVn-> >
>
>>Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take it
>>over.
>
>
> Please take us over. My earnings would double and I would actually be
> able to afford to buy a new plane!!

And that's just by using real money, not that stuff you use now.

[NW_PILOT]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> TD wrote:
>
> > "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
news:<pridnR14gcOiMOjcRVn-> >
> >
> >>Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then
take it
> >>over.
> >
> >
> > Please take us over. My earnings would double and I would actually be
> > able to afford to buy a new plane!!
>
> And that's just by using real money, not that stuff you use now.
>
>

Yep you call your money funny names like loony's & toony's! Canada is the
only place I have seen ware you have to stick in a loony to get a shopping
cart. You get the money back when you return the shopping cart. That was in
estavan not sure if it happens anyplace else in Canada.

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> Both educated, both wealthy although one is more so, and both have had
> questions raised about their military service.

True.

> One is pro firearms and the other con.

False. Or, giving you the most benefit of the doubt, that is at the very
least an incredibly broad oversimplification of their gun ownership views.

> One is "upper society" while the other is not.

I assume you mean Bush is not "upper society". Not sure how you determined
this...in his circles, he certainly is. Just because he has no idea how to
properly use the English language, that doesn't mean he's not "upper
society".

> Neither is a man of the "little people" and one didn't make it to
> very many sessions to vote.

As far as I know, Bush didn't make it to any Senate sessions to vote either.
:)

There's no feasible way to compare the two, especially since a) it's not
atypical for a senator to miss a number of votes, and b) Kerry absences are
mainly explained by the fact that he's been campaigning. It's not like Bush
has a great attendance record for the Oval Office himself, again due to his
campaigning

> The two are polar opposits.

Not really. Frankly, I find them to be uncomfortably similar, as much as
the media (and their campaigns, for that matter) would love to have us think
they are polar opposites.

> Hence the
> stark division between the people who see one as good and the other as
> ... well not from both sides of the fence.

The stark division is because most people want to view the world that way.
Even as much as Democrats/liberals claim to be open-minded and want to take
in a variety of viewpoints, they can be just as "black and white" as
Republicans/conservatives.

Personally, I don't have much hope that Kerry will do better than Bush. But
I know for a fact Bush has been a complete disaster. I'm more than happy to
just keep trading in my President until I get one I like.

Pete

[BTIZ]

so when are they going to publish a "final" authorative rule.. can't keep
checking the docet to see what's really current..

BT

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "David Brooks" > wrote
>> > As I pointed out in my submission, and AOPA pointed out in their
> submission
>> > filed today, the document in the Federal Register contains a clear
> mistake.
>>
>> It may be clear, but it's authoritative. Same as the letter exempting
>> current students.
>
> I was referring to the contradiction between the preamble comments and the
> actual text of the rule. They can't both be authoritative, and I was
> working
> on the belief the rule overrides its own commentary
>
>> > However, there's a flurry of "clarifications" by TSA on the docket
> today.
>>
>> They're coming fast and furious now. And they're all authoritative -
>> straight from the chief counsel's office. In a way, the TSA is better
>> than the FAA - at least they're willing to tell us exactly what the
>> rule means, from an authoritative source, rather than intentionally
>> keeping it vague so they can bust us later.
>
> Well, in a legal sense they are telling us what it means. Less kind
> observers will say they are just plain changing the rule, wholesale, with
> zero comment period. At the very least the rulings amount to a rewrite of
> the Definitions section.
>
> -- David Brooks
> Believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>

[Roger]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:57:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> Both educated, both wealthy although one is more so, and both have had
>> questions raised about their military service.
>
>True.
>
>> One is pro firearms and the other con.
>
>False. Or, giving you the most benefit of the doubt, that is at the very

No, that one is true. Kerry claims to be a hunter and pro gun rights,
but his voting record is decidedly anti-gun. The Brady campaign and
several others give him an A.


>
>Personally, I don't have much hope that Kerry will do better than Bush. But
>I know for a fact Bush has been a complete disaster. I'm more than happy to
>just keep trading in my President until I get one I like.

Then there is the Devil you know Vs the Devil you don't. <:-))

Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me as does
Kerry's anti-gun, pro-un (we should align our laws to the UN and not
our constitution.) stance. Actually it's Kerry's claim to be pro gun
owner's rights when his record shows the opposite that scares me.

Too bad if "non of the above" won they don't have to run new
candidates.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Pete
>

[Roger]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:47:27 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:

>
>"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> TD wrote:
>>
>> > "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
>news:<pridnR14gcOiMOjcRVn-> >
>> >
>> >>Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then
>take it
>> >>over.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please take us over. My earnings would double and I would actually be
>> > able to afford to buy a new plane!!
>>
>> And that's just by using real money, not that stuff you use now.
>>
>>
>
>Yep you call your money funny names like loony's & toony's! Canada is the
>only place I have seen ware you have to stick in a loony to get a shopping
>cart. You get the money back when you return the shopping cart. That was in
>estavan not sure if it happens anyplace else in Canada.

Man oh man, but I'd like to see that here in the US. Maybe it'd cure
a few of those who are too lazy to even put the carts in the rack out
in the parking lot. They can't manage to push an empty cart 20 feet
to where it belongs so the wind ends up blowing it across the parking
lot into someone's car.

A couple weeks back I was pulling into a spot when one came around the
front of the car on my right in a curve. I was almost to a stop but
hit it head on. I'd swear that sucker made it 30 feet before it
landed. Stayed on it's feet too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



>

[Roger]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:44:39 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>> Today is October 19, and...
>
>a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:
>
<snip>
>
>The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to a
>*candidate*... unless...".
>
>The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning recurrent
>training for a *candidate*..."
>

Not sure I understand that. A BFR is not recurrent training.
It is a flight review.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>-- David Brooks
>

[Kees Mies]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message >...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > TD wrote:
> >
> > > "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> news:<pridnR14gcOiMOjcRVn-> >
> > >
> > >>Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then
> take it
> > >>over.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please take us over. My earnings would double and I would actually be
> > > able to afford to buy a new plane!!
> >
> > And that's just by using real money, not that stuff you use now.
> >
> >
>
> Yep you call your money funny names like loony's & toony's! Canada is the
> only place I have seen ware you have to stick in a loony to get a shopping
> cart. You get the money back when you return the shopping cart. That was in
> estavan not sure if it happens anyplace else in Canada.

It happens in most parts of the developed world, ie Europe ;-)
Before anybody starts about left-wing socialist commie consparicies go
to
your supermarket manager and ask him/her what those shopping carts
cost them annually. You would be suprised, no suprise is who is paying
for this.
It is you, the customer.
Other advanteges:
-Enough carts around, everybody returns them
-Less dents and scratches in ones car.

-Kees

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> No, that one is true. Kerry claims to be a hunter and pro gun rights,
> but his voting record is decidedly anti-gun.

Again, you are oversimplifying the issue, labeling as "anti-gun" anyone who
doesn't approve of carte-blanche access to guns. "False" was correct.

> Then there is the Devil you know Vs the Devil you don't. <:-))

Well, I'm not a big fan of that philosophy. I'd rather trade in my devils
until I get one I can live with, since the ones I know aren't doing me any
good.

> Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me

Bush claims to be United Methodist, which is hardly a "born again" or
"fundamentalist" version of Christianity. That said, he's a pretty lame
United Methodist and I'd agree that, while I doubt he'd agree, his attitudes
better mirror the fundamentalists.

Frankly, I'd think it'd be pretty obvious by now that fundamentalism, of any
sort, is no way to run things. It boggles my mind why so many people in the
US think that fundamentalist Christianity is a fine thing on which to base
our government, but at the same time are so critical of fundamentalist
Muslims.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> Man oh man, but I'd like to see that here in the US. Maybe it'd cure
> a few of those who are too lazy to even put the carts in the rack out
> in the parking lot.

If it didn't cure it, at least you and I could make a pretty penny putting
the carts back where they go.

I gave up thinking there were ANY other intelligent people in my
neighborhood after seeing one too many people leave the cart not *ten feet*
from the proper place. I saw one woman push a cart up over a curb and onto
a grass island, walking farther and investing greater effort than she would
have had she simply put the cart in the cart return area (which was only 15
or 20 feet from her car).

Pete

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Man oh man, but I'd like to see that here in the US. Maybe it'd cure
> > a few of those who are too lazy to even put the carts in the rack out
> > in the parking lot.
>
> If it didn't cure it, at least you and I could make a pretty penny putting
> the carts back where they go.
>
> I gave up thinking there were ANY other intelligent people in my
> neighborhood after seeing one too many people leave the cart not *ten
feet*
> from the proper place. I saw one woman push a cart up over a curb and
onto
> a grass island, walking farther and investing greater effort than she
would
> have had she simply put the cart in the cart return area (which was only
15
> or 20 feet from her car).
>
> Pete
>
>

I see that happen all the time, It gives the cart collectors excellent job
security. I usually am to lazy to push my own cart or cart's back to the
car. When the bag boy/girl asks you want help out I say sure give him/her a
tip if he/she don't break the eggs or squish the bread while loading them in
the car and he/she usually takes care of the cart at the same time.

[TD]

Roger > wrote in message

> Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me

Scares me too.


>as does
> Kerry's anti-gun, ...stance.

Roger, this confuses me, and many others I am sure both in the US and
especially outside. Why do many americans view anti-gun laws as
frightening? Coming from a place where we have significant gun
control mechanisms, which in my layman`s view, seems to "work"
controlling violent crime, why would you favor upholding the 2nd
ammendment instead of supporting gun control, which many if not all
law enforcement agencies recommend strengthening?

Tien

[Jose]

> why would you favor upholding the 2nd
> ammendment instead of supporting gun control, which many if not all
> law enforcement agencies recommend strengthening?

1: because it's part of the Constitution of the United States.
2: because it's one of our defenses against government going bad
3: because gun control is another way of ensuring that we no longer need to be responsible for our own actions; this helps destroy society from the inside
4: because law enforcement should not have too much power over us

Jose
(note - though replied to r.a.student and r.a.piloting; I don't follow the student newsgroup)

[W P Dixon]

Well Tien,
The Second Amendment was written in order to keep the government in
check. The power of the people was meant to be stronger than the power of
the federal government. Unfortunately "We The People" has become more like
"We The Sheeple". Slowly law after law takes away the freedoms of the
people. When you look at laws that are enacted that tell a homeowner that he
can not paint his house certain colors it's pretty easy to see! If you don't
you are going through life with blinders on.
Australia and Great Britain have enacted severe gun control laws , and
their crime rates have sky rocketed. Check out the numbers on numerous web
sites...it's amazing! For myself I see a gun control law as just another
step to do away with guns. Common Sense tells us all that someone who is a
convicted felon should never be allowed to own a firearm, but how many
people do we still let drive a car that drives DUI...just as dangerous
wouldn't you think?
I think a big part of all of the hoopla is that gun control people don't
really understand guns period, or laws already written. I constantly hear
talk of these gun shows selling guns to anybody . I go to these shows all
the time and I have never bought even an old shotgun without the dealer
calling a background check on me. But some politicians may like that does
not happen..Which is just a blatent lie. So it makes me wonder exactly what
these politicians are up to!
The assault weapons ban was a joke! It banned guns because of the way
they looked! My .22 cal rifle fits the operational category of these "oh so
bad" weapons! It's just ridiculas! Also covered on this "ban" was high
capacity magazines. Like it takes more than one bullet to kill someone?
I find it amusing that the political party in this country that usually
complains about police brutality seems to want to make themselves even more
at the mercy of these same police. When only the police and the feds have
guns , what do they think will keep these types in check then? No I am not
saying all cops commit brutal acts, but there are those on the gun control
side that think it happens more often than not in law enforcement.And yep
there are in deed BAD COPS....how many bad cops will there be when no one
can protect themselves from anything..crooks or anyone?
And one simple fact remains...make all the laws you want and the crooks
will still have them and get them . And it only effects law abidding
citizens..who would then be at the mercy of these thugs. If they can not
smuggle them in...which heck we all know you can do look at all the drugs
that come into this country! , a gun is very simple to make. So the law only
prevents a person from defending themselves. Case in point... The city of
Kennesaw Mountain , GA passed a law that required anyone over the age of 21
(homeowner I believe) to own a handgun. The crime rate dropped by something
of the 80% range. Again please look up the exact number. The town made this
law because a town in Ohio I think it was banned guns.....there crime rate
rose by about 80%.
Every city in this country that has strict gun control laws has the
worst crime rates. I for one will never depend on the police that usually
show up 2 hours after a crime has taken place to defend my family. As far as
police complaints well I would complain to, if I had a 9mm and the bad guys
had AK-47's. and since no law is going to stop the bad guys from having an
Ak-47 ...why shouldn't the police or someone who "has the right" to defend
their family have equal firepower.
And common sense will tell you that if you took every single gun out of
a country, a murderer will still kill! Will we ban knives next... then
frying pans and baseball bats? Where would it stop? Or would it just stop
when the government knew the sheeple were at their mercy? No fiearms sure
means no civilian uprising against a tyrant.
It sure all debateable for sure, I think the entire process needs people to
see from both viewpoints not just one side. Gun Control for me would be a
background check, must be 18 to own or carry a firearm, and a convicted
felon has no right to a firearm or a vote( those rights should be lost at
conviction). Other than that..you can take my guns when you pry my dead cold
fingers off of them. hee hee hee

Patrick
"TD" > wrote in message
m...
> Roger > wrote in message
>
> > Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me
>
> Scares me too.
>
>
> >as does
> > Kerry's anti-gun, ...stance.
>
> Roger, this confuses me, and many others I am sure both in the US and
> especially outside. Why do many americans view anti-gun laws as
> frightening? Coming from a place where we have significant gun
> control mechanisms, which in my layman`s view, seems to "work"
> controlling violent crime, why would you favor upholding the 2nd
> ammendment instead of supporting gun control, which many if not all
> law enforcement agencies recommend strengthening?
>
> Tien

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No, that one is true. Kerry claims to be a hunter and pro gun rights,
> > but his voting record is decidedly anti-gun.
>
> Again, you are oversimplifying the issue, labeling as "anti-gun" anyone who
> doesn't approve of carte-blanche access to guns. "False" was correct.

No, Kerry's voting record is 100% anti-gun. As some highlights,

-- He voted this year for a ban on centerfire rifle ammunition. That would
immediately make most deer hunting weapons useless.
-- He voted for the Schumer ammendment to spend millions for gun buyback programs.
-- He's a co-sponsor of legislation to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
Ironically, his bill would make the shotgun he received as a gift in West Virginia
illegal.
-- He's voted several times to ban legitimate sales of firearms by private owners.
-- He's voted for Federal firearms registration.
-- He voted for a measure that would make a firearms owner responsible if his
weapon is stolen and used in a crime.
-- He voted to kill the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

He's voted the same way as Ted Kennedy on gun issues and the same way as Chuck
Schumer nearly 100% of the time. That is *not* a moderate stance on gun ownership.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

NW_PILOT wrote:
>
> When the bag boy/girl asks you want help out I say sure give him/her a
> tip if he/she don't break the eggs or squish the bread while loading them in
> the car and he/she usually takes care of the cart at the same time.

You have "bag boys" where you live? Wow!

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[David Brooks]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:44:39 -0700, "David Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Today is October 19, and...
> >
> >a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to
a
> >*candidate*... unless...".
> >
> >The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning
recurrent
> >training for a *candidate*..."
> >
>
> Not sure I understand that. A BFR is not recurrent training.
> It is a flight review.

The Definitions section of the Rule says, in pertinent part, "Recurrent
training means periodic training required under 14 CFR part 61, 121,125,
135, or Subpart K of part 91", and that phrase embraces the Flight Review.
The definition completely undermines the discussion of the term in the
preamble. On the 20th, the TSA decided by fiat that they didn't mean it
(basically, they reaffirmed the definition in the discussion section).

-- David Brooks
Believe!!!!!

[Michael]

"David Brooks" > wrote
> I was referring to the contradiction between the preamble comments and the
> actual text of the rule. They can't both be authoritative, and I was working
> on the belief the rule overrides its own commentary

Well, not really. In any case, it no longer matters. I understand
now why the TSA decided to handle it that way - they're actually doing
us a favor. By your reading of the rule, BFR's and IPC's would be
Category 4. But by the TSA interpretation, they're not in any
category and require no paperwork, be it for citizens OR aliens.

> Well, in a legal sense they are telling us what it means. Less kind
> observers will say they are just plain changing the rule, wholesale, with
> zero comment period.

You could say that - but in reality, all they are doing is narrowing
the scope of the rule. Our story so far:

A candidate is someone who APPLIES for flight training - so those who
have already started training are exempt.

TRAINING only covers what you need for a certificate or rating - so
BFR's, IPC's, aircraft checkouts, and just regular brushup trainign
with a CFI is exempt.

So yes, they're changing the rule - but always in our favor.

Now if I were an alien looking to get flight training, I would be
pretty unhappy - since these rulings are going to make most of the
opposition to the rule disappear.

Divide and conquer...

Michael

[Roger]

On 22 Oct 2004 06:46:32 -0700, (TD) wrote:

>Roger > wrote in message
>
>> Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me
>
>Scares me too.
>
>
>>as does
>> Kerry's anti-gun, ...stance.
>
>Roger, this confuses me, and many others I am sure both in the US and
>especially outside. Why do many americans view anti-gun laws as
>frightening? Coming from a place where we have significant gun

Others have given some good answers and some not so good, but here's
my take or impressions at a rational explanation
:
First, I think Jose already gave a good start.

I think part of the philosophy over here stems not just from the
constitution which says "The Right of the People to bear Arms Shall
Not be Infringed", but a very large part of the Country is still
rural. A high percentage of us grew up with firearms and hunting as a
part of our way of life and think of them like any other tool which
can be misused. They are part of our culture and heritage.

Nearly any police officer will tell you that when it comes to some one
breaking in your home they can not get there in time to protect you.
Step one is hide if you can. If you can't then you resort to what
ever force you have available. Many of us have had firearms training
and see gun control as a means of preventing us from protecting our
homes and families, disguised as something that will... well protect
us. History just doesn't support that. Remember one of Hitler's
first acts was gun control in Germany.

I would add that with the freedom comes a very strong responsibility
that most of us take quite seriously.

With pressure of billionaires like George Soros apparently pushing for
the eventual abolishment of the private ownership of firearms many of
us wonder at the reason behind his motives of removing our ability for
self protection. I wonder particularly as it seems in contradiction
to his views of an open society.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?041018fa_fact3

Even the recent ban in Australia has reportedly resulted in an
increase of violent crime and break ins.


>control mechanisms, which in my layman`s view, seems to "work"

The problem here is who is giving the statistics.
For instance in the US in every state where "Right To Carry" laws
have been passed violent crime has gone down. Not just firearms
crimes, but almost all classes of violent crime. Not a lot of people
"carry" but with even a few, the criminal has no idea who's packin"
<:-))

We are in some rough financial times, yet violent crime is at its
lowest in I think 30 or 40 years. That should say a lot.

>controlling violent crime, why would you favor upholding the 2nd
>ammendment instead of supporting gun control, which many if not all
>law enforcement agencies recommend strengthening?

I think diligent research and not the national news media would show
the majority, if not the vast majority of law enforcement agencies do
not recommend strengthening gun control. I know a number of law
officers including one who is a neighbor and none are in favor of "gun
control". It would be more correct to say they oppose it. We have
far more laws than necessary on the books now and many are not
enforced. All of the officers I know are frustrated in how fast the
criminals get back on the street.

The highly publicized "Assault Weapons Ban" was strictly a show piece
of legislation that did almost nothing. It banned some firearms based
solely on looks. Many were touting it removing fully automatic
weapons from the streets. It didn't! Those have been illegal for many
years. It did ban large detachable magazines which really did nothing
except to cause manufacturers to stop producing them. That resulted in
our troops being unable to easily obtain extra magazines.

Many unknowing, or those intentionally trying to mislead, rail the
failure of the Assault Weapons Ban to be renewed, but most of the
members of Congress realized it had done nothing to reduce crime as
even the semi-automatic versions of these are seldom used in crime.
They may be ugly, but they are also just too big and obvious.

I can understand some people not liking firearms, or even being afraid
of them, but they are just a tool which is not necessarily a weapon.
A hammer is a tool, but some have been used as weapons. My 12 Ga
shotgun (trap gun) is not a weapon. It has never been used on anything
except clay pigeons. It's long straight stock would be a handicap for
hunting. It is strictly a tool for competitive trap shooting. It's
done right well too. <:-))

Although it's not thought of in that light, for many violent crimes
the weapon of choice is probably the automobile. With over 42,000
deaths on the highways last year and many times that many maimed
The cost of the automobile to society is staggering. It runs in the
billions of dollars per year in medical costs and lost productivity on
top of all those deaths. We have no real way to come up with a figure
as to just how many of those deaths were intentional, but one officer
says it has to be substantial. Road Rage, murder, or accident? Only
a tiny percent are not the fault of a driver. Run over some one, or
force some one off the road? You didn't see them and it was just
another accident. Highway deaths are so common, no one even gives
another crash a second thought unless it was someone they knew, or it
was really spectacular.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Tien

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:43:31 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>>
>> "Roger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > No, that one is true. Kerry claims to be a hunter and pro gun rights,
>> > but his voting record is decidedly anti-gun.
>>
>> Again, you are oversimplifying the issue, labeling as "anti-gun" anyone who
>> doesn't approve of carte-blanche access to guns. "False" was correct.
>
>No, Kerry's voting record is 100% anti-gun. As some highlights,
>
>-- He voted this year for a ban on centerfire rifle ammunition. That would
> immediately make most deer hunting weapons useless.
>-- He voted for the Schumer ammendment to spend millions for gun buyback programs.
>-- He's a co-sponsor of legislation to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
> Ironically, his bill would make the shotgun he received as a gift in West Virginia
> illegal.
>-- He's voted several times to ban legitimate sales of firearms by private owners.
>-- He's voted for Federal firearms registration.
>-- He voted for a measure that would make a firearms owner responsible if his
> weapon is stolen and used in a crime.
>-- He voted to kill the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
>

And this is just a small number of the anti-gun bills he's voted for.

>He's voted the same way as Ted Kennedy on gun issues and the same way as Chuck
>Schumer nearly 100% of the time. That is *not* a moderate stance on gun ownership.

I head one description of him being more Ted Kennedy than Ted Kennedy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[Icebound]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Well Tien,
> The Second Amendment was written in order to keep the government in
> check. The power of the people was meant to be stronger than the power of
> the federal government.

I believe that you are quite correct. Unfortunately, it was written at a
time when the weapons possessed by the government were more or less similar
to the weapons possessed by the people (muskets, horses, wagons). The 2nd
amendment loses some of its relevancy for that purpose today, since the
People's assault rifles, grenade launchers, and mortars now have to stack up
against the government's nuclear arsenal, air power, laser-guided bombs, and
the like.


> Australia and Great Britain have enacted severe gun control laws , and
> their crime rates have sky rocketed. Check out the numbers on numerous web
> sites...it's amazing!


Where do you get this stuff?
Would you please post the URLs of some of these sites showing the
sky-rocketing crime rates in Australia.

[Michael]

"W P Dixon" > wrote
> The Second Amendment was written in order to keep the government in
> check. The power of the people was meant to be stronger than the power of
> the federal government.

Careful there. These days we consider that a hazardous attitude - "anti-authority."

> Unfortunately "We The People" has become more like
> "We The Sheeple". Slowly law after law takes away the freedoms of the
> people.

But it's all for our safety.

Michael

[Tien Dao]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...

> 1: because it's part of the Constitution of the United States.

And maybe it should be amended to reflect the realities of the times. It
forms the basis of law, but itself is not immutable. Just saying it is a
right protected under the constitution is to hide behind what may be an
obsolete law and seemingly absolves the proponent of further reasoning and
questioning.

> 2: because it's one of our defenses against government going bad

So the right to bear arms is to serve and to protect the masses from a bad
government? Are you talking about during times of revolution to overthrow
the government? So we are dumping hundreds of millions of weapons onto the
streets as self-defense against the laws and actions of our government? At
what point in time and by which mechanisms would these weapons serve as
protection against the government going bad? Will they serve as a deterrent
to politicians from voting and enacting laws that we do not like? I just
don`t get it.

> 3: because gun control is another way of ensuring that we no longer need
to be responsible for our own actions; this helps destroy society from the
inside

As opposed to being a responsible society that is trying to weigh in balance
the pleasure of gun hobbies versus increased availability of guns to fall
into criminal`s hands or by their very possession, escalate a crime from one
level of violence to a completely different level? Except for a few, gun
ownership is mainly used by the public as either a hobbie or misguided sense
of security. For those who actually think they will use a gun in self
defense, how many are able to keep current in the skills necessary to 1.
use the gun responsibly and accurately in a life-death emergency 2.
prevent their own guns from being stolen and falling into "enemy" hands or
used against them during the emergency or used intentionally or accidentally
by their family or own children 3. control their emotions and keep them in
check enough to prevent themselves from using their own gun in an attack
against someone else, instead of solely as a defense of last resort as they
purport? Without a gun, a family squabble may end with a knife stab. It
may or may not be fatal, but with a gun, well, that exacts a much higher
level of punishment.

> 4: because law enforcement should not have too much power over us

So we should defend ourselves against the police by arming ourselves and
threatening armed conflict will serve as a deterrent to police abuse? So
you get pulled over by a bad cop for alleged speeding and you politely show
him your own shiny 357 Python and he`ll let you go? How does having a gun
help the average law abiding citizen escape from law enforcement abuse?

Also, the comparison between automobiles and guns is again, imho, a
comparison between apples and oranges. Automobiles are an essential part of
the daily life of our nation. Until public transportation is improved
10,000 fold, I don `t foresee our ability to rid ourselves of the pragmatic
obligation to use the car. Thus, we have to put up with inevitable
accidents. Guns, imho, do not serve the daily essential pragmatic functions
that automobiles do. Certainly, I agree that laws both regarding cars and
existing laws limiting gun ownership should both be enforced much much
better. Where I live, it is much more likely that my daughters will get
killed by an asshole with a 5 time history of DUI than being shot by someone
(knocking hard on wood here...) And that asshole will get, at the most, 2
yrs minus 1 day in a low security free room and board complex. What about
a decent background screen on everyone who desires to purchase a firearm?
It takes about 2 months to do that where I live and you must have completed
a weekend training session to obtain a certificate on the safety issues
involved with gun ownership.

On the other hand, I am not insensitive to the need to feel the sense of
protection. If I lived in the US, god forbid, I might succumb to fears and
arm myself to the teeth, getting my wife and kids trained by private
security companies as well. As one Michael here puts it, the cow already
left that barn, in the US. You can`t remove the hundreds millions of
firearms from the streets. Or can you? Slowly, one at a time? Will fear
always over-rule "commone sense"?

Tien

[Jose]

>>1: because it's part of the Constitution of the United States.
>
> And maybe it should be amended to reflect the realities of the times. It
> forms the basis of law, but itself is not immutable. Just saying it is a
> right protected under the constitution is to hide behind what may be an
> obsolete law and seemingly absolves the proponent of further reasoning and
> questioning.

The Constitution is not immutable, but it is =very= well thought out, and changing it, especially in the manner to =remove= rights from the people, should not be done lightly. Our freedoms may =seem= obsolete, but the idea that we should have these
freedoms is not.

>>2: because it's one of our defenses against government going bad
>
> So the right to bear arms is to serve and to protect the masses from a bad
> government? [...] At
> what point in time and by which mechanisms would these weapons serve as
> protection against the government going bad? Will they serve as a deterrent
> to politicians from voting and enacting laws that we do not like?...

That is one reason, yes. There are others (the "well regulated militia" referred to in the consititution, which would come in handy at 30,000 feet is another). And yes, they do serve as a deterrent against laws "we don't like", inasmuch as once we
are completely disarmed and at the mercy of law enforcement, it would be quite easy to promulgate and enforce all sorts of laws that are a bit problematic even now.

>>3: because gun control is another way of ensuring that we no longer need
>> to be responsible for our own actions; this helps destroy society from the
>> inside
>
> As opposed to being a responsible society that is trying to weigh in balance
> the pleasure of gun hobbies versus increased availability of guns to fall
> into criminal`s hands or by their very possession, escalate a crime from one
> level of violence to a completely different level? [tragic gun use dangers snipped]

Replace "guns" with "airplanes" and tell me what is so different about your stance and the stance of the TSA against private aircraft flying around willy nilly? Both aviation and gun ownership require responsibility, including the responsibility to
decide whether it is really a good idea to pull the gun on the intruder or to fly through a "thin" icing layer to make an approach as the weather goes down. Without an airplane, the tragic scene at the end of the runway would be avoided, as the
person would have used a car instead.

A free society is not one whose people are protected against itself. We argue for aviation freedoms (which are not protected in the consitution), why are gun freedoms (which are) different?

>>4: because law enforcement should not have too much power over us
>
> So we should defend ourselves against the police by arming ourselves and
> threatening armed conflict will serve as a deterrent to police abuse? So
> you get pulled over by a bad cop for alleged speeding and you politely show
> him your own shiny 357 Python and he`ll let you go? [...]

LOL! I wish! <g>

No, what happens is that with a populace that is disarmed and docile, it is much easier for laws to be passed, little by little, that eventually remove our ability to act as a free people. In an aviation context, it's like requiring VFR flight plans
for cross country flights at night over mountains... then all night flights, then all flights, then requiring prior approval and a squawk code for all flights, and eventually shutting down "unapproved" aviation.

> On the other hand, I am not insensitive to the need to feel the sense of
> protection. If I lived in the US, god forbid...

It's not about protection. It's about freedom... the freedom for =me= to decide what I want to do, rather than have some other entity decide what would be good for me, or good for society.

I see you're not from the US. Where are you from?

Jose
Note - though replied to r.a.student and r.a.piloting, I don't follow the student newsgroup

[Steve]

I agree with everything you said, and although you probably know, full
auto, sawed offs, silencers, et al, are NOT illegal. Also the ownership,
selling, or purchase of high cap mags, or "assault" weapons was not banned
during the assault weapon ban. As you pointed out, the "ban" was so that
manufacturers and importers could not produce "new" weapons, mags for the
non military/leo's. Like I said, I agree with what you said. In my opinion,
the ban was a feel good legislation for the uninformed.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...

> solely on looks. Many were touting it removing fully automatic
> weapons from the streets. It didn't! Those have been illegal for many
> years. It did ban large detachable magazines which really did nothing
> except to cause manufacturers to stop producing them. That resulted in
> our troops being unable to easily obtain extra magazines.

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:05:31 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:44:39 -0700, "David Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Michael" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> Today is October 19, and...
>> >
>> >a *great* summary of the TSA IFR, but:
>> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >The Category 3 rule says "A flight school may not provide training... to
>a
>> >*candidate*... unless...".
>> >
>> >The Category 4 rule (which covers BFRs) says "Prior to beginning
>recurrent
>> >training for a *candidate*..."
>> >
>>
>> Not sure I understand that. A BFR is not recurrent training.
>> It is a flight review.
>
>The Definitions section of the Rule says, in pertinent part, "Recurrent
>training means periodic training required under 14 CFR part 61, 121,125,
>135, or Subpart K of part 91", and that phrase embraces the Flight Review.

The way I read it and the way it was defined today it specifically
excludes BFRs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>The definition completely undermines the discussion of the term in the
>preamble. On the 20th, the TSA decided by fiat that they didn't mean it
>(basically, they reaffirmed the definition in the discussion section).
>
>-- David Brooks
>Believe!!!!!
>

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:00:29 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> No, that one is true. Kerry claims to be a hunter and pro gun rights,
>> but his voting record is decidedly anti-gun.
>
>Again, you are oversimplifying the issue, labeling as "anti-gun" anyone who
>doesn't approve of carte-blanche access to guns. "False" was correct.
>
Not at all. Kerry has a long and very consistent record of voting
against pro firearms legislation and for needless restrictions, or
outright banning.

It is not me, but Kerry who has taken the carte-blanche stance.

Check the voting record on firearms legislation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[David Reinhart]

We tried that once. They kicked our tails at a place called Flanders Landing.
They don't teach that in U.S. schools, but the Canadians know all about it.

Dave Reinhart


NW_PILOT wrote:

> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > I wonder if the fact that I went and took an intro lesson a couple of
> > > months ago makes me already "enrolled" by their definitions. ;-)
> > >
> > Nope. It makes you a potential terrorist by their definition.
> >
> > Remember back to the 911 hearings? They asked someone from the FBI if
> there
> > had been any red flags before the attack.
> >
> > "Senator", was the reply, "We were in a sea of red flags. We just didn't
> > know which were the important ones."
> >
> > I think this was one of the most important lessons to come out of the
> > hearings.
> >
> > TSA's response to threats is to red flag EVERYTHING! Then, if there is an
> > attack, they'll be able to say they had a red flag on the target. The
> folks
> > who make the U.S. flags that clip onto your car windows will make another
> > bundle and everyone will overlook the fact that the TSA didn't actually
> > secure anything.
> >
> > You should be glad you have Canada to go back to.
>
> Until it is declared a threat by our goverment and we occupy it then take it
> over.
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roger Long
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Andrew Sarangan]

Please don't push your gun lobby on this newsgroup. I have been a strong
opponent of the TSA rule, but I do not see the parallels with gun
control. Guns are designed to kill people. Airplanes are designed to
transport people. I admit I don't know much about guns. But that
discussion does not belong in this newsgroup unless there is a direct
connection to aviation (such as guns in the cockpit etc..).





"W P Dixon" > wrote in
:

> Well Tien,
> The Second Amendment was written in order to keep the government
> in
> check. The power of the people was meant to be stronger than the power
> of the federal government. Unfortunately "We The People" has become
> more like "We The Sheeple". Slowly law after law takes away the
> freedoms of the people. When you look at laws that are enacted that
> tell a homeowner that he can not paint his house certain colors it's
> pretty easy to see! If you don't you are going through life with
> blinders on.
> Australia and Great Britain have enacted severe gun control laws ,
> and
> their crime rates have sky rocketed. Check out the numbers on numerous
> web sites...it's amazing! For myself I see a gun control law as just
> another step to do away with guns. Common Sense tells us all that
> someone who is a convicted felon should never be allowed to own a
> firearm, but how many people do we still let drive a car that drives
> DUI...just as dangerous wouldn't you think?
> I think a big part of all of the hoopla is that gun control people
> don't
> really understand guns period, or laws already written. I constantly
> hear talk of these gun shows selling guns to anybody . I go to these
> shows all the time and I have never bought even an old shotgun without
> the dealer calling a background check on me. But some politicians may
> like that does not happen..Which is just a blatent lie. So it makes me
> wonder exactly what these politicians are up to!
> The assault weapons ban was a joke! It banned guns because of the
> way
> they looked! My .22 cal rifle fits the operational category of these
> "oh so bad" weapons! It's just ridiculas! Also covered on this "ban"
> was high capacity magazines. Like it takes more than one bullet to
> kill someone?
> I find it amusing that the political party in this country that
> usually
> complains about police brutality seems to want to make themselves even
> more at the mercy of these same police. When only the police and the
> feds have guns , what do they think will keep these types in check
> then? No I am not saying all cops commit brutal acts, but there are
> those on the gun control side that think it happens more often than
> not in law enforcement.And yep there are in deed BAD COPS....how many
> bad cops will there be when no one can protect themselves from
> anything..crooks or anyone?
> And one simple fact remains...make all the laws you want and the
> crooks
> will still have them and get them . And it only effects law abidding
> citizens..who would then be at the mercy of these thugs. If they can
> not smuggle them in...which heck we all know you can do look at all
> the drugs that come into this country! , a gun is very simple to make.
> So the law only prevents a person from defending themselves. Case in
> point... The city of Kennesaw Mountain , GA passed a law that required
> anyone over the age of 21 (homeowner I believe) to own a handgun. The
> crime rate dropped by something of the 80% range. Again please look up
> the exact number. The town made this law because a town in Ohio I
> think it was banned guns.....there crime rate rose by about 80%.
> Every city in this country that has strict gun control laws has
> the
> worst crime rates. I for one will never depend on the police that
> usually show up 2 hours after a crime has taken place to defend my
> family. As far as police complaints well I would complain to, if I had
> a 9mm and the bad guys had AK-47's. and since no law is going to stop
> the bad guys from having an Ak-47 ...why shouldn't the police or
> someone who "has the right" to defend their family have equal
> firepower.
> And common sense will tell you that if you took every single gun
> out of
> a country, a murderer will still kill! Will we ban knives next... then
> frying pans and baseball bats? Where would it stop? Or would it just
> stop when the government knew the sheeple were at their mercy? No
> fiearms sure means no civilian uprising against a tyrant.
> It sure all debateable for sure, I think the entire process needs
> people to see from both viewpoints not just one side. Gun Control for
> me would be a background check, must be 18 to own or carry a firearm,
> and a convicted felon has no right to a firearm or a vote( those
> rights should be lost at conviction). Other than that..you can take my
> guns when you pry my dead cold fingers off of them. hee hee hee
>
> Patrick
> "TD" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Roger > wrote in message
>>
>> > Bush's fundamentalism, Born again Christian stance scares me
>>
>> Scares me too.
>>
>>
>> >as does
>> > Kerry's anti-gun, ...stance.
>>
>> Roger, this confuses me, and many others I am sure both in the US and
>> especially outside. Why do many americans view anti-gun laws as
>> frightening? Coming from a place where we have significant gun
>> control mechanisms, which in my layman`s view, seems to "work"
>> controlling violent crime, why would you favor upholding the 2nd
>> ammendment instead of supporting gun control, which many if not all
>> law enforcement agencies recommend strengthening?
>>
>> Tien
>
>


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Morgans]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 4...
> Please don't push your gun lobby on this newsgroup. I have been a strong
> opponent of the TSA rule, but I do not see the parallels with gun
> control. Guns are designed to kill people. Airplanes are designed to
> transport people. I admit I don't know much about guns. But that
> discussion does not belong in this newsgroup unless there is a direct
> connection to aviation (such as guns in the cockpit etc..).

So who appointed you moderator? Please learn quickly, the following lesson.

This group is more a cyber-hanger, with discussions from guns, to religion,
to politics, to old flying stories, and every once in a while, we talk about
flying planes. The ONLY way to deal with it, is to not deal with it. Skip
topics you do not like, but this is a free group. I don't always like the
subject, but then, I skip it, or skim it. It took a while (I am a slow
learner) to figure this all out.

Mentioning this again, or arguing about it now will not earn you any
friends, and will result in you betting "plonked" by many people.

In a friendly way, yours;
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004

[Dave Stadt]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 4...
> Please don't push your gun lobby on this newsgroup. I have been a strong
> opponent of the TSA rule, but I do not see the parallels with gun
> control. Guns are designed to kill people. Airplanes are designed to
> transport people. I admit I don't know much about guns. But that
> discussion does not belong in this newsgroup unless there is a direct
> connection to aviation (such as guns in the cockpit etc..).

I bet he owns a Remington Wingmaster so buzz off.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> Now if I were an alien looking to get flight training, I would be
> pretty unhappy - since these rulings are going to make most of the
> opposition to the rule disappear.

Right now, if I was starting from scratch I would no longer even
consider the US for flight training. I'd go to Canada during the
summertime.

With all the TSA fees plus now you'd be forced to go to only certain
certificate mill schools due to visa restrictions, and you'd have to
deal with the US embassy to get a visa (which is a royal pain in the
arse), it would actually be cheaper to learn to fly in the south of
France, where the weather is at least reliable.

Never thought I'd see the day where aviation is more free in the EU than
it is in the US, but it's happening.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"