"Power corrupts............"

[Leon McAtee]

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regtsa.html
==============
Leon McAtee
70 some years ago in a small Republic about 4000 miles East of D.C.............

[ower]

"Leon McAtee" > skrev i meddelandet
om...
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regtsa.html
> ==============
> Leon McAtee
> 70 some years ago in a small Republic about 4000 miles East of
D.C.............

USA The land of freedom???

[Blueskies]

"ower" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Leon McAtee" > skrev i meddelandet
> om...
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regtsa.html
>> ==============
>> Leon McAtee
>> 70 some years ago in a small Republic about 4000 miles East of
> D.C.............
>
> USA The land of freedom???
>
>

I hope everyone in this group put negative comments up...

[JohnT.]

OK, sure...give up a little liberty. then a little more. More?
OK...pretty soon, All your liberty is GONE. Are you still secure?
Probably not.

Feel free to give up YOUR liberty just so you can feel secure. Just
don't force others to give up THEIR freedom for you, which is what you
are advocating.

John

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

> I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing to
> give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
> children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.

Frog + water + slow simmer.

Rich S.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Richard Riley > wrote:

> (C-182 stuffed with explosives + joint session of congress) * suicidal
> islamist = no general aviation ever again.

And a Volkswagen stuffed with explosives parked at a McDonalds
equals no more safe drive thrus.

And a pickup stuffed with explosives parked in a mall parking lot
equals no more safe dollar days at Wal Mart.

And a backpack stuffed with explosives left by old faithfull
equals no more safe camping at a national park.

And a hollowed out book stuffed with explosives and nails
equals no more safe trips to the library.

And a semi filled with explosives
equals no more safe hiways.

And a bicycle filled with explosives
equals no more safe city nature trails.

And a 14 foot boat filled with explosives
equals no more safe public beaches.

Why commit suicide when the above examples will allow a terrorist to
walk away and live to bomb again.

Sure you can go splashy but they have already done that now havn't they.

Bomb your Congress and every American will get mad.

But if they start car bombing the parking lots of McDonalds then every
American will get scared........ Including all those millions of Wall
street type investors who will watch their stock of McDonalds start to
circle that famous toilet bowl.

Yes yes yes.... your government could kill general aviation deader than
a doornail..... and make flying commercial excrutiatingly aggravating,
but your government can't check every car, truck, bike, skidoo, seadoo,
and backpack or hollowed out book in the country now can they.

Why be stupid and get you Americans mad when they can be insidious and
scare the crap out of you from coast to coast and from the Canadian to
Mexican border. There is an awful lot of highways between those four
points on the compass, a lot of malls, and oodles of McDonalds to
choose from.

Why make life difficult and attack one of the most highly guarded
buildings in the world when the pickings are so much easier just
a few miles down the road.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Richard Riley > wrote:

> it won't mean the end of GA.

Well an interesting question would be....

What would the financial impact be, not only in the US but in most
other countries of the World if GA was stopped cold in the US.

Airplane manufactures..... how many in US how many worldwide.

How many employess would it affect in just the US.

Unemployed people don't pay taxes, neither do closed manufacturing
facilities.

Then there is the spin off manufacturing companies, Teledyne, King
avionics.... well you get the picture.

Those airports.... Oh what would they do with all those empty airports.

Empty of people that is.

And the list goes on and on and on.

From the lady frying up $100 hamburgers, to the mechanic on the line.

And all those fuel sales that won't get made.

Local, State, and Federal taxes.

What would the financial impact be if General Aviation were stopped
cold in it's tracts.

[Dave Hyde]

Richard Riley wrote...

> If a small plane kill ONE politician...

....he can still be elected governor of Missouri.

Dave 'still not with Mel' Hyde

[Dave Hyde]

Richard Riley wrote...

> If I have to bring my passport to my BFR, fine. It's not a
> significant burdeon.

You've sorta glossed over the huge burden it places
on flight instructors and flight schools, for what
amounts to little if any additional security.

But hey, it *looks* like someone is doing something.
And that's what's important in some circles.

Dave 'crush 'em with paperwork' Hyde

[Charlie England]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:54:42 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
> :"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :
> :> I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing to
> :> give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
> :> children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.
> :
> :Frog + water + slow simmer.
> :
> (C-182 stuffed with explosives + joint session of congress) * suicidal
> islamist = no general aviation ever again.
^speculation^


Reality based on empirical evidence(Warning: Remedial Math follows):

Rental trucks stuffed with explosives*terrorists of various religious &
political persuasions across multiple administrations=hundreds of
deaths+$millions damage+no action whatsoever to limit access to rental
trucks

Airliners stuffed with incendiaries+big buildings*suicidal
islamist=almost instant return of airline flying-months of grounded
general aviation

Multiple intelligence sources+daily satellite data+daily
overflights+inspectors telling our government's star chamber that Iraq
had no nukes, no chemicals, no bioweapons+decimated Iraqi industrial
base after GulfWar I=the star chamber telling us and congress that Iraq
is a threat+invading the country+guarding the oil ministry building
while weapons caches are emptied by 'insurgents' who later are using
them to kill the soldiers who were ordered to guard the oil
ministry+allowing the heroin industry to restart in Afghanistan+breeding
thousands more terrorists by ordering the torture of non-combatant
prisoners+bleeding the treasury & my retirement dry with huge deficits &
tax cuts for billionaires

Tell me again why I should give up my rights & freedoms & trust my
government to protect me....

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> :
> (C-182 stuffed with explosives + joint session of congress) * suicidal
> islamist = no general aviation ever again.

You *can't* seriously believe that a terrorist is going to request a BFR.
And if for some fool reason he is too stupid to simply write one into his
logbook - and does attempt to hire an instructor - that he will not be
provided with adequate (but false) proof of citizenship?

Also, what makes you believe that proof of citizenship (real or false) is
any assurance that the bearer is not a terrorist?

This rule will have absolutely NO EFFECT in deterring terrorism. It is
another "feel good" gesture. An unfunded government mandate with no other
purpose than to widen government control of the public. And you are ready to
kneel down for this? Hard to fathom, Mr. Riley - hard to fathom.

Rich S.

[jls]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:07:36 -0500, Charlie England
> > wrote:
>
> :> :Frog + water + slow simmer.
> :> :
> :> (C-182 stuffed with explosives + joint session of congress) * suicidal
> :> islamist = no general aviation ever again.
> :^speculation^
> :
> :Reality based on empirical evidence(Warning: Remedial Math follows):
> :
> :Rental trucks stuffed with explosives*terrorists of various religious &
> :political persuasions across multiple administrations=hundreds of
> :deaths+$millions damage+no action whatsoever to limit access to rental
> :trucks
> :
> :Airliners stuffed with incendiaries+big buildings*suicidal
> :islamist=almost instant return of airline flying-months of grounded
> :general aviation
>
> Exactly. You've just shown how fragile GA is. We could loose (sic) it in
> an instant.

You sound like Chicken Little. And why should GA be punished when it was
commercial aviation role in 9-11?

[Blueskies]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
> > wrote:
>
> :> Richard Riley > wrote:
> :
> :> it won't mean the end of GA.
> :
> :Well an interesting question would be....
> :
> :What would the financial impact be, not only in the US but in most
> :other countries of the World if GA was stopped cold in the US.
> :
> :Airplane manufactures..... how many in US how many worldwide.
> :
> :How many employess would it affect in just the US.
> :
> :Unemployed people don't pay taxes, neither do closed manufacturing
> :facilities.
> :
> :Then there is the spin off manufacturing companies, Teledyne, King
> :avionics.... well you get the picture.
> :
> :Those airports.... Oh what would they do with all those empty airports.
> :
> :Empty of people that is.
> :
> :And the list goes on and on and on.
> :
> :From the lady frying up $100 hamburgers, to the mechanic on the line.
> :
> :And all those fuel sales that won't get made.
> :
> :Local, State, and Federal taxes.
> :
> :What would the financial impact be if General Aviation were stopped
> :cold in it's tracts.
>
> Not much. Most small airports don't make money for the municipalities
> that own them. The number of jobs they support is low, especially
> when compared to the value of the land. Financially speaking, most
> small airports would make more for the community if they were closed
> and turned into housing or industrial parks.
>
> That's why so many cities want to close them, and it's so hard to keep
> them open.
>
> There aren't a significant number of manufacturing jobs, a few 10's of
> thousands at the most.
>
> The biggest hit would be in making it harder to get trained pilots for
> the airlines - but that can be overcome.
>
> Yes, it would be a hit to the economy. EVERYTHING is a hit to the
> economy. How many more people would be employed if recreational drugs
> were legal? Or if the drinking age were lowered to 18, or smoking was
> allowed in California bars? If you really want to see an employment
> boom, legalize prostitution. Employment and economic factors are the
> only thing that decides this stuff.
>
> If a small plane kill ONE politician, most politicians will vote to
> outlaw them. If a small plane kills 100 children, the outcry will be
> unstoppable. You think the woman who sells $100 hamburgers, an A&P, a
> CFI or a Bonanza owner is going to get more press than 200 grieving
> parents?



Hmmm, so freedom sucks, eh? The best part of the USA that we can continue to use our aircraft

[Blueskies]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
> > wrote:
>
> :> Richard Riley > wrote:
> :
> :> it won't mean the end of GA.
> :
> :Well an interesting question would be....
> :
> :What would the financial impact be, not only in the US but in most
> :other countries of the World if GA was stopped cold in the US.
> :
> :Airplane manufactures..... how many in US how many worldwide.
> :
> :How many employess would it affect in just the US.
> :
> :Unemployed people don't pay taxes, neither do closed manufacturing
> :facilities.
> :
> :Then there is the spin off manufacturing companies, Teledyne, King
> :avionics.... well you get the picture.
> :
> :Those airports.... Oh what would they do with all those empty airports.
> :
> :Empty of people that is.
> :
> :And the list goes on and on and on.
> :
> :From the lady frying up $100 hamburgers, to the mechanic on the line.
> :
> :And all those fuel sales that won't get made.
> :
> :Local, State, and Federal taxes.
> :
> :What would the financial impact be if General Aviation were stopped
> :cold in it's tracts.
>
> Not much. Most small airports don't make money for the municipalities
> that own them. The number of jobs they support is low, especially
> when compared to the value of the land. Financially speaking, most
> small airports would make more for the community if they were closed
> and turned into housing or industrial parks.
>
> That's why so many cities want to close them, and it's so hard to keep
> them open.
>
> There aren't a significant number of manufacturing jobs, a few 10's of
> thousands at the most.
>
> The biggest hit would be in making it harder to get trained pilots for
> the airlines - but that can be overcome.
>
> Yes, it would be a hit to the economy. EVERYTHING is a hit to the
> economy. How many more people would be employed if recreational drugs
> were legal? Or if the drinking age were lowered to 18, or smoking was
> allowed in California bars? If you really want to see an employment
> boom, legalize prostitution. Employment and economic factors are the
> only thing that decides this stuff.
>
> If a small plane kill ONE politician, most politicians will vote to
> outlaw them. If a small plane kills 100 children, the outcry will be
> unstoppable. You think the woman who sells $100 hamburgers, an A&P, a
> CFI or a Bonanza owner is going to get more press than 200 grieving
> parents?



Hmmm, so freedom sucks, eh? I suppose you are for the bill that was proposed a couple of weeks ago that would make us
"safer" by outlawing GA flights over cities of 1 million or more and requiring all pilots to get permission before they
took off?

The best part of the USA that we will continue to use our aircraft even if a bad thing happens. The mob does not rule,
the constitution does...

There is no way that having folks show some sort of identification will stop someone if they want to take over an
aircraft. What will stop them is all of us free people watching and paying attention. I'll cover your back if you cover
mine...

[Blueskies]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
> > wrote:
>
> :> Richard Riley > wrote:
> :
> :> it won't mean the end of GA.
> :
> :Well an interesting question would be....
> :
> :What would the financial impact be, not only in the US but in most
> :other countries of the World if GA was stopped cold in the US.
> :
> :Airplane manufactures..... how many in US how many worldwide.
> :
> :How many employess would it affect in just the US.
> :
> :Unemployed people don't pay taxes, neither do closed manufacturing
> :facilities.
> :
> :Then there is the spin off manufacturing companies, Teledyne, King
> :avionics.... well you get the picture.
> :
> :Those airports.... Oh what would they do with all those empty airports.
> :
> :Empty of people that is.
> :
> :And the list goes on and on and on.
> :
> :From the lady frying up $100 hamburgers, to the mechanic on the line.
> :
> :And all those fuel sales that won't get made.
> :
> :Local, State, and Federal taxes.
> :
> :What would the financial impact be if General Aviation were stopped
> :cold in it's tracts.
>
> Not much. Most small airports don't make money for the municipalities
> that own them. The number of jobs they support is low, especially
> when compared to the value of the land. Financially speaking, most
> small airports would make more for the community if they were closed
> and turned into housing or industrial parks.
>
> That's why so many cities want to close them, and it's so hard to keep
> them open.
>
> There aren't a significant number of manufacturing jobs, a few 10's of
> thousands at the most.
>
> The biggest hit would be in making it harder to get trained pilots for
> the airlines - but that can be overcome.
>
> Yes, it would be a hit to the economy. EVERYTHING is a hit to the
> economy. How many more people would be employed if recreational drugs
> were legal? Or if the drinking age were lowered to 18, or smoking was
> allowed in California bars? If you really want to see an employment
> boom, legalize prostitution. Employment and economic factors are the
> only thing that decides this stuff.
>
> If a small plane kill ONE politician, most politicians will vote to
> outlaw them. If a small plane kills 100 children, the outcry will be
> unstoppable. You think the woman who sells $100 hamburgers, an A&P, a
> CFI or a Bonanza owner is going to get more press than 200 grieving
> parents?



Hmmm, so freedom sucks, eh? I suppose you are for the bill that was proposed a couple of weeks ago that would make us
"safer" by outlawing GA flights over cities of 1 million or more and requiring all pilots to get permission before they
took off?

The best part of the USA that we will continue to use our aircraft even if a bad thing happens. The mob does not rule,
the constitution does...

There is no way that having folks show some sort of identification will stop someone if they want to take over an
aircraft. What will stop them is all of us free people watching and paying attention. I'll cover your back if you cover
mine...

[Blueskies]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
> > wrote:
>
> :> Richard Riley > wrote:
> :
> :> it won't mean the end of GA.
> :
> :Well an interesting question would be....
> :
> :What would the financial impact be, not only in the US but in most
> :other countries of the World if GA was stopped cold in the US.
> :
> :Airplane manufactures..... how many in US how many worldwide.
> :
> :How many employess would it affect in just the US.
> :
> :Unemployed people don't pay taxes, neither do closed manufacturing
> :facilities.
> :
> :Then there is the spin off manufacturing companies, Teledyne, King
> :avionics.... well you get the picture.
> :
> :Those airports.... Oh what would they do with all those empty airports.
> :
> :Empty of people that is.
> :
> :And the list goes on and on and on.
> :
> :From the lady frying up $100 hamburgers, to the mechanic on the line.
> :
> :And all those fuel sales that won't get made.
> :
> :Local, State, and Federal taxes.
> :
> :What would the financial impact be if General Aviation were stopped
> :cold in it's tracts.
>
> Not much. Most small airports don't make money for the municipalities
> that own them. The number of jobs they support is low, especially
> when compared to the value of the land. Financially speaking, most
> small airports would make more for the community if they were closed
> and turned into housing or industrial parks.
>
> That's why so many cities want to close them, and it's so hard to keep
> them open.
>
> There aren't a significant number of manufacturing jobs, a few 10's of
> thousands at the most.
>
> The biggest hit would be in making it harder to get trained pilots for
> the airlines - but that can be overcome.
>
> Yes, it would be a hit to the economy. EVERYTHING is a hit to the
> economy. How many more people would be employed if recreational drugs
> were legal? Or if the drinking age were lowered to 18, or smoking was
> allowed in California bars? If you really want to see an employment
> boom, legalize prostitution. Employment and economic factors are the
> only thing that decides this stuff.
>
> If a small plane kill ONE politician, most politicians will vote to
> outlaw them. If a small plane kills 100 children, the outcry will be
> unstoppable. You think the woman who sells $100 hamburgers, an A&P, a
> CFI or a Bonanza owner is going to get more press than 200 grieving
> parents?



Hmmm, so freedom sucks, eh? I suppose you are for the bill that was proposed a couple of weeks ago that would make us
"safer" by outlawing GA flights over cities of 1 million or more and requiring all pilots to get permission before they
took off?

The best part of the USA that we will continue to use our aircraft even if a bad thing happens. The mob does not rule,
the constitution does...

There is no way that having folks show some sort of identification will stop someone if they want to take over an
aircraft. What will stop them is all of us free people watching and paying attention. I'll cover your back if you cover
mine...

[Del Rawlins]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:13:31 GMT, "Blueskies" > wrote:

>The mob does not rule, the constitution does...

Where have you been?

>There is no way that having folks show some sort of identification will stop someone if they want to take over an
>aircraft. What will stop them is all of us free people watching and paying attention. I'll cover your back if you cover
>mine...

I think you are right about ID not stopping anybody who is determined
to do evil, but I am not sure that everybody being ready to rat each
other out is any better. Unless of course you know that a particular
person doesn't belong with a particular airplane.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[Paul Lee]

A lot of this is the result of sensational political paranoia.
Terrorists kill a few hundred people a year worldwide. In US alone
there are about 15,000 murders per year meaning one in every 200
people dies of murder in US instead of other causes. But those stats
are not important, we are used to them. What counts is the noise of
the day. Its not the first time politicians have overreacted -
Macartyism, internment of US Japanese citizens during WWII, etc. One
day sanity may return again. In the mean time we got to live in fear
from ourselves - and maybe that's really how terrorists are winning.

[Dustrpilot]

There is no way that having folks show some sort of identification will stop
someone if they want to take over an
aircraft. What will stop them is all of us free people watching and paying
attention. I'll cover your back if you cover
mine...
But to add something to this, I had a "small" problem with one of our
wonderfull TSA guys today and one thing he said to me was "I cant us common
sense"........
We are spending way to much on feel good things that dont contribute to safety
and this proposal sounds like more of the same. Its not the law abiding
citizens that we need to watch, but we cant watch the people that have
historically caused the problems because it might violate "their" rights. We my
all be hosed.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:09:40 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
> wrote:
>
>:> Richard Riley > wrote:
>:
>:> it won't mean the end of GA.
>:
>:Well an interesting question would be....
>:
>:What would the financial impact be, not only in the US but in most
>:other countries of the World if GA was stopped cold in the US.
>:
>:Airplane manufactures..... how many in US how many worldwide.
>:
>:How many employess would it affect in just the US.
>:
>:Unemployed people don't pay taxes, neither do closed manufacturing
>:facilities.
>:
>:Then there is the spin off manufacturing companies, Teledyne, King
>:avionics.... well you get the picture.
>:
>:Those airports.... Oh what would they do with all those empty airports.
>:
>:Empty of people that is.
>:
>:And the list goes on and on and on.
>:
>:From the lady frying up $100 hamburgers, to the mechanic on the line.
>:
>:And all those fuel sales that won't get made.
>:
>:Local, State, and Federal taxes.
>:
>:What would the financial impact be if General Aviation were stopped
>:cold in it's tracts.
>
>Not much. Most small airports don't make money for the municipalities

Oh, but over a few years the impact would be tremendous. It you think
the airlines have problems now, just wait.

The military no longer is capable of filling the airline's need for
pilots. If GA folds the impact on the industry as a whole will be
catastrophic.

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

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 08:45:30 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:39:14 GMT, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>:
>:"ower" > wrote in message ...
>:>
>:> "Leon McAtee" > skrev i meddelandet
>:> om...
>:>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regtsa.html
>:>> ==============
>:>> Leon McAtee
>:>> 70 some years ago in a small Republic about 4000 miles East of
>:> D.C.............
>:>
>:> USA The land of freedom???
>:>
>:>
>:
>:I hope everyone in this group put negative comments up...
>:
>I worked with Ruben Ornedo and Chad Keller.
>
>I think this rule is overdue, and I completely support it. If (the
>former) INS won't do it's job, FAA can at least do this tiny sliver.

I can not put into words my dispappointment of any one who would make
a statement like this.

It's not taking on added responsibility, it is giving the
responsibility and authority of our aircraft to homeland secutiry.

>
>If I have to bring my passport to my BFR, fine. It's not a
>significant burdeon. And if it makes it a little harder for someone
>to pack a rented 182 with C4, it's well worth it.

>
>I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing to
>give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
>children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.

There is nothing to be gained by giving this up, It is not going to
save any more lives than due diligence would.
Sorry, but to think other wise is pure ignorance.

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

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:59:56 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>> :
>> (C-182 stuffed with explosives + joint session of congress) * suicidal
>> islamist = no general aviation ever again.
>
>You *can't* seriously believe that a terrorist is going to request a BFR.
>And if for some fool reason he is too stupid to simply write one into his
>logbook - and does attempt to hire an instructor - that he will not be
>provided with adequate (but false) proof of citizenship?

What false proof. Simply ask your self if this would have stopped
Timothy McVeigh had he chosen to use an airplane? Of course to get
the results he did would have required a pretty big airplane.
Certainly nothing your average, everyday PPL is going to be flying.

>
>Also, what makes you believe that proof of citizenship (real or false) is
>any assurance that the bearer is not a terrorist?
>
>This rule will have absolutely NO EFFECT in deterring terrorism. It is
>another "feel good" gesture. An unfunded government mandate with no other

I find it unbelievable any rational person could think such. Of course
I do not put the general, unknowing public in that category, but I'd
certainly expect any knowledgeable pilot to know better..

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

>purpose than to widen government control of the public. And you are ready to
>kneel down for this? Hard to fathom, Mr. Riley - hard to fathom.
>
>Rich S.
>

[Del Rawlins]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 08:45:30 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote:

>I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing to
>give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
>children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.

May your chains rest lightly upon you, and posterity forget that you
ever were our countryman.

With apologies to Patrick Henry.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[Roger Halstead]

On 10 Oct 2004 17:44:49 -0700, (Paul Lee)
wrote:

>A lot of this is the result of sensational political paranoia.
>Terrorists kill a few hundred people a year worldwide. In US alone
>there are about 15,000 murders per year meaning one in every 200

Don't forget over 40,000 every year in automobiles and we really don't
know how many of those are on purpose, but it's probably quite a few.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>people dies of murder in US instead of other causes. But those stats
>are not important, we are used to them. What counts is the noise of
>the day. Its not the first time politicians have overreacted -
>Macartyism, internment of US Japanese citizens during WWII, etc. One
>day sanity may return again. In the mean time we got to live in fear
>from ourselves - and maybe that's really how terrorists are winning.

[Barnyard BOb -]

> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing to
>>give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
>>children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.
>
>May your chains rest lightly upon you, and posterity forget that you
>ever were our countryman.
>
>With apologies to Patrick Henry.
>
>
>Del Rawlins--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WoW.

Ben Franklin... wrong?
Richard Riley.... right?

America.
What a country!!!!

With appologies to Yakov Smirnoff.

http://www.delafont.com/comedians/Yakov-Smirnoff.htm


Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.

[Leon McAtee]

>> I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing
to
> give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
> children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.

I'd risk my personal safety to protect the lives of my neighbors, but
never my freedom. If that makes me a "selfish *******" than so be it.

Besides your logic here is severly flawed. In this case the little
freedom given up, and the burden placed on those giving instruction,
will not save one single life, unless you count the life of the paper
pushing bureocrat charged with auditing all of the flight instructors
records, that takes advantage of his tax payer paid health plan.
===========================
Leon McAtee

[Ernest Christley]

Leon McAtee wrote:
>>>I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing
>
> to
> > give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
> > children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.
>
> I'd risk my personal safety to protect the lives of my neighbors, but
> never my freedom. If that makes me a "selfish *******" than so be it.
>
> Besides your logic here is severly flawed. In this case the little
> freedom given up, and the burden placed on those giving instruction,
> will not save one single life, unless you count the life of the paper
> pushing bureocrat charged with auditing all of the flight instructors
> records, that takes advantage of his tax payer paid health plan.
> ===========================
> Leon McAtee

Do not forget the addage that if you make enough laws, everyone becomes
a criminal. Then when you're in power, you get to lock up whoever you
so choose.

What worries me is that I have to present my birth certificate to a
flight instructor, who is required by law to keep a copy of it. I've
had a person steal my birth certificate, get a driver license with it,
and then get tickets that were charged to me. The guy paid the tickets
so that I never knew they existed...UNTIL..I lost MY drivers license,
and I was a truck driver at the time. The police just laughed when I
tried to explain that I had never driven a Ford Bronco.

Now the Federal government will have semi-professional flight
instructors keep a stash of the personal documents of a lot of highly
paid people (most people who can afford to fly have some means). I
trained at a little airport way out of town. The front door was never
locked (so people could use the phone for flight planning), and the door
to the CFI's office could be taken out with a good shoulder shove. This
bill is an advertisement for anyone wanting to play the identity theft game.

I'll give up freedoms for safety...WHEN THE LOSS OF FREEDOM PRODUCES
SOME SAFETY!! This bill makes no one any safer except those who would
like all the documents they wish to steal to be stored in a central,
unguarded place.

In this case, I would not object to registering with the FAA before
getting flight instruction. It would only have been a difference of
about 4mos for me, before I had to register with them anyway. The FAA
can then clear that through any other government agency. But CFI's do
not have the training or facilities to handle personal documents.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Roger]

On 13 Oct 2004 12:24:37 -0700, Bashir Salamati > wrote:

>In article >, Ernest Christley
>says...
>>
>>Leon McAtee wrote:
>>>>>I know the Franklin quote. He's wrong. Anyone who isn't willing
>>>
>>> to
>>> > give up a little bit of their freedom to save the lives of their
>>> > children, neighbors and friends is a selfish *******.
>>>
>>> I'd risk my personal safety to protect the lives of my neighbors, but
>>> never my freedom. If that makes me a "selfish *******" than so be it.
>>>
>>> Besides your logic here is severly flawed. In this case the little
>>> freedom given up, and the burden placed on those giving instruction,
>>> will not save one single life, unless you count the life of the paper
>>> pushing bureocrat charged with auditing all of the flight instructors
>>> records, that takes advantage of his tax payer paid health plan.
>>> ===========================
>>> Leon McAtee
>>
>>Do not forget the addage that if you make enough laws, everyone becomes
>>a criminal. Then when you're in power, you get to lock up whoever you
>>so choose.
<snip>

I don't have a pass port and I really don't want to have to carry my
Birth Certificate with me on every vacation, or trip where I "might"
want to go flying with somebody else's airplane, or get a checkout.

Actually there are still those with no birth certificate. My dad
didn't have one. All he had was an affidavit that said he had been
born in Michigan. He didn't get that until he was near 40.

Roger
>
>So don't give them a copy of your birth certificate. Give them a copy of your
>passport.

[Ernest Christley]

Bashir Salamati wrote:

> So don't give them a copy of your birth certificate. Give them a copy of your
> passport.
>

I don't have one.

How about if the government wants recordkeeping, let them do it an foot
the bill for properly securing said records. Passing the bill off to
part time CFIs in order to gloss over the true cost, in both money and
freedom.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."