It was really close...

Dave Stadt wrote:
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.

Oh I see, the terrorist would fly up to the restricted area and turn
around
because the sectional says you can't go there. Those are some darn
well
behaved terrorist in my book.

Let's assume the prohibited zone was the old 3-mile ring. Now, a plane
has just breached the outside edge of the ring. In 2 minutes it will be
on top of the Capitol building. No time to send F-16s up to put on a
fireworks show; all you can do now is fire a missile. And if it's a
Learjet, you have more like 30 seconds.

So, instead of having a line in the sky 30 miles out that you *might*
get shot for crossing, you have a line 3 miles out that you
*definitely* get shot for crossing. How does this improve the
situation?

3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of
some
kind.

A baby buggy is just as good a tool.

And if you took your baby buggy and ran at full speed towards the gates
of the White House, you would be dealt with equally roughly.

-cwk.

Dave,
Very true, Jefferson and Hamilton and their followers had conflicting
views. Even the smaller offshoots...But one thing that they could do was
meet on middle ground, something our two parties don't seem to do much
anymore. I am a history nut! I didn't want to write a history lesson , but
thanks for filling in some for me

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

.

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government and others wanted a federal government
even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now. Don't forget also some
of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy. The end result was a compromise
but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

Alright Matt!!,
I am impressed with the history buffs in the newsgroup! I thank you sir
for taking mine and Dave's history lesson even further....

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln
had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the
thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern
states
had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it
now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
all
of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
1861
.

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government

Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that the
trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG
government
were the ones who were feeding at the trough.

and others wanted a federal government even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now.

Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).

Don't forget also some of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.

Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of of
the "limelight" by 1800.

Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.


The end result was a compromise but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
"Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into
the
deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.

Actually you are not being fair, states had secceded, which at that time was
Constitutional. What Lincoln did was make a war with a new soveriegn nation.
You can't really call it a rebellion if it is one country against another.
Well, you can if you went to public schools! History as they say is
written by the victor.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Alan" wrote in message

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among other things.

To be fair, he had constitutional justification...time of rebellion or
insurrection et al.

Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
faced with invaders.

Interesting analogy.

-c

Jose wrote:

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

I don't disagree with any of them. I disagree that they are
significant
statements, and that they form the basis for a "good, clear, and well

defined" reason for the giant restricted area over DC.

SNIP
The restrictions are set up for very clear, well defined reasons, and

every driver knows it.

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Small cars are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

None, and DC has in fact restricted traffic flow around the WH and
Capitol buildings significantly.

Of course there is a pragmatic/cost-benefit analysis going on with
anything. You could ban GA inside the ADIZ and the economic effects
would still be minor compared to what would happen if you stopped
allowing large trucks inside DC. While I agree that the freedom to fly
ought to be treated as an absolute, the reality on the ground is that
we are a Special Interest Group that the broader public would sell up
the river in a split second. Like it or not we've got to keep our noses
clean.

-cwk.

So, instead of having a line in the sky 30 miles out that you *might*
get shot for crossing, you have a line 3 miles out that you
*definitely* get shot for crossing. How does this improve the
situation?

You have about eighty five thousand more cubic miles in which you can
fly unencumbered.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

DC has in fact restricted traffic flow around the WH and
Capitol buildings significantly.

I would also restrict flight through the White House and the Capitol
buildings.

OTOH DC has -not- restricted traffic flow in a thirty mile ring around
the Capitol the way it has restricted flight.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

A correlation doesn't prove reason.

People can play logical soccer with the issue all they want, but the
airspace is closed, any legitimate pilot in America knows the airspace is
closed, it's damned difficult to get lost in the DC area and fighters were
scrambled to either deter or destroy the aircraft.

As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let pilots
run amok over Washington DC.

-c

the airspace is
closed, [...] As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let
pilots
run amok over Washington DC.

Why is this as it should be?

And what particular reason is there at this point to let pilots run amok
over Chicago? Or anywhere else?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

W P Dixon wrote:

So instead of enforcing laws that would have already been protecting
us
just as much as anything else they can come up with, we get the Patriot
Act that gives the gov. way to much power.

I do agree with both sides of this assertion: enforcement is too lax, and
the response has been an overreaction in the creation of new law. In a
way, that's natural. If one ignores the poor enforcement but observes just
the effect of the current laws, I can see how one would deduce the need for
more strict laws.

And since the parties doing the above reasoning are responsible for the
enforcement, I'm sure they presume perfect enforcement.

And we know they say "we are
not using this against Americans". Do you believe that?

Since anyone can be labeled and "illegal combatent", obviously not.

And if it's true,
how long will it be before some corrupt type does use it against
Americans?

What's so amazing is how the current administration and senate (and probably
the house too, but I haven't an example of this) presume that they'll be in
charge forever. If I knew that it could be used against me after some
future election, I'd never trash filibustering. But current officials
either believe they'll be in charge forever or don't care what happens
after they leave.

Oh and my home security is a loaded 9mm and various others! No
alarms
needed here

Tsk. That's actor; not sensor.

- Andrew