1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.

You sure? How high a risk is that, exactly? How high to be worth how
much of a restriction of constitutional freedom?

2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.

It happened once. Once.

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


Many other things are more possible means. Way more. Yet they are
totally unrestricted.

In the end, it comes down to weighing the desire for security against
the amount of freedom you restrict. Do you really think the current
restrictions on GA flying around DC do much to reduce the risk? With
airliners flying out of Reagan? With trucks going through the city? Or
is the more likely theory that GA pilots are a group so small that
politicians can easily restrict their freedom without too much
resistance while appearing to do something really effective in the eye
of the public, even it doesn't do much?

EFFECTIVE reductions of terror attack risk in the DC area would look
WAY different than this. And Joe Dumb Voter would feel them every day
of his life. And that's exactly why they aren't done.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)