NOTAM

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a privilege.



Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.


It appears you're unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.

A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
means?

"Tom S." wrote:

A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
means?

But not all rights are inalienable; if they were, Jefferson would not have had to
qualify the word "rights". The U.S. government has stated that piloting a plane is a
right, subject to the requirement that individuals prove to the government that they
can do so safely.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right. The FARs even
use that language. Remember what happened after 9/11? The government took
away everyone's privalege to fly, but took away no one's right to free
speech.

Shawn
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.



Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.


It appears you're unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.

"Tom S." wrote in message



Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

All, and I mean all, the supporting documents written by the framers
with regard to guns say exactly the opposite.

Newps wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message

Same with guns: you have the right to a proper self-defense and
self-protection, but not necessarily a right to own/carry GUNS.

All, and I mean all, the supporting documents written by the framers
with regard to guns say exactly the opposite.

You are absolutely correct, but it should be mentioned that the framers would not
have mentioned the right to self-defense, since it's an old premise of common law and
the Constitution states that common law is to be the basis for all law in the U.S..
Basically, they would have assumed that the right to self-defense would never be
questioned.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Actually, you're both wrong...sorta.


Nope.



What you have is the natural right to travel/move about freely in
public.
HOW you move about, though, is subject to limitations. Same with
driving.


Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be denied the
right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and not a
privilege.

A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.
Recall the line "inalienable rights"...? Do you know what "inalienable"
means?

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be
denied the right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and
not a privilege.


A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.


Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.



Recall the line "inalienable rights"...?


Very well.



Do you know what "inalienable" means?


I sure do.

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...

Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.


Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
this thread to understand why.



The FARs even use that language.


Many confuse "right" and "privilege", the fact remains that flying has been
declared to be a right in the US.



Remember what happened after 9/11? The government took
away everyone's privalege to fly, but took away no one's right to free
speech.


Apparently you're not familiar with the McCain-Feingold act.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...

Actually, he's correct. Flying is a privalege, not a right.


Actually, he's wrong. Review my response to Martin X. Moleski earlier in
this thread to understand why.

First, in fairness to Mr. McNicoll, I have taken the above statement
out of context. I don't think putting in all the verbage would make a
difference.

In a previous message on this newsgroup, you [Mr. McNicoll] made the
statement:
"A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right."
The message relating to Mr. Moleski has departed my files so I don't know
what your response was there, but the your text in this message and in the
statement quoted above certainly implies your position is that flying is a
right.

I contend that flying an airplane [excluding ultralights and that ilk]
"requires" a certificate of some sort. In order to exercise the "rights" of
that certificate, aren't we "required" to meet certain capability/skill
standards and "required" to follow rules such as the FARs? Maybe there was
something in the dialog with Mr. Moleski to negate the seemingly obvious
contradiction. )