Adventures in TSA land

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

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)

"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

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

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

"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.

"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

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

"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

"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.