Adventures in TSA land

"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