It was really close...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your government
and hence the second amendment. The writers of the constitution were well
aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.

People can (and do) debate the intent behind the 2nd amendment. But do you
(or anyone else) seriously think that the kinds of arms we are permitted as
US citizens provide ANY serious potential for defense against our own
government?

I know I don't. If that was the intent, the protection intended has long
been voided.

Pete

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Jose posted:

To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of
DC
were blockaded, [...]

SNIP

Great analogy. I don't understand why people just don't get the
significantly greater threat that ground-based vehicles pose to our
"security". It's idiotic to be concerned about long-shots such as GA
when
there is absolutely nothing done to protect against far greater and
more
practical means of doing damage.

I'm calling BS on this. Do you *know* nothing else is being done?

You can't drive a good-sized truck right up next to the Capitol or WH.
A truck bomb is very effective but you still need to get close to the
target to do structural damage.

So you say, fine, we just use a bigger bomb. A tractor trailer can
carry 40 tons so let's load up. Well, that's a lot of explosive to get
together. Try buying large quantities of nitrate fertilizer lately? The
gov't sure as hell is monitoring the trade in explosive precursors
since the OK City bombing. Likewise, I strongly suspect there is
monitoring of truck rentals going on, but I can't say that for sure.

Where I would agree with the ADIZ critics is on productivity/resource
grounds. It is a thousand times more likely that terrorists would get
caught when buying or messing around with the airplane than when they
bust the ADIZ. It's not clear to me that maintaining the ADIZ is
actively preventing them from doing these other things, so it's not an
either-or decision.

-cwk.

A truck bomb is very effective but you still need to get close to the
target to do structural damage.

So, put a missle on the truck. That takes care of the last hundred yards.

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

So, they are more important than any of the rest of us, special rules for
'special' people.

Remember a couple of years ago, when the Federal Government was so broke
that it shut down? Remember how badly that interrupted everybody's lives? Me
either.

Let's all get one thing straight, their job as political leaders is supposed
to be to SERVE US, not the other way around. If they are so paranoid that
someone or something is out to get them, they either need to change their
ways or find a new career.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Mike

Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.

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

Hmmm....might need to think about that for awhile.
-c

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades
on
airplanes either.

What's that got to do with Americans' right to freely move about the
country?

Are you kidding me? What they can't effectively control, they just pass
legislation against. So everybody pays a penalty by having their individual
freedoms taken away. Except, of course, those who don't care to play by the
rules.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"Mike W." wrote in message
...
Are you kidding me? What they can't effectively control, they just pass
legislation against. So everybody pays a penalty by having their
individual
freedoms taken away. Except, of course, those who don't care to play by
the
rules.

You haven't explained how the 2nd Amendment along with the exception
disallowing guns and grenades on airplanes (and technically, those are only
disallowed on commercial flights) has anything to do with Americans' rights
to freely move about the country (and in particular, justifying restricting
that right).

Why would I be kidding you?

Pete

So you are saying that they would not have shot it down, ever? Of course,
they knew pretty early on that it was of little threat, so the fighters were
not sent up until fairly late. But, what would the collateral damage be from
shooting down a Beech 1900 or a 737? Where would they choose to shoot it
down? It's gonna end up in somebody's yard.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
as that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your government
and hence the second amendment. The writers of the constitution were well
aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.


People can (and do) debate the intent behind the 2nd amendment. But do you
(or anyone else) seriously think that the kinds of arms we are permitted as
US citizens provide ANY serious potential for defense against our own
government?

Yes, people debate the intent now, but that is only because they are
trying to rewrite history. There is plenty of contemporaneous writings
in the Federalist papers and other sources that clearly support the
clear intent of the second amendment. Only those trying to rewrite
history debate the intent today.

And, yes, common small arms and rudimentary weapons can have a very
effective impact. Look at Vietnam, Irag, etc.


Matt

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
You haven't explained how the 2nd Amendment along with the exception
disallowing guns and grenades on airplanes (and technically, those are
only
disallowed on commercial flights) has anything to do with Americans'
rights
to freely move about the country (and in particular, justifying
restricting
that right).
Pete

I guess I misread the direction of your post.

All amendments have exceptions to them, not just the second. In your
example, it is probably for the best.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this TSA 'national
security' crap, it is not protecting the nation at all, just the idiots that
are running it.

"Mike W." wrote in message
...
I guess I misread the direction of your post.

I think so.

[...]
I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this TSA 'national
security' crap, it is not protecting the nation at all, just the idiots
that
are running it.

I certainly agree, if by "protect" you mean "ensure continuous employment".

Pete