Will the new government have any effect on GA?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Matt Whiting writes:


The connection is liberty, pure and simple.


The most important liberty is freedom of speech, and since people are
giving that up willingly, other liberties tend to follow.

Nobody gave that up.

I would think that if we monitor the web sites of the aviation alphabet
groups that have lobbyists in DC we can get a better feeling for the future
of GA than we can by exchanging opinions in a newsgroup.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
views on GA and ATC privatization.

I was wondering what people think about how GA will be affected by the
new government, on things like ATC privatization, user fees,
presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues the creation
of the previous government, or do they transcend politics and are here
to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any hope that
things will return to what they were before 2000 (except fuel price, of
course)?

Newps writes:

Nobody gave that up.

There are lots of things you can't say without going to jail these
days. All in the name of "safety."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Newps writes:


Nobody gave that up.


There are lots of things you can't say without going to jail these
days. All in the name of "safety."

Nonsense.

"LWG" wrote in message
...
I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
dollars,

By extension that could be taken to imply:

More funding for runway improvements and ATC staffing, more funding for
collision-avoidance, sheer-warning and wx determination, etc.

-c

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Andrew Sarangan posted:

I don't personally know any pilots that don't also own a gun. Limited
sample size, and hardly random, but it leads me to the opposite guess
regarding overlap.

Probably, although I own guns and have never been an NRA member. They don't
represent me. I do however support their fundamental logic which is "Don't
pass more gun laws when you don't enforce the ones we already have."

-c

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.13.05.30.30.141581@DIE-

Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
with is 'negotiable'...

Unfortunately, the southern fireeaters pretty much thought the same. See
Edwin Ruffin.

(You'll probably have to look that one up.)

-c

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:47:31 -0800, gatt wrote:
I do however support their fundamental logic which is "Don't pass more
gun laws when you don't enforce the ones we already have."

Which is why I consider them a bunch of ****in' liberals... They should
be demanding that all the laws that came after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED be
removed since they are *all* unconstitutional...

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:49:25 -0800, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.


I'm an AOPA member -- mainly because I like to read the magazine, I
suspect...

I'm not an NRA member... They're a bit too liberal for my tastes...

That's a good one!

Unfortunately, they do more for our gun rights than any other group I
know of, liberal or otherwise.


Matt

How many soccer moms are worried about runway length (once the plane arrives
at the gate and they can get their butts out of the seat)?

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"LWG" wrote in message
...
I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
dollars,

By extension that could be taken to imply:

More funding for runway improvements and ATC staffing, more funding for
collision-avoidance, sheer-warning and wx determination, etc.

-c