VIP TFRs and protesters with weapons

In article ,
"Æslop" wrote:

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Æslop" wrote:

And what is the number of attempts that were carried out by airplane?

Non sequitir. This does not refute anything I said nor respond to any
question asked.

But it has been established that people will fly aircraft in a suicidal
fashion to kill other people.

Actually since you are advocating for Presidential TFRs as a safety
measure, and also advocating for the right to carry guns at such
protests, it is absolutely relevant to what you said.

It has been established that people will fly aircraft in a suicidal
fashion to kill other people. It has also been established that people
will carry guns with the intent of killing other people. The latter
happens to be WAY more common. Your assertion that it's OK to allow guns
because nobody's ever tried to assassinate a President with an
openly-carried gun is just as meaningless as my assertion that nobody's
ever tried to assassinate a President with an airplane.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Æslop" wrote:

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Æslop" wrote:

And what is the number of attempts that were carried out by airplane?

Non sequitir. This does not refute anything I said nor respond to any
question asked.

But it has been established that people will fly aircraft in a suicidal
fashion to kill other people.

Actually since you are advocating for Presidential TFRs as a safety
measure, and also advocating for the right to carry guns at such
protests, it is absolutely relevant to what you said.

Actually, no. The OP was wondering why he was not allowed to fly his
ultralight or
c152 into a TFR. I was postulating on the difficulty and impracticality of
separating
out his 2 aircraft from the other, more threatening types. I never said a
VIP TFR was good or bad.

Nor do I advocate people carrying weapons at protests (specifically). And,
though I do advocate
people carrying weapons, I never said that in my post. I was simply alluding
to the fact that
law abiding people assembling at a protest carrying weapons openly are a
pretty damn low risk.
The folks actually out to do harm will have their Glocks in their panties
:-)
are a far threat

On Aug 18, 3:24*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
*"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...

And what is the number of attempts that were carried out by airplane?

Four attempts - 3000 dead.

Those were not assassination attempts.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Bull****. Moron.
The definition of "assassination" varies among sources. The American
Heritage Dictionary defines "to assassinate" thus:

... to murder [a prominent person] by surprise attack, as for
political reasons;[6]

however, the Oxford English Dictionary's definition is:

The action of assassinating; the taking the life of any one by
treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken
upon him to execute the deed.[7]

On Aug 19, 11:57*pm, "Æslop" wrote:
"Mike Ash" wrote in message

...



In article ,
"Æslop" wrote:

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Æslop" wrote:

And what is the number of attempts that were carried out by airplane?

Non sequitir. This does not refute anything I said nor respond to any
question asked.

But it has been established that people will fly aircraft in a suicidal
fashion to kill other people.

Actually since you are advocating for Presidential TFRs as a safety
measure, and also advocating for the right to carry guns at such
protests, it is absolutely relevant to what you said.

Actually, no. The OP was wondering why he was not allowed to fly his
ultralight or
c152 into a TFR. I was postulating on the difficulty and impracticality of
separating
out his 2 aircraft from the other, more threatening types. I never said a
VIP TFR was good or bad.

Nor do I advocate people carrying weapons at protests (specifically). And,
though I do advocate
people carrying weapons, I never said that in my post. I was simply alluding
to the fact that
law abiding people assembling at a protest carrying weapons openly are a
pretty damn low risk.
The folks actually out to do harm will have their Glocks in their panties
:-)
are a far threat

g

"Keep your enemies close; keep your Glock 27 closer".