Once again, the government is bent on criminalizing what used to be normal activity - flying from point A to point B in one's own aircraft. Osama must be smiling right now, because his plan to end freedom in America is unfolding just as he pictured it would.
In a quest to "do something" (even if it's wrong), the government creates these absurd and pointless airspace restrictions (to protect themselves, of course - they're more important than us.), and apply them to a class of people who have never hurt anyone, but don't have enough political clout to fight back.
The much more likely-to-be-dangerous 18-wheelers carrying uninspected cargo containers go about their business any where and any time they please. (The teamsters wouldn't tolerate any restrictions on those sorts of things, you know.)
And God forbid that the government restrict automobiles. The AAA, AARP, ACLU, and everybody else would go berzerk! That would be restricting freedom in America.
But it's OK to restrict pilots - you can't trust them. They're far too independent, you know, and should be reined in. Besides, they're just a bunch of rich playboys anyway, right?
So the government scrambles fighter jets to "save" the White House several times a week - isn't it over 1200 times now? Then the news bloviates about the "security threat" and "something should be done", and "how much is this costing?" The obedient American sheeple all nod their heads and bleat in unison "SAVE US! SAVE US!
Has anyone seen a terrorist using a small plane as a suicide bomb? No, they use cars and trucks instead. There is a reason for that.
Small aircraft don't have enough kinetic energy (a term which is beyond most of the Sheeple) to do any damage on their own (witness that moron who flew his Cessna into the BofA building and is simply splatted like a bug on a windshield). And they can't carry enough explosives to do much damage, either. Those that care to actually learn something about this might be interested to know that the senior airline captain with more hours at the controls of a 747 than any other living man says the same. Safe ... Or Free?
"But they can carry anthrax!" Has it occurred to anybody that it's almost impossible to distribute anthrax or chemical weapons that way? The stuff just wafts up into the atmosphere and dissipates. But facts are not relevant any more, apparently.
BTW, there is a good chance here that air traffic control iteslf vectored the aircraft into the ADIZ - it happens all the time. Think I'm kidding about that? Cleared to be Busted
Once again, the government is bent on criminalizing what used to be normal activityObviously something you take as a given, but most people do not, which probably explains a lot about why there is a disconnect between what you are trying to say and how everyone else takes it.
Osama must be smiling right now, because his plan to end freedom in America is unfolding just as he pictured it would.I am pretty damned free. I suggest whatever gulag you live in, you move from.
In a quest to "do something" (even if it's wrong), the government creates these absurd and pointless airspace restrictions (to protect themselves, of course - they're more important than us.),Let's look at two aspects to events- consequence and frequency- to determine if these restrictions are pointless and to determine if the class warfare elements of your point (attacking 'elitism') have merit.
Consequence. If a small plane crashes into Joe Schmoe's house, killing him, then it is a family tragedy. There will be a local response which will try to contain any fire and to help clean up the crash site. If a small plane crashes into the White House, it can and will throw the entire nation into a bit of chaos, especially if it killed any major government official. The costs of rebuilding would be hundreds, if not thousands, of times higher. There would be a need to do investigations costing hundreds, if not thousands, of times more to ensure that this isn't an attempt to bring down the country. It would provide fodder for conspiracy theorists and for opportunist politicians to exploit the issue. The difference in consequence is huge.
And frequency: a small plane will crash into my house only as an accident. The White House would be hit not only with accidents, but also by those who want to make a statement or make an attack. The frequency would clearly be higher.
So attempts to say "they are treating themselves differently" should be met with "yes, and it is right they do so because the risk is greater and the consequences higher".