Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: snopercod
ROFL Now who is the one overreacting?

They evacuate a building and maybe scramble some planes, and you liken it to a call to outlaw flying, driving, and congregating in public?

Holy non sequitor red herring strawman souffle!

51 posted on 11/20/2003 6:40:27 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: William McKinley; bootless; joanie-f; First_Salute
I really didn't think the </sarcasm> tag was necessary, but apparently I assumed too much.

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

113 posted on 11/20/2003 7:29:11 AM PST by snopercod (Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: To keep our word, or break our word - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson