I challenge Gunny

[Mr. P]

That's just what those sneaky commies want you to believe.
Seriously though, scrambled? I wouldn't be surprised if they're already in the air...contingencies contingencies...

Possibly, but I don't think so here in the US. Outside maybe. My last class one of my students was a Norwegian F-16 pilot.
Remember the joke Noble peace prize Bama received? My student told me that he was in charge of air security for that visit and they had all their 16s up patrolling the entire boarder of Norway the entire time bambam was there. Oh, get this, even though tasked with protection they couldn't get within 20 miles of Air force one.

[Gunny]

Possibly, but I don't think so here in the US. Outside maybe. My last class one of my students was a Norwegian F-16 pilot.
Remember the joke Noble peace prize Bama received? My student told me that he was in charge of air security for that visit and they had all their 16s up patrolling the entire boarder of Norway the entire time bambam was there. Oh, get this, even though tasked with protection they couldn't get within 20 miles of Air force one.

Yeah, it's a joke. Nothing more.

[ConHog]

The correct term is unconstitutional. Controlled by force. I see a recurring theme here.

On what grounds do you declare that not allowing a plane to fly over wherever the POTUS is to be unconstitutional (Please say 10th Amendment ?)

[Gunny]

On what grounds do you declare that not allowing a plane to fly over wherever the POTUS is to be unconstitutional (Please say 10th Amendment ?)

Nah. How about you point out where it says in the Constitution that YOUR government has a right to control ANY airspace? You call yourself a conservative; yet, you're just a US Government suckup.

The US Government doesn't have the right, Constitutionally, to declare jack shit. Weaklings like you have allowed it to.

[ConHog]

Nah. How about you point out where it says in the Constitution that YOUR government has a right to control ANY airspace? You call yourself a conservative; yet, you're just a US Government suckup.

The US Government doesn't have the right, Constitutionally, to declare jack shit. Weaklings like you have allowed it to.

I would say that in light of the fact that the worst terrorist attack in US history occured via airspace, and considering the fact that our participation in WWII was precipitated by an event started in airspace, and in light of the fact that since the 1950s we have lived with varying degrees of concern about being attacked by ICBMs from the air, that a rock solid conclusion can be drawn that controlling our airspace is a matter of national defense which most certainly IS the realm of the federal government. Now are you going to debate that ? Probably not, probably just issue some more insults and pretend like a valid point wasn't just made.

As for me calling myself a conservative, I most assuredly have not . I HAVE said that I have predominantly conservative views , but not on everything. Not that matters here, because liberal or conservative has NOTHING to do with recognizing that the federal government has an obvious duty to keep the POTUS out of harm's way.

[Gunny]

I would say that in light of the fact that the worst terrorist attack in US history occured via airspace, and considering the fact that our participation in WWII was precipitated by an event started in airspace, and in light of the fact that since the 1950s we have lived with varying degrees of concern about being attacked by ICBMs from the air, that a rock solid conclusion can be drawn that controlling our airspace is a matter of national defense which most certainly IS the realm of the federal government. Now are you going to debate that ? Probably not, probably just issue some more insults and pretend like a valid point wasn't just made.

As for me calling myself a conservative, I most assuredly have not . I HAVE said that I have predominantly conservative views , but not on everything. Not that matters here, because liberal or conservative has NOTHING to do with recognizing that the federal government has an obvious duty to keep the POTUS out of harm's way.

I would say you just got schooled as the US Government suckup you are.

I'm SURE an ICBM leaves the same radar trace a Cessna does. NOT.

My conclusion is you're afraid. Just what the government preys on. You'll give your liberties freely to a government that promises to protect you. Even if it can't. Registered as a Democrat yet, or what?

[ConHog]

I would say you just got schooled as the US Government suckup you are.

I'm SURE an ICBM leaves the same radar trace a Cessna does. NOT.

My conclusion is you're afraid. Just what the government preys on. You'll give your liberties freely to a government that promises to protect you. Even if it can't. Registered as a Democrat yet, or what?

My conclusion is that you don't know how to debate. YOU stated it was unconstitutional for them to control airspace. I stated that it isn't , so the logical thing is for you to now state why you think it is.

See if the government WEREN'T controlling our airspace , there would be no radar trace of either a Cessna nor an ICBM, and I have NO , not one, not a single doubt that if an ICBM were to blow up say San Antonio with no warning that you would be blaming Obama for that.

[LuvRPgrl]

Could have been a Russian spy flying the Cessna for all we know.

hahahhaha, AND YOU CALL REV PARANOID ?

Typical us armed response, closing the barn door after the horse gets out

[Little-Acorn]

If I may intervene into this purse fight for a moment....

Fed control of airspace began in the 1920s and 30s when people started using airplanes to fly cargo, mail etc. from state to state. The Fed started funding and building airports under the Insterstate Commerce clause. Maybe they went too far when they started controlling airspace for planes that were NOT going state to state, in addition to the ones that were. Though how you would sort them out is a puzzle - unlike ground vehicles, you can't stop planes at the border.

BTW, some jihadi person with a towel around his head would find it fairly easy to rent (or steal) a Cessna 182 just like that one, pack a few hundred pounds of explosives into it (a 182 can lift more than a thousand pounds, including pilot, fuel, cargo etc.), take off when he knows Air Force 1 is coming, and stooge around outside the TFR zone until AF1 is on the ground at LAX; then come in and dive the 182 into AF1 on the tarmac. It would take him about 10 minutes to get from outside the TFR zone to AF1, maybe less.

Secret Service people have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and assorted other goodies to deal with attacks. But if it turns out to simply be some Sunday flier who didn't check the NOTAMS and didn't have his radio on the right frequency, he's guilty of nothing more than abject stupidity. Putting a Stinger up his ass seems to be a little extreme. The Fed would rather buzz him with an F16 to get his attention and politely lead him to the nearest secure facility. If he doesn't lead, THEN the Stinger (or simply some 20mm cannon shells) become a viable option. But at least they give the guy a chance.

Given the paranoia (which after 9/11 isn't quite so paranoid any more) over terrorists, the Fed responded with appropriate force AND restraint.

If, of course, their activities are within the Constitution.

Do we need a Constitutional amendment here?

If the Fed setting up Temporary Flight Restrictions (as they always do for Presidential travel) is not allowable, then how SHOULD they protect the President against the jihadi raghead in the Cessna, without indiscriminately shooting down Joe Sixpack who was merely stupid?

We now return you to your normal squalling, namecalling, and screechy chest-thumping.

[fj1200]

Do we need a Constitutional amendment here?

No.

[ConHog]

hahahhaha, AND YOU CALL REV PARANOID ?

Typical us armed response, closing the barn door after the horse gets out

LOL I was of course just using an example. I guess I should have used the typical "raghead" scenario instead.

To some extent you're of course right, there was no secret service prior to a few US POTUS getting whacked and there was far fewer restrictions prior to planes being used as weapons.

[LuvRPgrl]

and we didnt already know the planes were hijacked?
AND WE DIDNT KNOW THAT IT WAS ZERO'S ATTACKING US?
And if ICBM's were fired at us, we wouldnt be able to know they are ICBM's?
so, what do those attacks have to do with a single prop cessna?

I would say that in light of the fact that the worst terrorist attack in US history occured via airspace,.

THE planes were hijacked first, preventing hijacking has pretty much solved that problem, not having total authority over all air space. invol

and considering the fact that our participation in WWII was precipitated by an event started in airspace,.

the attack wasnt on our soil. And we all know that we were already well involved into WWII, AND with Japan, it was hardly a WORLD WAR, GERMANY is the one that effectively made it a world war, involving Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Japan was only involved in Asia.

in spite of that, it was a military base that was attacked, they already had control over that air space, so expanding their control over all the skies wouldnt have made any difference at all.

and in light of the fact that since the 1950s we have lived with varying degrees of concern about being attacked by ICBMs.

oh the horror, a cessna DROPPING ICBM's on us.

from the air, that a rock solid conclusion can be drawn that controlling our airspace is a matter of national defense .

again, controlling air space had nothing to do with alowwing those attacks to occur.
controlling militarized flying objects, and hijacking is what is needed.

which most certainly IS the realm of the federal government. Now are you going to debate that ? Probably not, probably just issue some more insults and pretend like a valid point wasn't just made..

As for me calling myself a conservative, I most assuredly have not . .

of course you arent a conservative, you are a fence straddler and go which ever way the wind blows you.

[LuvRPgrl]

If I may intervene into this purse fight for a moment....

Fed control of airspace began in the 1920s and 30s when people started using airplanes to fly cargo, mail etc. from state to state. The Fed started funding and building airports under the Insterstate Commerce clause. Maybe they went too far when they started controlling airspace for planes that were NOT going state to state, in addition to the ones that were. Though how you would sort them out is a puzzle - unlike ground vehicles, you can't stop planes at the border..

actually you couldn without disrupting the travel of us citizens, or those without ill will.

BTW, some jihadi person with a towel around his head would find it fairly easy to rent (or steal) a Cessna 182 just like that one, pack a few hundred pounds of explosives into it (a 182 can lift more than a thousand pounds, including pilot, fuel, cargo etc.), take off when he knows Air Force 1 is coming, and stooge around outside the TFR zone until AF1 is on the ground at LAX; then come in and dive the 182 into AF1 on the tarmac. It would take him about 10 minutes to get from outside the TFR zone to AF1, maybe less..

If it had been loaded with explosives, the F-16's wouldnt have stopped the terrorist attack, instead of killing oBUMa, possibly thousands of innocent citizens would have died, my choice is let the president die instead.

Secret Service people have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and assorted other goodies to deal with attacks. But if it turns out to simply be some Sunday flier who didn't check the NOTAMS and didn't have his radio on the right frequency, he's guilty of nothing more than abject stupidity. Putting a Stinger up his ass seems to be a little extreme. The Fed would rather buzz him with an F16 to get his attention and politely lead him to the nearest secure facility. If he doesn't lead, THEN the Stinger (or simply some 20mm cannon shells) become a viable option. But at least they give the guy a chance.

Given the paranoia (which after 9/11 isn't quite so paranoid any more) over terrorists, the Fed responded with appropriate force AND restraint.

If, of course, their activities are within the Constitution.

Do we need a Constitutional amendment here?

If the Fed setting up Temporary Flight Restrictions (as they always do for Presidential travel) is not allowable, then how SHOULD they protect the President against the jihadi raghead in the Cessna, without indiscriminately shooting down Joe Sixpack who was merely stupid?

We now return you to your normal squalling, namecalling, and screechy chest-thumping.

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL I was of course just using an example. I guess I should have used the typical "raghead" scenario instead.

To some extent you're of course right, there was no secret service prior to a few US POTUS getting whacked and there was far fewer restrictions prior to planes being used as weapons.

and most, if not all the new restrictions wouldnt have stopped 9/11, paranoid be free !

[ConHog]

and we didnt already know the planes were hijacked?
AND WE DIDNT KNOW THAT IT WAS ZERO'S ATTACKING US?
And if ICBM's were fired at us, we wouldnt be able to know they are ICBM's?
so, what do those attacks have to do with a single prop cessna?




THE planes were hijacked first, preventing hijacking has pretty much solved that problem, not having total authority over all air space. invol

If the feds have the authority to prevent hijackers from taking over planes then they certainly have the authority to dictate where those planes may fly.

the attack wasnt on our soil. And we all know that we were already well involved into WWII, AND with Japan, it was hardly a WORLD WAR, GERMANY is the one that effectively made it a world war, involving Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Japan was only involved in Asia.

Pearl Harbor was in fact on US soil. And it certainly drew us into WWII. That is inarguable.

in spite of that, it was a military base that was attacked, they already had control over that air space, so expanding their control over all the skies wouldnt have made any difference at all.

Obviously we did NOT have control of the air space above Pearl Harbor, else the entire event would not have been so catastrophic for us.

oh the horror, a cessna DROPPING ICBM's on us.

No one suggested that , ICBMS's by definition do not need to be transported via plane.

again, controlling air space had nothing to do with alowwing those attacks to occur.
controlling militarized flying objects, and hijacking is what is needed.

Yes because terrorists are surely going to fly only militarized planes. And as already stated if the government doesn't have the right to control our airspace they have no right to do anything in regards to airline safety other than make arrests after the fact if necessary.

of course you arent a conservative, you are a fence straddler and go which ever way the wind blows you.

I guess you feel emboldened by Gunny's flaming in this thread, I prefer you take it elsewhere and stick to the topic though.