I challenge Gunny

[Little-Acorn]

If it had been loaded with explosives, the F-16's wouldnt have stopped the terrorist attack,

Not sure where you got this conclusion.

instead of killing oBUMa, possibly thousands of innocent citizens would have died,

Or this one.

Explain?

[Mr. P]

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

For you and CH...TFRs (Temporary flight restrictions) have been around a very long time they have nothing to do with 911.

[ConHog]

For you and CH...TFRs (Temporary flight restrictions) have been around a very long time they have nothing to do with 911.

I know they have been, I was only using 911 as an example of why we do such things. I also used Pearl Harbor for the same intent.

[LuvRPgrl]

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..

not necessarily,,

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

HAwaii was NOT A state

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..

hahhahahhah, thats so funny !!!!!!!!!!!!

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

so what then, does it have to do with controlling planes?

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..

quite possible. Do the feds do a pat down and screening of all passengers in all planes at all times? thought not, TSA is there for power and show onlly

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

Emboldened by GUnny ? hahah,
maybe he was emboldened by me. I was after all, the first one cited by a mod here for attacking you. I do not follow, lead, follow or get out of the way

[ConHog]

I quoted an empty quote from you because you so badly butchered the quote function and I only wanted to address one point.

Pearl Harbor was in FACT on US soil, whether Hawaii was a state or not.

[LuvRPgrl]

I know they have been, I was only using 911 as an example of why we do such things. I also used Pearl Harbor for the same intent.

we need national guard to patrol our streets cuz too many people are speeding

[LuvRPgrl]

I quoted an empty quote from you because you so badly butchered the quote function and I only wanted to address one point.

Pearl Harbor was in FACT on US soil, whether Hawaii was a state or not.

my quote function is not butchered.

pearl harbor on us soil, irrelevant.

now, go back and read carefully, you said it was started in air space, not soil, which is it? fence straddler, you cant have it both ways. Things only start once.
They did have total control over that air space, they chose to ignore the threat.

[ConHog]

we need national guard to patrol our streets cuz too many people are speeding

Oh for the love of God....................... We in fact need nothing of the sort, we already have State Highway patrols protecting the Highways. BUT legally speaking the states would have the authority to send the national guard to patrol the highways if they so desired. In fact that's the same authority they exercise to use the national guard to oh say fight the war on drugs.

my quote function is not butchered.

pearl harbor on us soil, irrelevant.

now, go back and read carefully, you said it was started in air space, not soil, which is it? fence straddler, you cant have it both ways. Things only start once.
They did have total control over that air space, they chose to ignore the threat.

traditionally, at least as far as air flight has existed, countries have always claimed the airspace over their soil as being their territory. So I am completely correct when I say Pearl Harbor began in US airspace because Pearl Harbor was US soil. It is NOT irrelevant. Well I guess technically the attack on PH began in Japan, but I digress.

As for chose to ignore the threat, take that shit to the conspiracy thread next to Rev's thread that Bush was behind 9/11 you loon.

[logroller]

And? Let's start at the biginning of your reply. "US Airspace?" That would mean airspace available for use by US citzens to me. Nut OH FUCK NO ... we have a US government agency that can dictate what you're allowed to do in the sky. Imust have missed that in the Constitution.

Oh wait ... no I didn't ... after Lincoln violated almost as much of the Constitution as Obama has, it was decided by force of arms.

Right?

Authorized by HR 658,ENR, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, from GPO website,

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 1, Clause 3, and Clause 18.

and I would have added Article III, Section 3:"..The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"

Anything else?

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh for the love of God....................... We in fact need nothing of the sort, we already have State Highway patrols protecting the Highways. BUT legally speaking the states would have the authority to send the national guard to patrol the highways if they so desired. In fact that's the same authority they exercise to use the national guard to oh say fight the war on drugs.



traditionally, at least as far as air flight has existed, countries have always claimed the airspace over their soil as being their territory. So I am completely correct when I say Pearl Harbor began in US airspace because Pearl Harbor was US soil. It is NOT irrelevant. Well I guess technically the attack on PH began in Japan, but I digress.

As for chose to ignore the threat, take that shit to the conspiracy thread next to Rev's thread that Bush was behind 9/11 you loon.

I was just using your own concept of why we need feds in all airspace.

[LuvRPgrl]

Authorized by HR 658,ENR, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, from GPO website, and I would have added Article III, Section 3:"..The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"

Anything else?

That is pretty much an umbrella that covers everything and anything they want to do

[ConHog]

I was just using your own concept of why we need feds in all airspace.

Who said that? Have you seen me calling for roving airspace patrols? Weren't you in another thread chastising a poster for stating your posts say things they do not, when you do that very same things yourself as a matter of course?

[logroller]

That is pretty much an umbrella that covers everything and anything they want to do

You know, we've the ability to comment, on the record, whilst laws are first printed to the Federal Register. That time has passed, so you'd best call your Congressman, Issa right? He's the chairperson on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, so he certainly could investigate your claims. Of course he might be a little tied up with Fast and the Furious right now, but I guarantee he'd respond; probably gonna say thanks, BUT FAA laws make sense, and that abandoning them would make the citizens less safe. Which is pretty much what I'd tell you too; but at least there's a chance.

[ConHog]

You know, we've the ability to comment, on the record, whilst laws are first printed to the Federal Register. That time has passed, so you'd best call your Congressman, Issa right? He's the chairperson on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, so he certainly could investigate your claims. Of course he might be a little tied up with Fast and the Furious right now, but I guarantee he'd respond; probably gonna say thanks, BUT FAA laws make sense, and that abandoning them would make the citizens less safe. Which is pretty much what I'd tell you too; but at least there's a chance.

Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I don't like"

[logroller]

Just amazes me how many people think unconstitutional means "law I don't like"

Were that the test, many of your postings would be found 'unconstitutional'.