What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Flying is my right

Low Pass

Well Known Member
Friend
Use of terminology can make a big difference. In an article on the EAA website today, "FIVE YEARS AFTER 9/11 - WHERE DOES GA STAND?", the term privileges is used.

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060907_911.html

Use of this term in relation to flying really irritates me. Flying is a right. It's very easy to understand. Just read the Constitution. The 9th and 10th ammendments are very clear on this issue.

Use of the word right implies that any citizen can fly as long as they meet the requirements to exercise that right. Is this not the case? It's no different than the right to free speech. There are basic requirements necessary to exercise that right as well. But you won't hear anyone calling free speech a privilege.

If this irritates you too, let them know! I think it's important.

www.eaa.org

920.426.4800
 
IX Has been found to be properly qualified to exercise the PRIVILEGES of
II Private Pilot
III Certificate Number #########
X Date of Issue ##########
..........
 
No, that is just a purchase! Whether you have the right or not to purchase one is up to the governing powers. You know that under the 2nd. ammendment, you have the Right to keep and bear arms. You have the Right to self-defence. If you want to carry your weapon outside your home, you would then be required to obtain a concealed-carry permit in most jurisdications, which would be a Privilege. You can lose your Privileges if you do something wrong or illegal, and you can lose your Rights this way also. If you are convicted of a crime, you have lost your 2nd. ammendment Rights as you are no longer allowed to posess a gun!
 
Yet I can drive all I want without a license as long as it's not on a government-maintained roadway. Don't grow so accustomed to being governed that your grasp on the underlying nature of your own liberty is lost.

It's crucial that flying be viewed as a natural right IMO, even if certain organizational requirements (registration, licensing, insurance, medical, etc) need to be met before a person can exercise it. That fundamental shift in perspective may be the only thing left to differentiate us from any number of other Socialist societies as the noose tightens around GA's neck. I wouldn't be too quick to disregard it.

It's the Government's job to regulate society, and by it's very nature, any increase in control that it can muster makes it's job that much easier. It's not sentimental or emotional, and it doesn't care about aviation heritage or your love for flight. It's no secret that if you don't maintain critical awareness of your own open pockets, "gov.org" will most definitely consider it their job to maintain them (and their contents) for you by default. Continue to perceive the government as the sole grantor of your wings and the day will soon arrive when regulations and/or financial responsibility will have driven the average pilot into extinction - ESPECIALLY in a post-9/11 society.
 
Couple of points. What the FAA writes on the certificate really is irrelevant to the way I think about my right to fly. If the FAA had their way, they'd outlaw GA. That way, there'd be no more accidents they'd have to explain and no more annoying GA pilots or planes to regulate.

As for handgun point, you lost me. It is quite clearly one's right to purchase and own a handgun if I abide by the regulations. It's also my right to carry that gun in public if I follow the regulations.

Flying is the same. As a citizen, I have the right to fly any time I want if I abide by the regulations.

My point was to bring attention to this mindset. If we behave and think as if the fed gub'ment bestows all things good and proper ("privileges") on the dirty masses, we'll be treated as the dirty masses.
 
Without getting into the debate, I just think it's interesting to note that lately I've had the subject of "What would it take for you to move from the United States?" come up several times (I've been in Europe for 3 weeks). The three things I came up with were:


1) Take away my free speech
2) Take away my gun (the fact I only use it once a year for target practice is beside the point)
3) Take away my flying

I'd be gone in an instant.

Any politicians out there feel like championing an amendment for #3 also? :)
 
I won't argue that everyone has the "right" to apply for a license and that right should be guarded and protected but to say everyone has a right to fly simply isn't true.

Should a person that can't read be allowed to fly? What about a person that can't speak english, should they have the right to pilot an airplane? Oh sure, after they learn to read and speak english then they can have a license, that's what makes it a priveledge.
 
jcoloccia said:
Without getting into the debate, I just think it's interesting to note that lately I've had the subject of "What would it take for you to move from the United States?" come up several times (I've been in Europe for 3 weeks). The three things I came up with were:


1) Take away my free speech
2) Take away my gun (the fact I only use it once a year for target practice is beside the point)
3) Take away my flying

I'd be gone in an instant.

Any politicians out there feel like championing an amendment for #3 also? :)
Well, if anything stirs up the hornet's nest of debate on an airplane flying/building web forum it will surely be this question.

Lowpass, I understand where you are coming from. However, if you decide to argue the issue of whether we have a "right" or a "privilege" to fly based upon the Constitution of the United States, I don't think your argument for flying being a "Constitutional right" will stand up. the Constitutional argument would have to be based on the fact that the Constitution (or ammendments to the Constitution) specifically address the act of flying as a right granted to all Americans. It clearly does not do so.

Considering the fact that it was written about 130 years before the first flight, it is understandable that the right to fly was not addressed. So Jcoloccia's 3rd point on his list is a valid request. The only way this argument can hold any Constitutional grounds is if an ammendment is ratified that spells out our "right to fly" as a constitutional right.

Captainron's statement is correct in the context of the world in which we currently live in. Our ability to fly is a privilege bestowed upon us by the government institutions we have set up. To argue that our "right" to fly is the same as our "right" to bear arms, for free speech, for freedom of religion is an erroneous assumption. These are all spelled out in the Constitution. Flying is not.

Being granted the privilege to fly is indeed in the same context as is the privilege to drive a car. Driving a vehicle in our country is indeed a privilege instead of a right. Even if we drive on private property we have not altered the fact that to be able to drive is a privilege that others bestow upon us. You do not have the "right" to drive on private property if doing so disturbs me as your neighbor with noise, polution, exposure to danger, etc. that would not be there had you not been driving. These are even more evident when looking at the potential negative interactions we have with others in society when we fly over them.

Whether we acknowledge the point or not does not mean the issue of public safety does not exist whenever we startup and takeoff in our airplanes. As pilots we have a responsibility to others around us to do everything in our power to keep our activity from negatively affecting their lives. Because of this, our flying activities fall in the same categories as other risky endeavors. With responsibility comes "privileges" not "rights". The consequences of abusing our responsibility involves removing our "privileges".

As much as I wish it were not so, the reality is that flying is something that others can take away from us. And because of this the semantics that is used to define our activities does take on a clear consensus of how our society views this activity. It is indeed a privilege that can be taken away from us by others if we deviate from the accepted governance of those activities. Since activities that can be taken away are refered to as privileges and those that cannot be taken away are rights, it stands to reason then that we are indeed discussing the issue of our privilege to fly.

In the spirit of those who first "Bodly went where man had never gone before!" 40 years ago today, I will end my diatribe with: To all reading this LIVE LONG AND PROSPER! :D
 
I agree with the original view

Men flew before the politicians came up with the CAA as a means to regulate flying to protect the rights of others. In the USA we still have the right to fly as long as we comply with the regulations to protect the greater rights of society. And ... it is a priviledge to exercise that right but the right is not limited to the priviledged.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob Axsom said:
Men flew before the politicians came up with the CAA as a means to regulate flying to protect the rights of others. In the USA we still have the right to fly as long as we comply with the regulations to protect the greater rights of society. And ... it is a priviledge to exercise that right but the right is not limited to the priviledged.
Agree with you Bob. Just because we as pilots have this privilege does not mean that others are not restricted from joining the ranks of the privileged!
 
Consitution

Well since this seems to be carrying on, I may as well chime in. Granted the airplane didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written, but these old guys were pretty smart. They went and added the last two ammendments in the Bill of Rights just to take care of these situations:

Ammendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That means just because a right isn't covered directly in the constitution does not mean its not a right.

Ammendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It would take a rather large dissertation on Article I section 8 to show how the federal government has the right to regulate aviation at all, but Ammendment X expressly denies the federal goverment from taking power that is not listed in the Constitution such as prohibiting an individual from flying.

This amazing document is quite a good read. I suggest everyone get to know it well:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html
 
GA..."Right" or "Privilege"

I whole heartedly agree that the GA attitude should be that we have a "Right" to fly as part of our right of life, liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
While this right may not be specifically spelled out in the Constitution,we should certainly approach the issue with this mindset. In the past we have had the Supreme Court confir upon us "Rights" never mentioned or implied in the Constitution.....why not flying? If we accept flying as a privilege then we give the govt. bureacracy an implied advantage in any controversy. GA has been under assault for many years and if we expect to preserve our RIGHT to fly then we can't afford to give one inch.

....My $.10 worth.

Glenn Wilkinson
RV-4
N654RV @ OKZ
 
keen9a said:
Well since this seems to be carrying on, I may as well chime in. Granted the airplane didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written, but these old guys were pretty smart. They went and added the last two ammendments in the Bill of Rights just to take care of these situations:

Ammendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That means just because a right isn't covered directly in the constitution does not mean its not a right.
Yes, very true point made. However, my statements were revolving around the idea that Lowpass was mentioning flying in context of a Constitutional right. Flying is indeed not an issue that has been addressed as a Constitutional Right in the past nor, appears, will be addressed in the future without an ammendment to the Constitution.

The real debate in this thread however, is really in whether flying is a right or a privilege. This is definetly a good debate over the consensus definitions of rights and privileges we as American citizens enjoy. We do have the "right" to enjoy all forms of freedoms in our society but once our enjoyment of those rights begins to infringe upon others "rights" then someone will end up having to serve as referee. Which "rights" trump the other? That becomes the ultimate question that all of us within society have to answer.
 
Constitutional Argument

Hey Ben:

Don't you know that airplanes could *possibly* be used to carry goods from one state to the other -- even in your RV. Therefore, aviation falls under the "interstate commerce" clause, just like the drug laws. :)
 
RV6_flyer said:
Thanks to Gary here for providing a reference to the accepted definitions for these two words. According to these definitions we seem to be arguing around in circles. Every definition of privilege shows that it is a right with added requirements that must be met. If not met then the right can be taken away. So the argument then becomes should there ever be an occasion that anyone's right to fly should be taken away from them? What if you heniously kill hundreds of people because of your negligent actions as pilot in command of an airplane? Should your right to fly be removed? What if that henious act was a deliberate act? Would that be grounds for removing that "right"?
 
Oh heck, it's Friday and I don't feel like working...

We (collectively) have the right to fly, and through the rules and regs of the FAA each one of us (indivdually) is granted the "privelege" to excercise that "right".
 
It's crucial that flying be viewed as a natural right IMO, even if certain organizational requirements (registration, licensing, insurance, medical, etc) need to be met before a person can exercise it. That fundamental shift in perspective may be the only thing left to differentiate us from any number of other Socialist societies as the noose tightens around GA's neck. I wouldn't be too quick to disregard it.
Bravo. I think the question should be turned around: Does the government have the right to prevent any qualified person from flying if they choose? In my opinion, it does not, except in cases where that individual has chosen to use this right to harm others...much like my right to live freely will be taken from me (prison) if I choose to harm another person.

Should the government decide it does have the right to prevent ordinary people with proper qualifications from doing so, I would hope the political and legal battle would be one of the greatest this country has ever seen.

Dave
 
Last edited:
How do you really feel?

Things in GA have change 5 years later, right? So do you all think that the changes are unreasonable?, just a question.

Has the new laws, rules, restrictions significantly affected your ability to operate you GA plane, besides gas prices? (Folks in DC area I know the answer. I'll answer for you, your right to fly in the DC area has been obliterated.)

If so, what has been the drastic restriction in your RIGHT or freedom to fly; what has changed that is unacceptable to you; how would you change the laws? Is there an acceptable trade off to national security, the common good, for the loss of a few individuals rights to fly where and when they want to fly.

Are you worried that the whole US will become like DC? How do you stop rights from being taken in the name of security?

My personal feeling is we still have it good. We enjoy the most liberties of any nation in the world. GA planes are a low threat, but not a zero threat. I can accept limitations on my rights for security, if they make sense, but will it stop here or keep going. That is the part that worries me.

Again just a few questions. I would like to know your concerns, avoiding politics and constitutional law interpretation. Straight up, how do you feel about flying 5 years later? What do you do to protect this right?

Thanks for your Thoughts. G

You do have, "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". You don't have the right to yell fire in a theater or be guaranteed not to be unhappy, but the real question is what RIGHTS are vital rights and which ones are you willing to give up for the common good. Is GA flying a vital right? I think so, some clearly don't agree. Know the Powers that Govern, and vote as you see fit. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Dang those dudes where smart.
 
Last edited:
My personal feeling is we still have it good. We enjoy the most liberties of any nation in the world. GA planes are a low threat, but not a zero threat. I can accept limitations on my rights for security, if they make sense, but will it stop here or keep going. That is the part that worries me.

I can accept limitations on my rights for security. Unfortunately, while politicians talk a good game about security, the reality is that for our living with having our rights limited we do not get security. We get the illusion of securtity.

The DC ADIZ limits my civil liberties and provides a minimal level of security against a threat that is almost too small to measure. I feel it's only a matter of time before other cities around the country use DC as an example to justify their own ADIZ restrictions that protect them from nothing.

Likewise the blanket sporting event notam. 3nm and 3000ft protects no one at an outdoor event from an airborne attack. But it gives old ladies a warm fuzzy feeling because it makes the government look like it's doing something.

In '01 I flew banners for a living. A big part of what my company's year was flying over NFL football. The TSA took that away in the name of security. My boss and I attended a public hearing in DC in early '02 at the TSA headquarters. The purpose to hear public comments on the sporting event notams that were in place at the time. 42 people spoke that day. Exactly one person encouraged the TSA to keep the TFRs in effect and make them permanant. That person was a rep the NFL who as it happens can not regulate or make money from banner advertising at it's events. 41 people spoke about how the TFR did not increase safety and was pointless. I think we all know the result of that meeting. The government does whatever it wants. Anyone remember Meigs?

I predict our right to fly, priviledge to fly, whatever you want to consider it, will continue to be erroded until it's completely gone and there's nothing any normal voting citizen is going to do about it.

I haven't flown since I stopped doing it for a living and while I'd love to build myself a nice -7, I hesitate to even begin because I have no idea how long it's going to be before airspace restrictions make flying inpractical or before people in Washington get their way and finally institute user fees.

User fees would likely make GA as expensive at it is in Europe and frankly I'd never be able to afford it. I would then own I plane I couldn't afford to use. Since a large percentage of other GA aircraft owners would be in the same boat, resale value would most likely become a fraction of my investment.

Incidentally I cornered a high level TSA offical in an elevator while I was attending that meeting back in '02. I voiced my disappointment at how useless the sporting event TFRs were. Her almost verbatem reply was 'We know the our policies do nothing to increase safety. But we had to do something.'

That's our government.
My 0.02
 
joe gremlin said:
I can accept limitations on my rights for security.

Joe:

No offense, but you have the right to accept erosion of your liberties for an illusion of security, but I choose to resist this constant onslaught on the God given RIGHTS by our corrupt political system, funded by special interest lobbyists. The "privlidge" that we enjoy is currently protected by two of these groups(I am a member of both) and as with all subjects of this type, perceptions/opinions concerning how our efforts to enjoy the freedom of flying continues to be limited will cover the entire spectrum, but the fact remains that since the start of WWIII(9/11/01), we have failed to hold the parties that limit our liberties, rights and freedoms responsible and accountable for their actions.

I could rant all night long, but Low Pass is CORRECT! We are the government and we need to accept the fact that we have used our rights to vote for the government that thinks we are too stupid to continue to have the right to fly. We are the frogs in the pot on the stove with the heat being added slowly.

Support our troops, vote the bums(all of them) out and remember the people on Flight 93. They decided to exercise the ultimate choice/right/freedom to give their lives against the enemy in the first battle of WWIII.
 
View from below

To ALL the contributors of this post, I would like to stick my nose in here and comment that I am impressed with your knowledge of your constitution and its' amendments, the law and your politics. Not to mention the excellent and balanced level of the discussion.

I also would like to add that you all enjoy one huge privilege.
That of being a citizen of the USA.

Bloody good and interesting debate.
Pete.
PS. Being an Aussie is OK too.
 
I predict our right to fly, priviledge to fly, whatever you want to consider it, will continue to be erroded until it's completely gone and there's nothing any normal voting citizen is going to do about it.
I think this is what we need to guard against most. Erosion is the method by which rights and privileges are taken away without a large scale legal or political fight. By spreading it out over years, with one thing taken away at a time, the energy of any opposition is dissipated.

This is why I support AOPA. They're fighting a battle against erosion.

Dave
 
Good!

SRV has a fine posted link that assertains our "Rights" to fly, We all should go back and read it!

Thanks SRV,
 
Pragmatic

Good discussion, I see it this way:

1) As has been stated, we are a government of delegated powers. Presumably the government only possesses the powers We The People grant them.

2) The only difference between a true democracy and anarchy is that in the former we all agree to abide by common rules of conduct for the better of the common good.

3) Our government is democratic in nature but is not a true democracy, it is a democratic republic or a representative form of democracy. By its very nature we give up our individual rights to govern and place them in the hands of our representatives. Our elected representatives are the ones who determine which rights we delegate to the government.

4) Back to #1. Since we are a government of delegated powers, we presumeably own all rights to everything until we give them up as a collective whole. Through #3 we have given up those rights time and time again as our representatives inact laws and acts. Because we as individuals may not like a particular law or act, does not deminish the validity of those laws or acts. This is the pragmatic nature of the rule of law. Yes it allows those in power to restrict the governed's so called rights, but it also presumably protects the governed by limiting arbitray and random prosecution by those in power.

5) The Constitution is a working/evolutionary document as its creators intended. In essence it is amended and interpreted thousands of times a day each and every time a member of the judiciary renders a judgement. These defacto amendments are just as valid as a constitutional amendment unless they are challenged in court and overturned. I know this isn't a very romantic notion, but it is a pragmatic fact of life.

So what does all of this mean? Yes we have a fundamental right to do just about anything we like, but that doesn't mean anything. We have given up the right to do just about anything through our representatives and the legislation they enact. We have given our representatives delegated powers to take away our rights (since they have no rights to give us) and they have done so beautifully. We can argue about whether flying is a right or a priviledge or on the endangered species list. But the fact is that we the people have allowed flying to be heavily regulated by the federal government. Reversing this trend in any area is a difficult one.

The rules are here and we have to abide by them. IMO the trend for more regulation is not going to reverse itself. Therefore, we need AOPA and EAA and the lobbying efforts these organizations bring to the table to slow this momentum as much as possible. As individuals, we can support these organizations who fight these issues on the national level and we can be good citizens and make our desires know to our elected representatives. We can be good citizens and promote aviation in our local communities, we can support public awareness actions such as Young Eagles, and we can work one on one with neighbors and friends to raise awareness of the good of general aviation. Metaphorically or literally stomping our feet and proclaiming our "right" to fly, IMO, will have little positive effect on the future of general aviation.
 
Metaphorically or literally stomping our feet and proclaiming our "right" to fly, IMO, will have little positive effect on the future of general aviation.
I don't see this discussion as foot stomping, Tom. I see it as a bunch of people who have thought about this subject from various angles offering their thoughts. I also see it as clarification of the nature of our rights and privileges and I've learned a few things in the process.
 
Hard Knox said:
We are the government and we need to accept the fact that we have used our rights to vote for the government that thinks we are too stupid to continue to have the right to fly. We are the frogs in the pot on the stove with the heat being added slowly.

Support our troops, vote the bums(all of them) out

You make good points Robby and I agree. Unfortunately I lost all faith I ever had in the 'power of my vote to represent my voice' when our current president lost the election and still became our president. I lost all faith I ever had in our elected officials being held accountable should their actions be deemed unethical or illegal when Meigs closed and no one seemed to care. If closing Meigs wasn't an act of terrorism I don't know what is.

I'm glad you still have faith and I hope you and people like you continue to fight the good fight. I just can't do it anymore. My vote counts for nothing and my voice does not matter to those in office. We don't have president elected by the people for the people. We have a president elected by 538 deligated people for whoever or whatever he **** well pleases.

Like it or not, as aviators we are a group that are expendable. General Aviation as we know it could go away competely and chances are better than not that you wouldn't be able to find more than two other people living on your street who would care at all. In fact, you can divide almost everyone in the country into two groups. Those that fly airplanes or want to fly them and those that are afraid of airplanes. The latter group is much larger than the former and politicians know that. That means we will always be an easy target for politicians looking to bolster their careers. We're the little kid that no one on the playground really likes and that's least able to defend itself from bullies. Every 8 year old knows that if you're not very bright and you don't have a lot going for you but you want to be popular, you go and you beat up that kid. Now that I'm an adult I'm learning that those bullies are now elected officials and not much else has changed from the way it was on the playground.

I'm glad there are those who still have faith but I've decided to stay away from the playground for a while.
 
to all

All points in the thread make sense to me...........BUT.........we the people are the government. So we the people must be viglant not to allow some beauracrate with an agenda or some off base interpretation of a law to stop we the people from our rights and privleges.

Frank @ sgu and slc
 
Fair Enough

David Johnson said:
I don't see this discussion as foot stomping, Tom. I see it as a bunch of people who have thought about this subject from various angles offering their thoughts. I also see it as clarification of the nature of our rights and privileges and I've learned a few things in the process.

I agree, good discussion. I threw in the word "metaphorically" to hopefully take a littles sting out of the statement. What I am referring to is the common practice these days of abusing the word "rights." It seems to me as if everyone with an issue believes he/she has a "right" to whatever it is they are talking about. To me this word is just thrown around too cavalierly (is that a word) much like the word "respect" and "disrespect." In these days the word "disrespect" has come to mean, "you disagree with me." Many people are good at demanding respect without really understanding the meaning and without understanding what it means to GIVE respect to others.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to imply anyone on these threads was throwing a temper tantrum or speaking out of ignorance.
 
I have nothing to add, except...
Popcorn.jpg

popcorn.jpg
 
Lowpass is right

captainron said:
Sorry, it's a Privilege, granted to you by a government entity, just like a driver's license.

Technically, there's no such thing as a "Privilege". That's just a term that has been used for the past 75 years or so to make it seem OK for the Imperial Federal Government to confiscate our rights. The term came into general use in 30's, in parallel with the rise in popularity of Marxism and its age-old view that goverments grant rights to the governed.

The Marxists were so successful that today most people don't realize that the purpose of our constitution was NEVER to grant rights to the people -- it was to limit the government to specific, "powers" that we, the people have chosen to delegate to it. All other rights are retained by the people.

The constitution is very clear on this:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But the sad fact of life is that the USA envisioned by the founders hasn't existed for half a century. We may have won the Cold War, but the Marxists still managed to destroy the reason we fought it. The Great Experiment is over. The Imperial Federal Government now does pretty much anything it wants, regardless of that quaint document that used to control it.

So you're right. In practice, flying has become a "privilege" that the IFG "grants" to those who make proper supplication and genuflection to the FAA. That "privilege" can be revoked at anytime at the will of the FAA, and there's not much you can do about it if it happens. It may not be legal but it's a fact of life.

But it sure doesn't help our cause when our advocates like EAA surrender the term. I'm with Lowpass -- I will continue to claim flight as my right and I'm damned if I'll call it a "privilege".
 
Okay, you guys have beaten me down and I totally agree with you. I'm going to phone my totally blind cousin, who always wanted to be a pilot, and inform him that it is his God-given right to go out there and take to the skies! Thanks for setting me straight!
 
Hey Paul Dye, put me down as Captain on the next Shuttle launch. Not only is this my God-given right as an American, but I'm a tax-payer to boot!
Thanks!
 
Ron you have the right to cut my grass! Its tall because I've been flying.

Come on Ron. The Shuttle is a glider. Do you have a non powered endorsement from the FAA.

Any way, the IRS calls me a "customer", 535 elected crooks spend most of their time lying to us to collect funds for reelection, while padding bills with pork for their favorite special interest groups and the RepubDems go to court anytime another entity wants to join the process. Its time to vote Libertarian. They can't do any worse.

In the same line of thought, does anyone remember Pearl Harbor? It was a military target that was attacked by a recognized nation. Harry finally blew their butts away. Yeah, I know innocent civilians were killed, but estimates of as many as one mllion people were saved, both Japanese and American, by dropping the bomb. The World Trade Center was a civilian target attacked by the Moslem version of Jim Jones, harbored by tyranical barely recognized puppet nations. My question is, why does Bush not kick out the UN and nuke these nuts into glass? You can't use conventional weapons to bomb these wack jobs back to the stone age, because the are still there. Talk about the right to fly, how about living in a place where your wife cannot show her face, vote or live in any semblance of freedom. Why, because Bush and the associated press leaches have to fly AFOne to my home town(TFR), close a WWII Aviation Museum funded by local tax dollars, charge a minimum admission of $250 each, raising $375,000 for Max Burns, a crook that lost two years ago. The "general public" was kept away by local "law enforcement". THATS WHY.

I think our government does some very good things. NASA, our Armed Services, our Interstate Highway System, our airport infastructure, National Parks, just to name a few, but even funding for these programs is in danger because 535 elected crooks are funding bridges to nowhwere! The only way we will keep our right to fly is to pay for it. Whether it be campaign contributions, organizations paying lobbying firms or through the collection of user fees. Believe it or not, the county I live in attempts to collect property taxes on airplanes registered here, but we don't have an airport!

Mark my rambling words, we are the frogs in the pot on the stove with the heat being added slowly. Its time to JUMP OUT!

Support our troops, vote the bums(all of them) out and remember the people on Flight 93. They decided to exercise the ultimate choice/right/freedom to give their lives against the enemy in the first battle of WWIII.

We need someone to lead this once great country that recognizes the positive economic impact that GA has on this country. While we are at it, lets find a guy/gal that will put Kofe Anon in Gitmo, kick the UN in the Hudson and nuke or let the Israilis nuke the nuts!

No offense intended to anyone, especailly our allies in the UK, the Kiwis, the Aussies(We loved Steve) and on the front line of WWIII, in Israel.

Don't forget to eat your Freedom Fries and my kids will get the grass tomorrow while I'm flying again.
 
Last edited:
Robbie, I agree with everything you say, and if you'll go back to the begining of this thread, you'll see that I didn't start this one. We need to wrap this one up, though, as this is not the forum for this.
For anyone who thinks that our Constitution grants them the right to fly, I say grow some feathers and go for it!
I'd vote Libertarian, love to, but it would just be a needed vote that the Republicans would'nt get. Sorry, that's just the way it is in our current system.
I've told my boss not to deduct anymore taxes from my pay until we use the nuclear weapons that I've already paid for.
And as far as the glider rating; don't need no stinkin rating! I've got my Rights!!
 
Kids have rights too. Gonna get a goat to do the grass!

captainron said:
I've told my boss not to deduct anymore taxes from my pay until we use the nuclear weapons that I've already paid for.
And as far as the glider rating; don't need no stinkin rating! I've got my Rights!!

BINGO!!!!!!!
 
Hard Knox is batting 1000

So what are you other people afraid of? I'm bettting it's "the other guy getting in". Have those dem/gop votes been more of a criticism of the "other guy" than an endorsement of the "lesser evil"?

My vote is a vote for who I want.

I respectfully offer this:
Anyone who says its "throwing my vote away" may not have put that statement into perspective with their own actions.

----------------------------------------------
A few of the posters (and the govt) don't seem to understand the constitution.
It was said before by a few, I'll say it again:
The government does not grant rights, god grants rights; The Consitution's purpose is to design the structure of the government and limit the powers of the government.

I may have to live with this:

"5) The Constitution is a working/evolutionary document as its creators intended. In essence it is amended and interpreted thousands of times a day each and every time a member of the judiciary renders a judgement. These defacto amendments are just as valid as a constitutional amendment unless they are challenged in court and overturned. I know this isn't a very romantic notion, but it is a pragmatic fact of life."

...but I certainly don't agree with it, and I know the founders wouldn't either.
The constitution says how it can be amended, and it has nothing to do with the judiciary.
 
Last edited:
I've heard it said that the Constitution is a "Living Document". I certainly believe that, because, if we're not careful, we will indeed kill it!
 
jonbakerok said:
Technically, there's no such thing as a "Privilege". That's just a term that has been used for the past 75 years or so to make it seem OK for the Imperial Federal Government to confiscate our rights. The term came into general use in 30's, in parallel with the rise in popularity of Marxism and its age-old view that goverments grant rights to the governed.

The Marxists were so successful that today most people don't realize that the purpose of our constitution was NEVER to grant rights to the people -- it was to limit the government to specific, "powers" that we, the people have chosen to delegate to it. All other rights are retained by the people.

The constitution is very clear on this:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But the sad fact of life is that the USA envisioned by the founders hasn't existed for half a century. We may have won the Cold War, but the Marxists still managed to destroy the reason we fought it. The Great Experiment is over. The Imperial Federal Government now does pretty much anything it wants, regardless of that quaint document that used to control it.

So you're right. In practice, flying has become a "privilege" that the IFG "grants" to those who make proper supplication and genuflection to the FAA. That "privilege" can be revoked at anytime at the will of the FAA, and there's not much you can do about it if it happens. It may not be legal but it's a fact of life.

But it sure doesn't help our cause when our advocates like EAA surrender the term. I'm with Lowpass -- I will continue to claim flight as my right and I'm damned if I'll call it a "privilege".

Beautiful summary!
Has anyone received the "American Community Survey", from the US Census Bureau?
That ought to give a hint about just how sacred the US Constitution (still sacred to me) is to the present system.

Roy C Lewis Jr
RV8QB
Don't count on fair treatment of aviation.
 
We have met the enemy and we are they

I noticed on my AOPA calendar that 9/11 is marked as ?Patriots Day?. This designation really bothered me because I fell 9/11 was the day our ?rights? died and the terrorists won because they caused the US government to take away the ?rights? that we used to hold so dear. The Patriot Act did more to take away our ?rights? and ?privileges? than any other single piece of legislation in the history of this country.

When growing up in the 60?s and 70?s I remember my grade school teachers talking about how evil the USSR was because they had secret courts, secret laws, prosecuted their citizens without letting them see all the evidence or witnesses against them, held people in jail without trials, invaded countries for no reason, spied on their own citizens, etc.

Well I hate to say it, but that sounds like the United States today.

How things have changed.

I love the bumper sticker I saw the other day, ?I love my country. It?s my government I don?t trust.?
 
Patriot's Day

N941WR said:
I noticed on my AOPA calendar that 9/11 is marked as ?Patriots Day?. This designation really bothered me because I fell 9/11 was the day our ?rights? died and the terrorists won because they caused the US government to take away the ?rights? that we used to hold so dear.
AOPA members in New England are also going to be confused if not royally ticked off at that since Patriot's Day is an existing holiday in honor of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. At least for the people I've worked with in Mass. , its a big, pride filled event, and its not in September.

jonbakerok, I'd love to hear more about the Marxist popularization of the term "privalege". Most people seriously underestimate the power that Marxist and Soviet propaganda affects us still.

And finally, guys, I hope we can keep this thread aimed at our right to fly as to stay on a relevant topic. There's too much good stuff here to get the thread killed.

Live free or die . . . and that includes free to fly!
 
'way to go, Robbie!

You should really consider expressing yourself sometime, and saying exactly what you feel. It's not good to hold it all in.

VR Jim
 
"The Constitution is a working/evolutionary document as its creators intended. In essence it is amended and interpreted thousands of times a day each and every time a member of the judiciary renders a judgement. These defacto amendments are just as valid as a constitutional amendment unless they are challenged in court and overturned. I know this isn't a very romantic notion, but it is a pragmatic fact of life."

...but I certainly don't agree with it, and I know the founders wouldn't either.
The constitution says how it can be amended, and it has nothing to do with the judiciary."


Actually, I believe the founding fathers would agree with it. Our brilliant forefathers specifically made the constitution somewhat vague and difficult to formally amend. They knew they could not possibly predict what American society would be like in the future and that the guiding ideals would need to change and evolve while the basic principals held fast. They knew that a constitution that required formal amendment every time a change was needed would not endure. They then created the legislative branch of government and empowered it to make laws on behalf of the people it's members respresent thereby creating a vehicle to amend or at least further define the consitution. They then created the judicial branch of government to interpret the laws created by the legislature thereby serving as a checks-and-balance and an informal constitutional amendment vehicle. Of course, every judicial decision can be appealed to higher courts and of course the Supreme Court makes the final decision as to whether or not a lower court decision is constitutional. It really is a brilliant system if you stop and think about it.

So where did things go amuck? I suggest the problem is not with those in government per se (although there are definitely corrupt politicians), but rather with the people being governed. When the people stopped looking out for themselves and started looking towards their government to solve every problem, they gave up their and our rights and freedoms. Not very often does a local group of Americans tell the federal government not to spend money in their area. As long as Americans continue to look to the federal government to take care of their problems and needs, there are going to be politicians standing in line happy to take our money and look out for what's "best" for us.

General aviation is a relatively small player in the fight for federal attention and funds. We need all of the clout we can get in Washington DC and we need a heavy dose of local activism to be heard. On the positive side, pilots are generally educated professionals who are persistent in their goals and willing to do what it takes. It can be done but it will take a lot of work and a common effort.
 
Last edited:
captainron said:
Okay, you guys have beaten me down and I totally agree with you. I'm going to phone my totally blind cousin, who always wanted to be a pilot, and inform him that it is his God-given right to go out there and take to the skies! Thanks for setting me straight!

Ron,

Nobody is saying that our right to fly (or any other right) is unlimited. Like all our rights, mine end where yours begin. People have a right to be reasonably safe from falling airplanes. So obviously, it is proper for the government to draw the line between those two rights.

The issue Lowpass raised was the EAA referring to our right to fly as a "Privilege". The word "Privilege" implies that it's some special dispensation the government granted that can be taken away at will.

Since it's a "privilege", all it would take to ground us all permanently would be for some nutball to use a Cessna for a suicide bombing. No one will care that an order of magnitude greater damage could have been done with a rental truck or even an SUV. It just won't even matter, because you don't have a right to fly, you just have a privilege. When that day comes, the people will scream, politicians' phones will ring, and your "privilege" will be revoked in a heartbeat.

Sometimes words matter. We should expect more from our advocates at EAA.
 
Back
Top