OT: AOPA= NRA of the Air -NYT

[John Courte]

Just read this article (click to skip the ad) about Chertoff's latest plan to make us all safe from GA. DHS, like Hollywood, is truly out of ideas. But what irks me the most is about 2/3 of the way down, where the author compares AOPA to the NRA. Now, i'm a card-carrying member of both (NRA lapsed a while ago), but in no way does AOPA come close to the NRA in look, feel, or mood, IMHO.

In other, better news, I'm almost done with my modified Bingelis wing cradle, and Barb at Van's just called to tell me my QB kit is ready to go!

Hope everyone's having a great weekend so far!

[rv8ch]

What's amazing is that the right the NRA is fighting for is explicitly described in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and we still have to expend a lot of energy to defend it. The freedom to fly is obviously not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, which IMHO makes AOPA's job even harder.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by rv8ch

The freedom to fly is obviously not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, which IMHO makes AOPA's job even harder.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights--------pursuit of happiness"

Flying sure makes me happy.

Mike

[hevansrv7a]

This will be a short, general purpose rant for which I beg your forgiveness if you disagree.

The Constitution, even before the first ten amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights, spelled out the powers of the federal government, branch by branch. It was then explicitly stated that all other powers belong to the people or the states. Even with this, the founders felt that some rights needed to be explicit and added the first ten amendments. What could be more clear than that we the people have all the rights and powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government? The right to prevent flying was not given to the government. Regulation of interstate commerce and, obviously, national security are legitimate concerns, but they can only impinge on the right to fly as can be clearly justified for those purposes, not just for the heck of it.

[briand]

I saw Phil Boyer on CNBC Friday. Sad to say; he didn't do too good. The Mod. (Melissa Francis) did strike at the ATA rep. about his little nip that GA rules are "unfair" to the public/airlines but all in all it looked like she still sided with the airlines. Boyer was disappointing to say the least.

[osxuser]

Originally Posted by briand

I saw Phil Boyer on CNBC Friday. Sad to say; he didn't do too good. The Mod. (Melissa Francis) did strike at the ATA rep. about his little nip that GA rules are "unfair" to the public/airlines but all in all it looked like she still sided with the airlines. Boyer was disappointing to say the least.

He really isn't forceful enough, and seems to try to refer to GA benefits instead of point out the inconsistancy of the airlines side.