We have met the enemy, and they are us
C J Campbell
by Scott Gardiner. Among other things it said that pilots flying in from out
of state to Arlington need to be extra cautious in avoiding the TFRs. It
closed with this:
"And third, the Navy has troops placed around the perimeter of all four of
our TFRs. These troops are armed with guns that are too big to pick up.
Their orders are, in the event they feel threatened, to shoot down the
offending aircraft in self defense. So far, no one has been shot down since
September 11, so they are showing remarkable restraint. Still our previous
advice holds true -- stay as far away from those TFRs as possible."
I did not realize that the military not killing law abiding citizens was
considered to be "showing remarkable restraint." Now, I have no idea how far
away from the TFRs is "as far away as possible." Nor do I have any idea what
might constitute a something that some half literate ground pounder with a
big gun would consider to be a threat. Note that this threat does not
necessarily have to be a violation of the TFRs. If one of these clowns
decides to shoot down a plane just for the fun of it, all he has to say is
he considered it a threat.
I might be missing something, but this seems to be something more like the
Chinese would pull at Tiananmen Square than what our government is supposed
to be doing in the United States of America. We pay these people to protect
us, not threaten us. Whoever gave these orders needs to be fired. Each one
of us needs to write every paper, every congress critter, every media
outlet, every military person, and keep writing until this monstrosity is
stopped. We need to picket the bases. I cannot see how any American can
tolerate a military that is a greater threat to our citizens than our
enemies are. The Bush administration and the military must be held
accountable for their behavior.
--
Christopher J. Campbell
Certificated Flight Instructor, Instrument and Multiengine Airplane
Port Orchard, WA
Mark Smith
You don't suppose this may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek do you ??
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
1-812-838-6351
Stephen!
news:uds2hkc...@corp.supernews.com:
> idea how far away from the TFRs is "as far away as possible." Nor do I
> have any idea what might constitute a something that some half
> literate ground pounder with a big gun would consider to be a threat.
#1. The Navy does not have "ground pounders", that would be the Army or
Marines.
#2. Even in the Army and Marines the "ground pounders" do not make the
decision to fire unless in a combat situation. This is far from combat.
The decisions are made at a much higher level.
#3. Stay away from the TFR's and you'll have no worries.
> We need to picket the bases.
*THAT* always works.. It stopped the "Police Action" in Viet Nam, after
all...
> cannot see how any American can tolerate a military that is a greater
> threat to our citizens than our enemies are.
They're just getting back for all the "We finance E-1 and UP!!" places...
> The Bush administration and the military must be held accountable for
> their behavior.
Hey... it obviously worked... It's got you scared shitless...
--
MTN-291
ICQ: 9977496
http://fromtheair.tripod.com
"Now we live in you. Tell them of us, my darling."
John T
It read much more like a slightly humorous, very tongue-in-cheek reminder
not to stray into the TFR's. There is no standing order to shoot down
civilian aircraft - threatening or not.
--
John T
____________________
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uds2hkc...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob Noel
> You don't suppose this may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek do you ??
nah, haven't seen it in the past from that poster.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me... )
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Mark Hickey
Synopsis: Our armed services are full of "half literate clowns", and
GA aircraft are raining from the skies full of holes from
clown-induced weaponry. George W. Bush is the anti-christ, and any
authority is inherently evil.
Did I cover it all?
Mark Hickey
Don Rogers
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns920C1898FAC2s...@66.75.162.198...
les_I...@waitforit.com
wrote:
>"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Synopsis: Our armed services are full of "half literate clowns", and
>GA aircraft are raining from the skies full of holes from
>clown-induced weaponry. George W. Bush is the anti-christ, and any
>authority is inherently evil.
>
>Did I cover it all?
>
>Mark Hickey
I think you might have left out the part about the government trying
to disarm the citizenry so that the populi are unable to resist.
Steven P. McNicoll
> Marines.
>
The Marine Corps is part of the Navy.
Pro Crustes
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:udt203...@corp.supernews.com...
Everyone knows this. And, that's a shame, because it isn't true. Both the
Navy and the Marine Corps are part of the Department of the Navy, which is
headed by a civilian, the Secretary of the Navy. The senior military member
of the Marine Corps is the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who, like his
counterpart, the Chief of Naval Operations, reports directly to the
Secretary. Neither the Navy nor the Marines are part of each other; each is
part of the Department of the Navy. (To further muck up the record, the
part of the Department of the Navy wholly devoted to the being the Navy (and
not the Marines) is brilliantly named "The Navy Department.")
A handy chart can be found at
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/organization/org-over.html
Crusty (who remembers being taught _never_ to tell a Marine that the Corps
was part of the Navy, unless he was closer to the door).
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cde81af.60474007@localhost...
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 14:14:29 GMT, ma...@habcycles.com (Mark Hickey)
> wrote:
>
> >"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Synopsis: Our armed services are full of "half literate clowns", and
> >GA aircraft are raining from the skies full of holes from
> >clown-induced weaponry. George W. Bush is the anti-christ, and any
> >authority is inherently evil.
> >
> >Did I cover it all?
> >
> >Mark Hickey
>
> I think you might have left out the part about the government trying
> to disarm the citizenry so that the populi are unable to resist.
He didn't say that, but I might agree if he had. Live in Manhattan, spend
years getting to be close friends with a cop, buy him three beers, and
suggest that citizens be armed. You will learn quite a lot about what the
police think of giving guns to anyone but the police, and why.
Crusty (whose Ithaca 20-guage--a gift, no less--is the only gun he owns,
even though Virginia is much gun-happier than New York)
les_I...@waitforit.com
I'd be very interested in the "why" part.
I'd also be interested in how many Manhattan cops you actually have
become close friends with, and take out for three beers or twelve to
probe their collective subconscious.
les_I...@waitforit.com
And, just as an afterthought, I would not equate a NY cop to the
"government trying to disarm the citizenry". Not nearly sinister
enough.
>
>
>
Rich S.
news:mvsD8.15173$m54.2023354473@twister2.starband.net...
> Dood, take a pill! :)
>
> It read much more like a slightly humorous, very tongue-in-cheek reminder
> not to stray into the TFR's. There is no standing order to shoot down
> civilian aircraft - threatening or not.
>
> --
> John T
Gosh, John - I forgot the wonderful sense of humor in government circles.
Tell you what - haul your ass out to the nearest air carrier airport and
start making jokes about bombs and box cutters. Just as a reminder to the
security people to do their job. You'll have so much fun!
Rich S.
John Lawson
the FSDO is exaggerating to a certain extent...or at least the language it uses
is rather ill-chosen to say the least. First off, I seriously doubt that the
armed forces have enough manpower to put people "with guns that are too big to
pick up" around the TFRs. Just ain't got enough bodies and weapons. More
likely they're stationed on the ships and at the installations around which the
TFRs are designated. Secondly, the military has specific rules of engagement
(ROE) that it has to follow, which precludes shots taken for "just being
threatened." Also, there are probably procedures in the ROE to address handling
aircraft that stray through the TFR by mistake, vice those that could have
harmful intent.
It sounds to me like this was something that someone at the FSDO wrote off the
top of their head, to get the attention of pilots. And I'd bet that they didn't
run it by the Navy before publishing it.
If I were you and the pilots in that area, I'd do an end-run around the FSDO and
contact the Navy Public Affairs Office (PAO) at one of the military
installations. Send them what the FSDO published, and ask them for specific
guidance/information regarding what happens if an aircraft enters a TFR. I'll
bet that what you get is different than what the FSDO published. If the Navy
doesn't help, then contact someone at the FAA Northwest Mountain Regional
Office.
Semper Fi
John
C J Campbell wrote:
> The Seattle FSDO sent this little gem out about the Puget Sound TFRs written
> by Scott Gardiner. Among other things it said that pilots flying in from out
> of state to Arlington need to be extra cautious in avoiding the TFRs. It
> closed with this:
>
> "And third, the Navy has troops placed around the perimeter of all four of
> our TFRs. These troops are armed with guns that are too big to pick up.
> Their orders are, in the event they feel threatened, to shoot down the
> offending aircraft in self defense. So far, no one has been shot down since
> September 11, so they are showing remarkable restraint. Still our previous
> advice holds true -- stay as far away from those TFRs as possible."
>
> I did not realize that the military not killing law abiding citizens was
> considered to be "showing remarkable restraint." Now, I have no idea how far
> away from the TFRs is "as far away as possible." Nor do I have any idea what
> might constitute a something that some half literate ground pounder with a
> big gun would consider to be a threat. Note that this threat does not
> necessarily have to be a violation of the TFRs. If one of these clowns
> decides to shoot down a plane just for the fun of it, all he has to say is
> he considered it a threat.
>
> I might be missing something, but this seems to be something more like the
> Chinese would pull at Tiananmen Square than what our government is supposed
> to be doing in the United States of America. We pay these people to protect
> us, not threaten us. Whoever gave these orders needs to be fired. Each one
> of us needs to write every paper, every congress critter, every media
> outlet, every military person, and keep writing until this monstrosity is
> stopped. We need to picket the bases. I cannot see how any American can
> tolerate a military that is a greater threat to our citizens than our
> enemies are. The Bush administration and the military must be held
> accountable for their behavior.
>
Jerry Springer
Just for the fun of it here are is a place to see where they are.
http://www.nweaa.org/notam2002/tfr2002.jpg
Jerry
Steven P. McNicoll
"Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h0wD8.4497$Ok3.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> Everyone knows this. And, that's a shame, because it isn't true. Both
the
> Navy and the Marine Corps are part of the Department of the Navy, which is
> headed by a civilian, the Secretary of the Navy. The senior military
member
> of the Marine Corps is the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who, like his
> counterpart, the Chief of Naval Operations, reports directly to the
> Secretary. Neither the Navy nor the Marines are part of each other; each
is
> part of the Department of the Navy. (To further muck up the record, the
> part of the Department of the Navy wholly devoted to the being the Navy
(and
> not the Marines) is brilliantly named "The Navy Department.")
>
> A handy chart can be found at
>
> http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/organization/org-over.html
>
Like I said, the Marine Corps is part of the Navy.
Bob Gardner
ground pounders." My guess is that you have not spent any time serving your
country. If you had, you would know that the great majority of service
members are quite literate, and great individuals of which this country
should be rightly proud.
Bob Gardner LCDR, USCG (Ret)
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uds2hkc...@corp.supernews.com...
C J Campbell
bonehead threats to turn military weapons against the law abiding public.
QED
In fact I am proud of my service in the United States and I realize that the
great majority of servicemen and women take their jobs seriously. But I also
know that some of these people, even some of flag rank, are trigger-happy
morons.
Tell you what: how would the Navy feel if private citizens did the same
thing the Navy did. If a bunch of citizens decided they did not want
military personnel within a mile of their homes and publicly announced that
they would shoot anyone in uniform that they considered threatening. Do you
think the Navy would take kindly to that? Why should anyone feel any
different then when the Navy takes this wholly unjustified action?
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:60xD8.35812$WR1.26711@sccrnsc01...
C J Campbell
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cde81af.60474007@localhost...
Rick
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > I did not realize that the military not killing law abiding citizens was
> > considered to be "showing remarkable restraint." Now, I have no idea how far
> > away from the TFRs is "as far away as possible." Nor do I have any idea what
> > might constitute a something that some half literate ground pounder with a
> > big gun would consider to be a threat. Note that this threat does not
> > necessarily have to be a violation of the TFRs. If one of these clowns
> > decides to shoot down a plane just for the fun of it, all he has to say is
> > he considered it a threat.
>
> You don't suppose this may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek do you ??
>
> --
>
> Mark Smith
Tongue in cheek???
Nah, sounds like he has his whole damn head inserted into his cheeks.
I trust our military to do it's job,
Rick P.
daev
issue.... provided those carrying concealed weapons are properly
licensed.....
daev
"Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A3wD8.4502$Ok3.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Dave Hyde
> Like I said, the Marine Corps is part of the Navy.
Geez, _every_ sea lawyer knows *that*.
Dave 'technically correct but useless' Hyde
na...@brick.net
John Gaquin
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> thing the Navy did. If a bunch of citizens decided they did not want
> military personnel
So far, we have not seen that the Navy has done anything. All you have done
is quote a bulletin from the FSDO, and amply demonstrated an anti-military
and anti-Bush prejudice. Did you forget your Prozac?
JG
Dave Hyde
> Tell you what: how would the Navy feel if private citizens did the same
> thing the Navy did. If a bunch of citizens decided they did not want
> military personnel within a mile of their homes and publicly announced that
> they would shoot anyone in uniform that they considered threatening.
What evidence do you have besides this FSDO letter that
'the Navy' actually made such a threat? We all know that
no bad gouge *ever* came from an FSDO, right?
Dave 'hearsay' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cde8dfd.63624219@localhost...
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 15:42:24 GMT, "Pro Crustes"
> <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
> >news:3cde81af.60474007@localhost...
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2002 14:14:29 GMT, ma...@habcycles.com (Mark Hickey)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Synopsis: Our armed services are full of "half literate clowns", and
> >> >GA aircraft are raining from the skies full of holes from
> >> >clown-induced weaponry. George W. Bush is the anti-christ, and any
> >> >authority is inherently evil.
> >> >
> >> >Did I cover it all?
> >> >
> >> >Mark Hickey
> >>
> >> I think you might have left out the part about the government trying
> >> to disarm the citizenry so that the populi are unable to resist.
> >
> >He didn't say that, but I might agree if he had. Live in Manhattan,
spend
> >years getting to be close friends with a cop, buy him three beers, and
> >suggest that citizens be armed. You will learn quite a lot about what
the
> >police think of giving guns to anyone but the police, and why.
> >
> >Crusty (whose Ithaca 20-guage--a gift, no less--is the only gun he owns,
> >even though Virginia is much gun-happier than New York)
> >
> >
> >
> I'd be very interested in the "why" part.
Uh... it's not very complicated: they want to be the only ones with guns, so
they don't have to worry about anyone shooting at them.
> I'd also be interested in how many Manhattan cops you actually have
> become close friends with, and take out for three beers or twelve to
> probe their collective subconscious.
Your use of the word "actually" suggests that you doubt me. Why? I went to
law school at night in Manhattan. Lots of my classmates were policemen. As
I tended to be in their age group and somewhat pro-cop at the time, we did
quite a bit of drinking together. After graduation, one in particular
practiced law with me and was a special guest at my wedding. Through that
relationship, I became acquainted with quite a few cops, including a short
stint as counsel to an unofficial fraternal organization of police who are
members of a minority group. A number of others and I became friendly to
varying degrees.
And I did not need to "probe their collective subconscious." Once a cop
feels he can talk to you, his conscious thoughts are quite easy to
understand.
Any particular reason you doubt me?
Pro Crustes
Sorry to learn your Web browser is broken. While you're getting it fixed,
try saying, "the Marine Corps is part of the Navy" to a Marine. He'll
explain it to you.
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cde8f3e.63945751@localhost...
Mayor Giuliani needed police support to win elections. Like many elected
officials in New York, he knew that the police would prefer not to see an
armed population. His slogan, "Handguns belong in the hands of the police,"
was an NYPD favorite.
You're not from New York, are you?
Pro Crustes
"daev" <mymunge@sbc remove all this and the spaces global.net> wrote in
message news:WDyD8.17949$pY6.244...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> interesting, the cops here in Texas take an entirely different tack on
that
> issue.... provided those carrying concealed weapons are properly
> licensed.....
Ah, yes. Texas. I lived there for a year, in 1981. Their thoughts about
an armed population are, in fact, not the same as the ones I experienced in
the Irish bars of New York, drinking with policemen there.
daev
police population welcome the assistance. I guess it shouldn't be any
surprise, considering the % of gun owners here......
'damn yankee' daev
"Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rOzD8.4592$Ok3.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Sorry to learn your Web browser is broken.
>
My browser is fine, thanks for your concern.
>
> While you're getting it fixed,
> try saying, "the Marine Corps is part of the Navy" to a Marine. He'll
> explain it to you.
>
Are you saying Marines don't generally know that the Marine Corps is part of
the Navy?
Pro Crustes
Your intransigence exceeds your support. I posted a URL to a site that
explains that the Marine Corps is not part of the Navy. If you have trouble
understanding the difference between the Navy and the Department of the
Navy, then I can't help you. If you do understand the difference, post a
cite supporting your claim. Meanwhile, I continue to accept what they
taught me when I was in the Navy myself, and what the government's Web site
says, not what you say (even if you say it more than once).
Bob Gardner
Gardiner had a Navy officer as a guest, to answer audience questions. I
didn't hear any threats from anyone; I heard Scott make a statement that may
or may not be true, probably hyperbole to get his point across.
Bob Gardner
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udt8h27...@corp.supernews.com...
les_I...@waitforit.com
No, but you must be.
Only New Yorkers would equate their city with "the government".
les_I...@waitforit.com
<pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
well, that's only common sense.
I thought we were discussing more sinister stuff like a government
conspiracy to render the population powerless - you know, black
helicopter stuff adn all that.
Peter Gottlieb
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cdee416.85669100@localhost...
Call me an "escapee" now.
> Only New Yorkers would equate their city with "the government".
I don't quite follow you. I was talking about the government of the city of
New York. That's not a valid example?
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cdee506.85909075@localhost...
> >Uh... it's not very complicated: they want to be the only ones with guns,
so
> >they don't have to worry about anyone shooting at them.
>
> well, that's only common sense.
>
> I thought we were discussing more sinister stuff like a government
> conspiracy to render the population powerless - you know, black
> helicopter stuff adn all that.
Nah. Blue ones. The NYPD egg-beaters are blue.
The important thing to understand, IMHO, about governmental danger in
America is that you don't _need_ to look for a conspiracy. The abuses
perpetrated by New York cops (not all of whom are evil people, let me hasten
to add) are a form of institutionalized culture. I could write quite an
essay here about that, but I'm working this afternoon and don't have time.
In short, you don't need to have a big meeting with the shutters closed and
a guard at the door to know what the group consensus is, and know you are
expected to act on it. But, for those of us who are on the receiving end of
that action, it's as good a form of government oppression as it has to be.
Pro Crustes
"Peter Gottlieb" <pe...@NewYorkNERD.com> wrote in message
news:aIBD8.9310$Q87....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Yeah, that one puzzled me, too. I think he means that I'm assuming the
world ends at the Hudson, and that I'm overlooking the federal government.
He's got that backwards. I'm offering a real-life example from one of the
biggest local governments there is. He's assuming, I think, that only the
federal government can act in a way that might be self-interested at the
expense of the governed. That's a dangerous form of tunnel-vision, IMHO.
les_I...@waitforit.com
<pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >You're not from New York, are you?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > No, but you must be.
>> >
>> > Only New Yorkers would equate their city with "the government".
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>
>Yeah, that one puzzled me, too. I think he means that I'm assuming the
>world ends at the Hudson, and that I'm overlooking the federal government.
>He's got that backwards. I'm offering a real-life example from one of the
>biggest local governments there is. He's assuming, I think, that only the
>federal government can act in a way that might be self-interested at the
>expense of the governed. That's a dangerous form of tunnel-vision, IMHO.
>
>
>
>
I don't think it is.
The fact that the police in Peoria act in a tyrranical fashion is
hardly of consequence to me. That can easily be ruled
unconstitutional (ala Little Rock Arkansas), and "the government"
protects my interest.
New YorkCity is only a larger scale of the same principle.
When the Federal government ("the government") acts tyrranically in
some fashion, that is much more serious, since I have no appeal (if
all three branches agree that tyrrany rules the day, of course).
I know you don't see it that way in NYC, because you tend to think of
yourselves as the center of the universe, and Giuliani is your Ming
the Merciless.
But it ain't so.
les_I...@waitforit.com
<pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, yes, except that as long as you have a higher court to appeal
to, it isn't as bad as it could be.
C J Campbell
"Rick" <rick.p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CDEB884...@verizon.net...
C J Campbell
1) Scott Gardiner of the FAA wrote a threatening letter to all the local
pilots, but the threats have no basis in fact.
2) Scott Gardiner of the FAA wrote a threatening letter to all the local
pilots, but he was passing on information that he received from the Navy.
However, the Navy has no intention of carrying out those threats.
3) Scott Gardiner of the FAA wrote a threatening letter to all the local
pilots and he was passing on information that he received from the Navy. The
Navy fully intends to carry out its threats against private citizens minding
their own business.
Gee, why I am I not comforted by any of these possibilities?
Scott Gardiner's letter is every bit as threatening as anything that Osama
bin Laden has said. I would say that Scott Gardiner, at the very least, has
made a terrorist threat against aviation in this area. If that threat
originated with the Navy then the only conclusion is that our local armed
forces are commanded by terrorists. They no longer are here for our
protection, but have achieved the status of a hostile occupying force.
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:KaBD8.37361$WR1.30255@sccrnsc01...
Rick
little respect for our military.
Please be advised that *I* don't want *YOU* to decide how the military
protects my country.
America, love it or leave it.
Rick P.
Peter Gottlieb
blinders on.
However, I do agree with your point about the military.
"Rick" <rick.p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CDF0247...@verizon.net...
>
> America, love it or leave it.
.
C J Campbell
| I mean like it does every day to protect all of us citizens. Learn a
| little respect for our military.
I have a great deal of respect for the military. I served my country proudly
and would do so again if called upon. When I entered the military I took an
oath to uphold the Constitution -- an oath that I take seriously today. I am
consequently disturbed when I see members of the military that apparently
think that their oath of service is meaningless.
| Please be advised that *I* don't want *YOU* to decide how the military
| protects my country.
I do not want to decide how the military protects the country. But I do want
it to protect the country. I do not equate protecting the country with
making threats against or attacking unarmed citizens. That is attacking the
country, not protecting it.
|
| America, love it or leave it.
You apparently don't like America very much if you think it is all right to
kill unarmed civilians. Don't let the door hit you on the way out as you
leave.
Mark Smith
>
> All right, we have three choices:
>
> 1) Scott Gardiner of the FAA wrote a threatening letter to all the local
> pilots, but the threats have no basis in fact.
>
> 2) Scott Gardiner of the FAA wrote a threatening letter to all the local
> pilots, but he was passing on information that he received from the Navy.
> However, the Navy has no intention of carrying out those threats.
>
> 3) Scott Gardiner of the FAA wrote a threatening letter to all the local
> pilots and he was passing on information that he received from the Navy. The
> Navy fully intends to carry out its threats against private citizens minding
> their own business.
>
> Gee, why I am I not comforted by any of these possibilities?
>
> Scott Gardiner's letter is every bit as threatening as anything that Osama
> bin Laden has said. I would say that Scott Gardiner, at the very least, has
> made a terrorist threat against aviation in this area. If that threat
> originated with the Navy then the only conclusion is that our local armed
> forces are commanded by terrorists. They no longer are here for our
> protection, but have achieved the status of a hostile occupying force.
not to fan the fire but do the services ask if a recruit would bear arms
against the population if asked to do so ?
I had heard they do, and your assignment depends to some extent your
answer,
could be a rumor too,,,,,
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
1-812-838-6351
John T
news:qiwD8.114$i3.7...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
<<
Gosh, John - I forgot the wonderful sense of humor in government circles.
>>
And it's impossible for government employees to break the Orwellian mold
once in a while?
<<
Tell you what - haul your ass out to the nearest air carrier airport and
start making jokes about bombs and box cutters. Just as a reminder to the
security people to do their job.
>>
Oh, yeah. That's relevant - and so, so witty. Please give me more!
--
John T
__________
John T
As I recall the incident, the American advisors specifically suggested that
the flight *not* be fired on, but the Peruvians ignored that advice.
--
John T
__________
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udttiv3...@corp.supernews.com...
Mark Hickey
>It doesn't make you choke to have to defend the Bush administration?
From charges that GA aircraft are being shot down by a bunch of armed
clowns? Nope, not a bit. I'd defend that presumption even if Klinton
was being accused of the same. When the first aircraft falls, we can
all gather around the wreckage, sing Kumbayah and decide who was
wrong. Until then, I'd just as soon worry about getting hit by a
meteorite.
Mark Hickey
><les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
>news:3cde81af.60474007@localhost...
>| On Sun, 12 May 2002 14:14:29 GMT, ma...@habcycles.com (Mark Hickey)
>| wrote:
>|
>| >"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>| >
>| >Synopsis: Our armed services are full of "half literate clowns", and
>| >GA aircraft are raining from the skies full of holes from
>| >clown-induced weaponry. George W. Bush is the anti-christ, and any
>| >authority is inherently evil.
>| >
>| >Did I cover it all?
>| >
>| >Mark Hickey
>|
>| I think you might have left out the part about the government trying
>| to disarm the citizenry so that the populi are unable to resist.
>|
>|
Mark Hickey
>Scott Gardiner's letter is every bit as threatening as anything that Osama
>bin Laden has said.
CJ (can I call you CJ?), you need to bolt all the doors, move into the
center of the house and hunker down in your bathtub. It might help to
move it under a door frame.
Me, I'm not gonna lose sleep worrying about invisible black
helicopters and grunts with weapons aimed at me. Heck, there were
guardsmen with automatic weapons stationed IN the airports all around
the nation. Errr, I forget - how many innocent civilians did those
"trigger happy morons" blow away?
Mark Hickey
John T
do it when such violations occur over Camp David (P-40 to the locals). On
October 26, 2001 AOPA sent out this notice:
"For the second time AOPA is asking all pilots to fly professionally. Last
weekend there were six violations of P-40, the prohibited area over Camp
David in Thurmont, Maryland."
Six violations in a single weekend. Other sources inside the FAA announced
that a total of 27 violations occured between reinstatement of GA flight and
October 19, 2001. These violations happened in prohibited airspace actively
patrolled by armed fighter aircraft (and presumably equally well armed
ground forces).
Were I a betting man, I'd say this would be the one place "shoot to kill"
orders would be followed - especially when Camp David was occupied by either
Bush or Cheney. Is this merely a show of "remarkable restraint" or highly
competent fighter pilots following orders?
--
John T
__________
"John Lawson" <jwla...@hargray.com> wrote in message
news:aaf9198c.02051...@posting.google.com...
<<
Secondly, the military has specific rules of engagement (ROE) that it has to
follow, which precludes shots taken for "just being threatened." Also,
there are probably procedures in the ROE to address handling aircraft that
stray through the TFR by mistake, vice those that could have harmful intent.
>>
John T
--
John T
__________
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udt8vmi...@corp.supernews.com...
John T
it?
--
John T
__________
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udtu2d6...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
Rick
C J Campbell wrote:
>
> "Rick" <rick.p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CDF0247...@verizon.net...
> | I mean like it does every day to protect all of us citizens. Learn a
> | little respect for our military.
>
> I have a great deal of respect for the military. <snip>
Sure you do, that's why you refer to them as "some half literate ground
pounder with a
big gun".
> I do not want to decide how the military protects the country. But I do want
> it to protect the country. I do not equate protecting the country with
> making threats against or attacking unarmed citizens. That is attacking the
> country, not protecting it.
Oh??? Did some unarmed citizen get attacked??? I musta missed that.
OTOH, if some crazed lunatic with a truckload of fertilizer and kerosene
hell-bent on teaching the "guvmint" a lesson were to be attacked by our
military I'd applaud it!
>
> |
> | America, love it or leave it.
>
> You apparently don't like America very much if you think it is all right to
> kill unarmed civilians. Don't let the door hit you on the way out as you
Leave? No way! I'm not the one pissing and moaning, you are. I kinda
LIKE it here.
Rick P.
olen goodwin
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udttiv3...@corp.supernews.com...
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cdef16b.89082362@localhost...
It's refreshing to see faith in the court system here in an aviation group,
but I must say I don't share it with you. Further, you seem to
misunderstand how the system of constitutional rights works in under dual
federalism. The state constitution of New York actually guarantees _more_
rights to the people than does the federal constitution of the United
States. If you lose in the New York courts, it's pretty much over for you.
Larry Smith
"olen goodwin" <ogoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:IiFD8.22577$Ru2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> OUR military didn't shoot anybody down in Peru.
To be fair, we must candidly admit, however, that the US Government first
interdicted the aircraft and called Peruvian officials' attention to it. An
anti-drug surveillance plane operated by the CIA alerted Peruvians that the
missionaries' plane was operating without a flight plan in airspace
frequented by drug runners. The fact is that 10 minutes before the plane
was shot down, killing a woman and her baby, the missionary pilot had called
and received clearance to land at Iquitos Airport.
You cannot accurately suggest that our government and the CIA were innocent
in the matter.
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cdeeee8.88439297@localhost...
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 22:33:56 GMT, "Pro Crustes"
> <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > >
> >> > >You're not from New York, are you?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > No, but you must be.
> >> >
> >> > Only New Yorkers would equate their city with "the government".
> >>
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> >Yeah, that one puzzled me, too. I think he means that I'm assuming the
> >world ends at the Hudson, and that I'm overlooking the federal
government.
> >He's got that backwards. I'm offering a real-life example from one of
the
> >biggest local governments there is. He's assuming, I think, that only
the
> >federal government can act in a way that might be self-interested at the
> >expense of the governed. That's a dangerous form of tunnel-vision, IMHO.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I don't think it is.
>
> The fact that the police in Peoria act in a tyrranical fashion is
> hardly of consequence to me. That can easily be ruled
> unconstitutional (ala Little Rock Arkansas), and "the government"
> protects my interest.
Sometimes. New York state's constitution is much more protective of your
Fourth Amendment rights than is the federal constitution. Lose in the state
courts and you're done, as far as search and seizure issues are concerned.
> New YorkCity is only a larger scale of the same principle.
>
> When the Federal government ("the government") acts tyrranically in
> some fashion, that is much more serious, since I have no appeal (if
> all three branches agree that tyrrany rules the day, of course).
You're confused. A loss in the federal system just means you have to resort
to individual states for a remedy. In New York, you can still win a case
you lost in the federal courts.
> I know you don't see it that way in NYC, because you tend to think of
> yourselves as the center of the universe, and Giuliani is your Ming
> the Merciless.
I don't live in New York anymore, partly because the police started to scare
me.
> But it ain't so.
If you don't live there, don't presume to know.
C
John Gaquin
C J Campbell
were likely to be punished for Clinton's behavior would be Ken Starr and
Linda Tripp. Clinton is a whole order of evil worse than Bush, and I am
afraid we have not seen the last of the Clintons. I believe that eventually,
when the full truth is known and discussed by dispassionate historians of
the future, that it will be generally agreed that 9/11 might never have
happened if Clinton had shown a little more integrity in the White House and
if he had had a lot more spine in the Middle East. I almost hoped Bush would
not be elected because I knew that after eight years of Clintonian looting
of the economy that Bush would take the fall for the ensuing recession.
No, I meant doesn't it make les_Izmore choke to have to defend the Bush
administration. Personally, I probably find it even more discomfiting to
criticize the administration than les_Izmore finds it awkward to defend it,
because I know that every one of the Presidential alternatives is so much
worse.
I am troubled by Bush not only for the TFRs, though. He should have come
through with a package that actually compensated FBOs and flight schools for
the damage caused by shutting down the airspace system. Instead, he opposes
even the weak loan package that Congress proposed. I am beginning to think
that Bush is almost as unfriendly to GA as (dare I say it) John McCain.
At least he isn't running around trying to ban the internal combustion
engine like Gore was.
"John T" <j...@his.isp> wrote in message
news:HkED8.15399$Kh.2105548990@twister2.starband.net...
C J Campbell
if I had any qualms about killing people in general while I was at OTS.
Apparently my commander was under the mistaken impression that Mormons are
pacifists.
"Mark Smith" <ma...@trikite.com> wrote in message
news:3CDF05...@trikite.com...
C J Campbell
|
|
| C J Campbell wrote:
| >
| > "Rick" <rick.p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
| > news:3CDF0247...@verizon.net...
| > | I mean like it does every day to protect all of us citizens. Learn a
| > | little respect for our military.
| >
| > I have a great deal of respect for the military. <snip>
|
| Sure you do, that's why you refer to them as "some half literate ground
| pounder with a
| big gun".
Anyone who has served in the military for very long knows the type. Sorry,
but not everyone in the military should be there. Military commanders make
mistakes, too.
|
| > I do not want to decide how the military protects the country. But I do
want
| > it to protect the country. I do not equate protecting the country with
| > making threats against or attacking unarmed citizens. That is attacking
the
| > country, not protecting it.
|
| Oh??? Did some unarmed citizen get attacked??? I musta missed that.
| OTOH, if some crazed lunatic with a truckload of fertilizer and kerosene
| hell-bent on teaching the "guvmint" a lesson were to be attacked by our
| military I'd applaud it!
|
As would I. But I would like an explanation from the military just what
actions I might take in my Cessna they would consider 'threatening' and just
how far away from the TFRs is far enough. Is that too much to ask?
| >
| > |
| > | America, love it or leave it.
| >
| > You apparently don't like America very much if you think it is all right
to
| > kill unarmed civilians. Don't let the door hit you on the way out as you
|
|
| Leave? No way! I'm not the one pissing and moaning, you are. I kinda
| LIKE it here.
|
| Rick P.
You are missing the point. I wonder how you would feel if someone in the
military took a pot shot at you because you were 'too close' to a TFR?
C J Campbell
"John Gaquin" <jga...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SgGD8.6889$Nt3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
"Bryan Martin" <bryanmmar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B9048680.B6A1%bryanmmar...@comcast.net...
>
> All military personnel take an oath to "support, protect and defend the
> Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
> domestic". I was never asked if I would "bear arms against the population"
> but I do remember that oath, It was given each time I reenlisted.
>
The primary enemy of the US Constitution today is the federal government.
Would you bear arms against it?
C J Campbell
can't imagine what that authority would be. Individual citizens do not
decide what is Constitutional or not. That is the task of the Supreme Court.
Should things degenerate to such a state that the Federal government openly
defied the Supreme Court then I would have to say that the Constitution
would be lost forever. How would you restore it? Any revolutionary body that
took over would have no more regard for the Constitution than the government
it replaced. IOW, if it became necessary to defend the Constitution by force
of arms against the Federal government then the only thing you could
possibly hope to accomplish would be to replace one despotism with another.
That isn't worth fighting for.
The Newburgh conspiracy was perhaps the closest we ever came to a military
dictatorship. Washington was right when he argued that you cannot fight
against the Federal government without destroying the thing you are trying
to preserve. Nothing has changed since then.
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:uduimao...@corp.supernews.com...
Stephen!
bryanmmar...@comcast.net:
>
> The Navy does too have "ground ponders", they're called Marines. :)
>
Hehe... Bryan, you are one cold bastard... :)
--
MTN-291
ICQ: 9977496
http://fromtheair.tripod.com
"Now we live in you. Tell them of us, my darling."
Charles Oppermann
Even then you might have some worries. A fellow pilot in the Washington
Pilots Association got a phone call from Seattle center after a VFR flight
from Hoqiuem to Harvey Field (S45) in Snohomish.
This was 30-90 days after 9/11 and the creation of the 6 "temporary" flight
restrictions in the Seattle area. Four of them are 24x7, 2 are
occasional - Safeco Field and Husky Stadium.
He went between the the Bremerton and Bangor TFRs, careful to note his
position using a handheld GPS. He recorded a "breadcrumb" file on the
device to download later to his computer. Sure enough when he landed, the
FBO manager told him that Seattle Center had called looking for him and to
call them back.
Someone at Bremerton felt that this aircraft was penerating one of the TFRs
and called Seattle Center to take action. However, the aircraft wasn't
under positive control. When the pilot talked to someone at center, he
defended his route, saying that he could prove he wasn't in any of the TFRs.
He didn't expect enforcement action and I don't believe there was any.
However, just because you stay out the TFRs does not mean you won't possibly
get in trouble or harressed.
--
Charles Oppermann
The Flight Across America Needs You!
Reclaim our skies, using aviation as a tool for great inspiration.
Find out more and register a flight at http://www.flightacrossamerica.com
Stephen!
>
> Tell you what: how would the Navy feel if private citizens did the
> same thing the Navy did. If a bunch of citizens decided they did not
> want military personnel within a mile of their homes and publicly
> announced that they would shoot anyone in uniform that they considered
> threatening. Do you think the Navy would take kindly to that? Why
> should anyone feel any different then when the Navy takes this wholly
> unjustified action?
You've OBVIOUSLY never been to Great Lakes, IL.
Stephen!
>
> not to fan the fire but do the services ask if a recruit would bear
> arms against the population if asked to do so ?
ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic...
Stephen!
> I was never asked such a thing and I don't know anyone who was. I was
> asked if I had any qualms about killing people in general while I was
> at OTS. Apparently my commander was under the mistaken impression that
> Mormons are pacifists.
What? You never took the oath of enlistment (or commision), obviously...
les_I...@waitforit.com
wrote:
>I mean like it does every day to protect all of us citizens. Learn a
>little respect for our military.
>Please be advised that *I* don't want *YOU* to decide how the military
>protects my country.
>
>America, love it or leave it.
>Rick P.
>
While I agree with you on the military part, I think you might find a
litle respect for the principles of this great freedom-of-expression
land and knock off the "love it or leave it" bullshit.
>
>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>> You mean, like it did with those missionaries in Peru?
>>
>> "Rick" <rick.p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
les_I...@waitforit.com
wrote:
>
>
>
>Leave? No way! I'm not the one pissing and moaning, you are. I kinda
>LIKE it here.
>
>Rick P.
don't think that people who piss and moan don't also like it here.
les_I...@waitforit.com
I have to live there to know something about it?
Now there's some arrogance for you.
>
>
les_I...@waitforit.com
>
Depends on the issue.
Stephen!
news:udv3gqf...@corp.supernews.com:
> He went between the the Bremerton and Bangor TFRs, careful to note his
> position using a handheld GPS. He recorded a "breadcrumb" file on the
> device to download later to his computer. Sure enough when he landed,
This "handheld GPS".. was it certified for aerial navigation?
Warren Jones
Steven, you are allegedly an employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration, an arm of the federal government of the United States. You
also portray yourself as a champion of the US Constitution, a stance you
have attempted to defend ad nauseaum in these rec.avitaion forums on
numerous occasions since 9/11. Irrationally, you constantly and publically
contend that the primary enemy of the US Constitution is that same federal
government that pays you every two weeks.
Kinda two-faced, ain't it? It looks like it from here. Are you a patriot
or a mercenary? Do you have convictions?
If you don't like the hand that feeds you, bite it or else quit eating. You
took the same oath to the Constitution that I did. If you really feel that
the federal government is the primary enemy of the US Constitution (and you
are wrong), how do you live with your treason? Why not stand up for the
Constitution instead of being an agent of it's "primary enemy?"
PERFIDY!
Chip, ZTL
les_I...@waitforit.com
What is "certified for aerial navigation"??
BOb U
"Stephen!" wrote:
>> He went between the the Bremerton and Bangor TFRs, careful to note his
>> position using a handheld GPS. He recorded a "breadcrumb" file on the
>> device to download later to his computer. Sure enough when he landed,
>
>This "handheld GPS".. was it certified for aerial navigation?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some HANDHELD GPS units have aviation data bases, while others do not.
Both types are fine for VFR flight and neither have any certification involved.
Perhaps you are thinking of an IFR class of panel mounted GPS units...
that are certified for IFR flight?
BOb U
The more people I get to meet,
the more I love my dog....
and George Carlin humor.
AL Mills
> The primary enemy of the US Constitution today is the federal >government.
I beg to differ. IMHO, the primary enemy of the US Constitution is the
conglomeration of special interest groups who seek to legislate via the
judiciary. The federal government is merely a monolithic machine steered by
a large number of moistened fingers held aloft. Special interests have found
the judiciary to be a much more fertile ground for planting their
commu-socialist seeds and getting them to grow in spite, I do mean spite, of
the will of the people at large.
AL
AL Mills
> What is "certified for aerial navigation"??
If you're going to fly a certificated aircraft with a GPS mounted in the
panel, you either use a certificated GPS, or you try to get an STC. That's
probably what he was alluding to. A damn $50 Magellan would be pretty
compelling evidence in a hearing.
AL
highflyer
In fact I believe that you cannot call yourself a "patriot" if you
stand idly by and applaud when any part of our government starts
trimming away the freedoms that made this country great. I must agree
with Mr. Chapman. :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
> Sorry to learn your Web browser is broken. While you're getting it fixed,
> try saying, "the Marine Corps is part of the Navy" to a Marine. He'll
> explain it to you.
Hmmm. When my kid brother mavericked from Lance Corporal to O-1 he
became an Ensign. They didn't have any second john billets in the
Marines at the time, but the Navy did have open Ensign billets. I also
seem to remember the Marines using a lot of cast off Navy equipment! :-)
C J Campbell
I defy anyone to show any significant difference in accuracy between one GPS
unit and another. Some units have better reception than others. Some keep a
lock better than others. But if the unit is receiving enough satellites for
2 dimensional navigation, you will not find much difference in horizontal
placement from one unit to another.
The point is that he navigated between the TFRs, a relatively easy thing to
do. But somebody who probably had no aviation training whatsoever, standing
on the ground, decided he was violating the TFRs. How did he decide this?
Are the TFR boundaries painted in the air? Did he have a rangefinder? What
was his angle of view? An observer on the ground would have difficulty even
telling what direction an airplane is flying, let alone how far away it is.
This is exactly the problem with threatening to shoot down aircraft that
'appear' to be threatening. "Oops. Guess that guy and his wife and his baby
were actually five miles away and flying away from us. Sure looked to me
like they were about to strafe us, so I shot them down."
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns920D5D8C5520s...@66.75.162.198...
Mark Hickey
>"olen goodwin" <ogoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:IiFD8.22577$Ru2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> OUR military didn't shoot anybody down in Peru.
>
>To be fair, we must candidly admit, however, that the US Government first
>interdicted the aircraft and called Peruvian officials' attention to it. An
>anti-drug surveillance plane operated by the CIA alerted Peruvians that the
>missionaries' plane was operating without a flight plan in airspace
>frequented by drug runners. The fact is that 10 minutes before the plane
>was shot down, killing a woman and her baby, the missionary pilot had called
>and received clearance to land at Iquitos Airport.
>
>You cannot accurately suggest that our government and the CIA were innocent
>in the matter.
Huh? We help call out suspicious aircraft, and that makes us guilty?
I guess that makes Raytheon guilty since they build radar equipment.
Mark Hickey
George R. Patterson III
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> You don't suppose this may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek do you ??
From the FAA? Naah.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Russell Kent
justice where the police, while being like minded, would be restrained by
regulation probably helps reinforce the preference...
Russell Kent
daev wrote:
> of course, it seems EVERYTHING is different here..... It's almost as if the
> police population welcome the assistance. I guess it shouldn't be any
> surprise, considering the % of gun owners here......
>
> 'damn yankee' daev
>
> "Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rOzD8.4592$Ok3.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > "daev" <mymunge@sbc remove all this and the spaces global.net> wrote in
> > message news:WDyD8.17949$pY6.244...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > > interesting, the cops here in Texas take an entirely different tack on
> > that
> > > issue.... provided those carrying concealed weapons are properly
> > > licensed.....
> >
> > Ah, yes. Texas. I lived there for a year, in 1981. Their thoughts about
> > an armed population are, in fact, not the same as the ones I experienced
> in
> > the Irish bars of New York, drinking with policemen there.
> >
> >
Tom Frey
"Russell Kent" <r-k...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:3CDFDC91...@ti.com...
> The anecdotal evidence of the (trained & licensed) populace exacting
on-the-spot
> justice where the police, while being like minded, would be restrained by
> regulation probably helps reinforce the preference...
>
That's what I was afraid of when Oklahoma went concealed carry. But if the
Texas statutes are anything like OK, it has absolutely nothing to do with
"on-the-spot justice".
Our statutes specifically state self defense only, and further state you can
only defend members of your immediate family, parents or employer. Legally,
you can't even defend your best friend.
I was real concerned when OK passed the law. But after studying the
initiations of the privilege, and to whom the privilege limited, it made a
lot more sense.
Cheers,
Tom
Casey
> > Marines.
> >
>
> The Marine Corps is part of the Navy.
>
Check your history books. The Marine Corps was formed by the
Continental Congress *before* the Navy. The Navy was then formed, as an
afterthought, to transport, feed, and care for the Marines.
Regards,
Casey Wilson
Former Leatherneck and darned proud of it...
SEMPER FI!!
C J Campbell
for life kind of thing. At least that is what the Marines I know tell me.
"Casey" <Wri...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:jIRD8.11641$Q87....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Mayor Giuliani needed police support to win elections. Like many elected
> officials in New York, he knew that the police would prefer not to see an
> armed population. His slogan, "Handguns belong in the hands of the
> police," was an NYPD favorite.
>
Why are police opposed to an armed law-abiding citizenry?
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cdf938a.130591166@localhost...
Well, yeah... I had in mind the issue we've been discussing. You?
Pro Crustes
<les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
news:3cdf92cd.130401965@localhost...
Some things require personal experience to appreciate.
You're not really engaging me in a friendly debate, so I'm going to stop
posting in this thread. I offer you the last word.
Crusty
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Your intransigence exceeds your support.
>
What intransigence?
>
> I posted a URL to a site that explains that the Marine Corps is not part
of the Navy.
>
Actually, you posted a URL to a site that shows the Marine Corps IS part of
the Navy.
>
> If you have trouble understanding the difference between the Navy and the
> Department of the Navy, then I can't help you.
>
Well, I obviously didn't need any help, and you aren't in a position to
provide help to anyone that does.
>
> If you do understand the difference, post a cite supporting your claim.
>
Here ya go:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/organization/org-over.html
>
> Meanwhile, I continue to accept what they taught me when I was in the Navy
> myself, and what the government's Web site says, not what you say (even if
> you say it more than once).
>
I don't know what they taught you when you were in the Navy, obviously they
didn't teach you very well. The Marine Corps is part of the Navy and I
doubt you'll find any government web site that says it isn't.
Pro Crustes
>
> "Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YkAD8.4601$Ok3.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > If you have trouble understanding the difference between the Navy and
the
> > Department of the Navy, then I can't help you.
> >
>
> Well, I obviously didn't need any help, and you aren't in a position to
> provide help to anyone that does.
Well, I tried to help you out in a polite way, and am getting crap for my
trouble, so I'll stop replying to you now and offer you the last word in our
exchange. If you think you know what you are talking about, however, please
answer this question: What is the difference between the Navy and the
Department of the Navy?
Bye,
Crusty
les_I...@waitforit.com
<pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
>news:3cdf92cd.130401965@localhost...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 02:45:02 GMT, "Pro Crustes"
>> <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I don't live in New York anymore, partly because the police started to
>scare
>> >me.
>> >
>> >> But it ain't so.
>> >
>> >If you don't live there, don't presume to know.
>> >
>> >C
>> >
>>
>> I have to live there to know something about it?
>>
>> Now there's some arrogance for you.
>
>Some things require personal experience to appreciate.
>
>You're not really engaging me in a friendly debate, so I'm going to stop
>posting in this thread. I offer you the last word.
>
>Crusty
>
>
>
I refuse.
les_I...@waitforit.com
<pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><les_I...@waitforit.com> wrote in message
>news:3cdf938a.130591166@localhost...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 02:42:25 GMT, "Pro Crustes"
>> <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Well, yes, except that as long as you have a higher court to appeal
>> >> to, it isn't as bad as it could be.
>> >
>> >It's refreshing to see faith in the court system here in an aviation
>group,
>> >but I must say I don't share it with you. Further, you seem to
>> >misunderstand how the system of constitutional rights works in under dual
>> >federalism. The state constitution of New York actually guarantees
>_more_
>> >rights to the people than does the federal constitution of the United
>> >States. If you lose in the New York courts, it's pretty much over for
>you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Depends on the issue.
>
>Well, yeah... I had in mind the issue we've been discussing. You?
>
>
>
I guess that would be the second amendment, and I doubt NY is going to
trump the feds on that one.
Tom Frey
I know several in Oklahoma, and while many are in favor of concealed carry,
most are simply ambivalent.
Steven P. McNicoll
> Continental Congress *before* the Navy. The Navy was then formed, as an
> afterthought, to transport, feed, and care for the Marines.
>
My history book indicates the Continental Congress established the
Continental Navy on October 13, 1775, and the Continental Marines on
November 10, 1775.
Warren Jones
Your history book is incorrect. The United States Navy was established by
an act of the United States Congress on 30 April 1798, just prior to the
undeclared war we fought against France. The United States Marine Corps was
established by an act of the Continental Congress on 10 November 1775, and
actually predates the establishment of the United States of America by
almost eight months. This is why the Colors of the United States Marine
Corps alway take the honor of precedence (or Right of the Line) over the
Colors of the United States Navy. The United States Marine Corps is the
senior service in the Deaprtment of the Navy, and is second only to the
United States Army in military lineage seniority.
The Department of the Navy's statutory function and composition can be
found in 10 U.S. Code Subtitle C. The United States Marine Corps was
established as a separate service within the Navy Department on 11 July
1798, shortly after the removal of naval activities from the jurisdiction of
the War Department in April of that year. Prior to 11 July, 1798, the USMC
was administered as a separate service under the War Department. The
primary roles of the Department of the Navy are to organize, train and equip
Navy and Marine Corps forces to conduct prompt and sustained combat
operations at sea. The United States Marine Corps is by statute a separate
military service functioning within the Department of the Navy. The
stautory basis for its functions and composition is found at 10 U.S. Code
5041 and within 10 U.S. Code Subtitle C. The Commandant of the Marine
Corps is a member of the joint Chiefs of Staff and is equal in rank with
the Chief of Naval Operations.
Semper Fi,
Chip, ZTL
1st Marine Division, Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm