Posted at 7:33 AM on September 15, 2009
by Bob Collins
(11 Comments)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| LeBron James | ||||
| ||||
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.
These are the two that are most under pressure in the last 100 years to the point where they are unrecognizable.
What was the very first step that you believe undermined each? Quite often we look at the most recent, but it would be interesting to look at it from the other direction.
Not to be argumentative, but the Stearman was the greater threat. That plane is a workhorse and could have been loaded up with plenty of high explosives. And once the plane is over a metro area, you can't shoot it down without risk of considerable loss of life. Just guessing now, but a Target rooftop impact/explosion could have brought down how much roof on how many people?
Ever since 9/11, that's not a Tom Clancy scenario. We forget how many medals were posthumously awarded to US aviators who got shot down but then managed to kamikaze into a Japanese war ship. Americans have a history of "suiciders" from the Alamo to suicide-by-cop, and the no-fly precaution makes a lot of sense.
Presidential visits are inconvenient, no doubt about it.
I hear this allegation a lot, Mark, and it's generally low on merit. It also ignores one of the main complaints of aviators on this issue. Small planes have never been used in a terrorist attack in the U.S. And they're singled out while methods that HAVE been used in terror attacks get a free pass.
Ryder Trucks have been. Ryder Trucks "loaded up with plenty of explosives" (actually fertilizer). There was no ban on Ryder Trucks in downtown Minneapolis on Saturday. And we already know that a Ryder Truck can do plenty of damage in an area.
"Load up with plenty of explosives" How many explosives? The useful load of a Stearman C3 is about 1,000 pounds. Take the pilot away, maybe 800 pounds. Take gasoline away, 46 gallons at 6.5 pounds each gallon, and now you're down to about 500 pounds.
That's not insignificant, but Oklahoma City needed 4,800 pounds of explosives.
Now, the Stearman is a fabric airplane. There's no mass to it. And if you use it to somehow detonate explosives on top of a cement target center, where's the blast going to go...down through the roof....or up and away?
Of course, there already IS security for Target Center. One mile north of South St. Paul, the airspace for MSP goes to the surface. you can't go in without authorization. The F-18s are already in the air, and nobody is going to get an airplane that goes, what, the 18 miles to Target Center without an F-18 intercepting.
So there really ISN'T a risk involved, one that's signficant enough to rise above the risk posed by a gun within yards of the president.
And certainly not one that approaches the risk posed by a Ryder rental truck.
Good points, but now I'm worried they'll start banning trucks from downtown next time he comes back.
That would imply some capability of consistency or scale to match a threat. Not much of that happening.
In general it is the broad mis-application of the Commerce clause, particularly at the beginning of the New Deal which required Roosevelt to increase the size of the Supreme Court in order to increase the reach of the federal government.
Reading the MST article, this incident with Josh Hendrickson sounds like a non-incident to me. He's not even mentioned as being one of the more obnoxious "Obama lied, grandma died" protesters there. There's no indication that he intimidated or did anything objectionable to anyone. This offends people?
I've always carried a pocket knife with me, and from time to time I'm scolded by someone who can't fathom the depths of madness that would drive someone to have a knife with them in public (knives are not "weapons" under the penal code). Hendrickson's defense given is much the same as my own: I always grab it on the way out the door, when legally permitted to do so.
That said, maybe it *was* poor judgment to go packing at that event, but I sympathize with Hendrickson because he is RIGHT. Our rights to an attorney, to refuse a search, to not quarter soldiers against our will, to speak our minds, to worship freely, and to possess firearms are not circumstantial.
I reject that the exercise of our constitutional rights is evidence of inadequate restriction of them.
I've read dozens of these gunner stories and one gets the feeling that they'd like to get arrested so they can assume the martyr-for-the-cause role. That's hard to do when the cops just ask you about your gun, make sure you've got it legally, and then move along.
There didn't appear to be an actual "issue" in the story. Nobody prevented him from doing anything, nobody violated his Constitutional rights.
However, what I DON'T understand is why -- again from what I understand -- a guy with an apparent conviction (he just got out of jail) in an assault case still gets to carry a gun until his permit is up for renewal.
If you're convicted of drunk driving, do you get to keep your license until your license is up for renewal?
A significant purpose of counter terrorism activites is to make the public feel safe. People are more likely to feel threatened by a plane flying overhead than a truck parked in the street.
We are not always logical. Travel by car is more dangerous than travel by air, yet people don't hesitate to text while driving (raising their risk even further).
Exactly. it's the ILLUSION of security, rather than security.
It's a descendant of duck-and-cover in which kids could survive a nuclear bomb, merely by hiding under their desks. We look back now and thing, "how could they have been so stupid as to believe that if kids hid under their desks, a nuclear blast couldn't touch them?"
But, of course, they didn't believe that. It was to create the illusion of safety where no actual safety exists.
But that's not a good reason not to point out that we're still doing that.
| September 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||