FAA

[damianip]

[quote]Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>
Physician, heal thyself. I covered why registration is an infringement in a previous post. And the real reason

why the Second amendment cannot be discussed with some people.

is that invariably one side or the other resorts to ad hominem attacks like "Some people don't or can't read". Usually it's the one with the weaker logical argument.</STRONG>

A comment which, ironically and hypocritically, turns out to be more of an ad hominem attack than mine (you may now respond in kind, causing the inevitable escalation)

<STRONG>
Read some of the Framers writings, and the writings that formed their political philosophies, beyond the Amendment itself, and you find that to them "the militia" meant "the whole of the population", and that a standing army was precisely what "the militia" was meant to form a counterpoise to. The National Guard, being almost wholly controlled by the federal government, is less a militia in that sense than it is a reserve division of the standing army.</STRONG>

I'm not terribly interested in the other writings of the framers as if they had deemed them to be necessary to the Constitution or BOR they would have incorporated them. I suspect that they reason they were not incorporated by design: deemed to be either inconsistent or irrelevant.

Looking at the conditions at the time however, I believe that the "standing army" to which they were to oppose wih their militia would be that that of the "occupying" British not that of their own, self-determined, government.

<STRONG>
And what is an "arm" anyway? A sword, a pike, a musket?

All of the above, and then some. Modern politicians did not invent the art of vagueness! </STRONG>

So I guess we have the right to bear nuclear arms. These would be very effective against a tyrannical government. When does this expression of intent of the framers become unworkably absurd?

I'm sure that they framers never evisioned the evolution of killing technologies to their present state. Some intelligence and prudence must applied to the interpretation of this amendment.

This is an amendment to a document the purpose of which is to, among other things,

"...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"

Unrestricted, unregistered proliferation of certain firearms serves none of these ends and actually subverts them. The price of liberty is responsibility.

<STRONG>
Again, it is in the other writings of the Framers. There's no specific provision for quite a lot of rights which we enjoy, either, but they're protected by implication by the catch-all Tenth Amendment:

"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."</STRONG>

Again, applying another reductio ad absurdum
to this. The US nor the Constitution provide for the power to kill men named Bob or sterilize people who are left handed, but luckily, that power does not fall to the state or the people because it would be considered unconstitutional.

The tenth amendment does not provide a "candy store" of freedoms not explicitly mentioned.

<STRONG>
Clever fellows, those old dead white guys, eh?</STRONG>

Not as clever as we always credit them. If they could see the way their intentions have been subverted by some for their own purposes (beyond just this argument) they might have been inclined to be more specific.

<STRONG>
Apart from the last two paragraphs of your previous post, I agree with the sentiments therein, however. There is no longer a middle ground on this issue, everyone seems far too impassioned to really think clearly about it ( I blame the politicians and the interest groups on both sides who have tried to turn the issue to their own selfish ends. ) And I look askance at the "gun nuts" too...as much or more so as I do the equally fanatical and equally irrational "antigun nuts"...</STRONG>

Yes, I fear that the middle ground has been thoroughly trampled. However, if one looks at the extremes, I see two basic fears motivating the actions. One is the fear of losing one's life the other is the fear of losing one's personal arsenal. I believe that the Constitution placed a higher premium on the former.

Paolo

[damianip]

Originally posted by lochinvar:
<STRONG>As an aside, up until recently Switzerland had a law on the books, I believe, that REQUIRED every male citizen over the age of 18 to keep and maintain a semi-automatic firearm in his dwelling. For the reason that all men over 18 are part of the militia.

(If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me.)

My point being, that we don't hear about Swiss folks walking into a MacDonald's or onto a playground and opening up on everyone in sight...</STRONG>

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...d_rampage.html

Says it all.

Paolo

[Craig]

The law is like that: fluid, and often ambiguous and situational...

So, what this statement says is that laws and our interpretation of the Constitution change based upon the then current needs of our country/society. The reason why the US Constitution has survived for so long compared to other governement's charters is it's flexibility and it's vagueness.

Now, on the guns issue, the "slippery slope" card has been played. This is always the case when registrations are mentioned. This, of course, assumes that the whole of the US citizenry will simply roll over and say "Yes, take my guns, I don't mind" which I can safely say would not be the case.

For a step on the "slippery slope" to actually have merit for me, you have to show that it crosses the brink. Does having someone have to say "yes, I own a gun" necessarily lead to the gov't confiscating the weapons? Unless that is proved, there is no "brink", no point of no return, and the argument loses merit in my mind.

Cheers,
Craig

[lochinvar]

My earlier post about the peace-loving Swiss has been proven naive by todays news.

A mentally-deranged man killed 14 today in a shooting rampage at a government building.

Whatever I said earlier, I take it back. The Swiss are just as looney as we are, apparently.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by damianip:
<STRONG>
A comment which, ironically and hypocritically, turns out to be more of an ad hominem attack than mine (you may now respond in kind, causing the inevitable escalation)</STRONG>

Uh...so noting an instance of ad hominem is itself an ad hominem attack?

That one's known as tu quoque. Congratulations on your superior grasp of fallacies!

<STRONG>
I'm not terribly interested in the other writings of the framers as if they had deemed them to be necessary to the Constitution or BOR they would have incorporated them. </STRONG>

And now "invincible ignorance". The cavalcade continues.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were political compromises. There were a lot of things that had to be left out because they offended a few persons, or because of backroom negotiations. The Framers were after all politicians. Nor were any of them willing to countenance a hairsplitting tome covering all possible contingencies. Not even the IRS Code manages to do that.

However, one of the many freedoms we enjoy which was not ennumerated in the Constitution is the freedom to decline to be made aware of any information which might not suit your point of view. So don't read the Federalist Papers et.al. if you don't want to do so. Hey, you can even put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" if you'd like...

<STRONG>
Looking at the conditions at the time however, I believe that the "standing army" to which they were to oppose wih their militia would be that that of the "occupying" British not that of their own, self-determined, government.</STRONG>

Uh...no. The Framers were, almost to a man, very fearful of centralized government, especially one with control of an Army. Their experiences and their political philosophies reflect this, and it's the reason behind the Bill of Rights and the system of checks and balances and states' rights in the first place. Of course, I cannot prove this to you because they didn't write a specific passage which says "Hey, Paolo, we fear an unchecked standing army under the control of the federal government", and you aren't inclined to read the things wherein they DID say these things, so...impasse.

<STRONG>
So I guess we have the right to bear nuclear arms. These would be very effective against a tyrannical government. When does this expression of intent of the framers become unworkably absurd?</STRONG>

I don't remember saying that any right is unlimited. Free speech isn't; assembly isn't; why should the right to bear arms? But the limits should be in all cases the barest minimum which suffice, and they should be effective ones, not petty bureaucratic meddling like "no barrels on shotguns or rifles under 18 inches" ( unless you pay additional fees and fill out a lot of forms ) or "no pistol magazines holding more than 8 rounds" ( unless you had them before 1996 ) or...

I cannot for the life of me see how any of these do any good. Registration and licensing fall under the same rubric, I believe. Too many good citizens will simply not comply, thus becoming instant criminals, and the guns will be no easier to trace or control for it. The black market in stolen, smuggled or illicitly manufactured guns will thrive. The government will garner a little more revenue, and a lot more control over its citizenry. I don't see this as a Good Thing.

<STRONG>
I'm sure that they framers never evisioned the evolution of killing technologies to their present state. Some intelligence and prudence must applied to the interpretation of this amendment.</STRONG>

Quite...as I just said. The only question is: whose "intelligence and prudence" should be substituted for theirs? Yours? Mine? Charleton Heston's? Rosie O'Donnell's? The political appointees of whatever faction is in power as of the last election? Career bureaucrats, who in addition to the dictates of interagency power-struggles also have their own personal opinions on the matter?

This is dangerous ground, and I think the best advice is the same that they give physicians: "First, do no harm". A right once lost is awfully hard ever to get back again.

<STRONG>...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"

Unrestricted, unregistered proliferation of certain firearms serves none of these ends and actually subverts them. The price of liberty is responsibility.</STRONG>

In your opinion; see previous paragraph.

Look you, I am not arguing for the unfettered freedom to own all arms for everyone. Everything is best in moderation ( well, ALMOST everything ). However, I am all for the "That government governs best which governs least" idea.

<STRONG>
Again, applying another reductio ad absurdum
to this. The US nor the Constitution provide for the power to kill men named Bob or sterilize people who are left handed, but luckily, that power does not fall to the state or the people because it would be considered unconstitutional.</STRONG>

It does however provide for a system of courts and a legislature to address matters the Framers neglected to mention or did not foresee, and to make laws against things like murder. As long as these laws either (a) do not conflict with the Constitution or (b) are enacted using the processes for amendment of said Constitution provided therein.

If you would like to see registration, for example, you are free to work toward a Constitutional amendment to that end, or to lobby your Congressmen do do so. This is the way our republic is supposed to work, after all.


<STRONG>
The tenth amendment does not provide a "candy store" of freedoms not explicitly mentioned.</STRONG>

The right to privacy isn't anywhere in the Constitution, either. Yet we seem to have some statutes protecting that. Perhaps you'd rather do without them? Personally I don't fancy doing so. As I said, there're a lot of rights the Constitution doesn't contain---but as long as it doesn't prohibit them, why should freedom not be expanded rather than curtailed by the State?

<STRONG>
Not as clever as we always credit them. If they could see the way their intentions have been subverted by some for their own purposes (beyond just this argument) they might have been inclined to be more specific.</STRONG>

To be sure, to be sure...

<STRONG>
Yes, I fear that the middle ground has been thoroughly trampled. However, if one looks at the extremes, I see two basic fears motivating the actions. One is the fear of losing one's life the other is the fear of losing one's personal arsenal. I believe that the Constitution placed a higher premium on the former.</STRONG>

Well, this is casting the dilemma in rather biased language. I might be inclined to say rather that the choice is between the irrational fear of losing one's life ( many other events are more likely to kill you than gunfire, after all---chances of being shot are remote for most people ) and the very real fear of losing one's liberties ( or those of one's posterity ).

However, it is as you say: neither side is inclined to compromise on this issue, nor even to argue soberly and sensibly. And I wish I'd not let myself be drawn into this argument in the first place; it really is fruitless, as I've never heard of anyone on either side being convinced by the logic of the other ( certainly I've never swayed anyone ).

Hence I believe I shall bow out of this particular battle. It's a waste of both our time.

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by lochinvar:
<STRONG>My earlier post about the peace-loving Swiss has been proven naive by todays news.

A mentally-deranged man killed 14 today in a shooting rampage at a government building.

Whatever I said earlier, I take it back. The Swiss are just as looney as we are, apparently.</STRONG>

Well, ONE Swiss, at least...

[damianip]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>

Well, ONE Swiss, at least...</STRONG>

Inquartata,

I thought you were bowing out of this...

Or was it just our pointless tête a tête?

Ladies and gentlemen, Aristotle has left the building.

I am now officially changing my name to Intagliata.

Paolo

[Inquartata]

Just our developing battle. I still reserve the right to make the occasional mordant remark.

As do you, apparently...

[attila]

Damn. I didn't know so many fencers were also constitutional lawyers.

So looks like the FAA isn't too thrilled with pilots packing heat. Guess we'll have to put up with sky marshalls. Must be hiring. I haven't seen any rent-a-cops at the grocery store for days....

[Stryder]

Sad but true, Attila.

With the job descriptions and pay scales they are talking about, Sky Marshall sounds like the worst job since Assistant Crack *****.

So many of our most important jobs are paid so little that truely talented people aren't doing the jobs we need them to be.

[lochinvar]

Well, Stryder, if people were paid according to the importance to society of the job they do, the richest people on the planet would be farmers and teachers.

[its_me_mango]

you people are too analytical - and too divided.

[Inquartata]

attila---Lawyer? LAWYER? Them's fightin' words, son! My seconds will call upon your seconds!

I read that over 150,000 applications for Sky Marshal positions have been downloaded from the FAA site since last week...

Salaries aren't rich, but are better than those paid any security guards I've ever seen:

"The salary range for each pay band is G - $35,100 to $54,300; H - $42,800 to $66,200; and I - $52,200 to $80,800. In addition, positions are covered by the 25% Law Enforcement Availability Pay. Salary will be adjusted to include locality pay based on the duty location of the position. "

It's a government position, too, so...no FICA withholding, typical bureaucracy benefits and it's damn near impossible to get yourself fired, even for cause...

[sabreuse]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>I read that over 150,000 applications for Sky Marshal positions have been downloaded from the FAA site since last week...

Salaries aren't rich, but are better than those paid any security guards I've ever seen:

"The salary range for each pay band is G - $35,100 to $54,300; H - $42,800 to $66,200; and I - $52,200 to $80,800. In addition, positions are covered by the 25% Law Enforcement Availability Pay. Salary will be adjusted to include locality pay based on the duty location of the position. "

It's a government position, too, so...no FICA withholding, typical bureaucracy benefits and it's damn near impossible to get yourself fired, even for cause...</STRONG>

As an employee of the federal government, I think I can provide some additional information here.

For immediate needs at least, each federal agency is being asked to provide a certain number of their law enforcement agents to work as sky marshalls. This is on a semi-volunteer basis. In our agency, they didn't get the required number of volunteers so they assigned agents based on reverse seniority.

The working conditions sound pretty rough. You are away from home for 14-28 days per month and are not permitted to contact your family during that time. The idea is that sky marshalls are undercover so you can't disclose where you will be. I guess the premise is that any one of your fellow airplane passengers could be the sky marshall so you can't just take out that one person and be in the clear.

In our agency, law enforcement employees are all required to work 50 hours per week (mandatory 25% overtime or "law enforcement availability"). This is compensated, of course, but not at the full time-and-half rate. I'm not sure if all federal agencies require this of their law enforcement employees. Our law enforcement employees also get 3 hours per week administrative leave to maintain physical fitness (read into that whatever you want ).

Under the old Civil Service Retirement System, federal employees were not subject to FICA withholding. But then they didn't get Social Security benefits either. Instead, they got Civil Service retirement benefits. About 20 years ago or so, they started the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). People hired after a certain date are under this system. FERS employees are subject to FICA withholding and can get Social Security benefits.

In addition to the salary, don't forget about all of the other benefits of being a government employee: 10 paid federal holidays per year, 10 paid sick days per year, 2 1/2 to 6 weeks vacation per year, matching of contributions to a 401(k)-type plan, subsidized health insurance, disability benefits, pension. I reckon the value of all of that adds another 10-15 percent onto the salary.

Now as for the part about not getting fired...you may have a point.

[its_me_mango]

i understand they need to have certain qualifications, and that the immediate need precluded the normal intake processes, such as application screening, training etc. Much of their staff is apparantly from the Customs Service.

[edew]

Originally posted by lochinvar:
<STRONG>Well, Stryder, if people were paid according to the importance to society of the job they do, the richest people on the planet would be farmers and teachers.</STRONG>

Well, farmers are very rich. Some of them are, anyway. Those who know how to "plow" the system to get the money. As for teachers, there seems to be several teachers here in Palo Alto who driver Ferraris. Most engineers can't get there until a decent IPO.

[edew]

Excepting the occasional "air-rage", the chances of hijacking are so low that these great and wonderful sky marshalls will be bored to tears after a couple of flights. Imagine this scenario:
"Well, good-bye dear. I'm off to do my sky-marshalling, saving the world from evil-doers." Fifteen flights later, this guy's gone batty off the deep-end, get fat off of cheap airline food, and will start devising ways to get that extra "overtime" pay to bump his income from $50,000 to $75,000 or whatever he can get.
Upshot: bunch of lazy, oveweight night-guards doing nothing better than what the poor-paying schlubs manning the x-ray machines up front. The airlines, after a while, will deem the cost to be prohibitively unncessary, and there goes the whole program.

Remember those flight insurance kiosks in airports? Where are they now? Where they are now is in the scrap heap. Sure, when air travel was new, plenty of people were scared and bought flight insurance. But after thousands and thousands of flights, people got the idea that it's not so bad. Indeed, statistical evidence shows that air travel is the safest of all modes of travel. So where are the kiosks for flight insurance? Placed neatly aside an Apple Newton, I guess.

[Inquartata]

To say nothing of the fact that the terrorists are probably not stupid enough to try the same thing again. Their next attack will come from some other direction entirely, while we're busy building our Maginot Line in the air...

That said, I still don't think it's a bad idea to have Air Marshals flying. Probably not the optimal choice, but hey, the government's involved, so what are the chances of optimality being achieved?

[edew]

Originally posted by edew
Excepting the occasional "air-rage", the chances of hijacking are so low that these great and wonderful sky marshalls will be bored to tears after a couple of flights. Imagine this scenario:
"Well, good-bye dear. I'm off to do my sky-marshalling, saving the world from evil-doers." Fifteen flights later, this guy's gone batty off the deep-end, get fat off of cheap airline food, and will start devising ways to get that extra "overtime" pay to bump his income from $50,000 to $75,000 or whatever he can get.
Upshot: bunch of lazy, oveweight night-guards doing nothing better than what the poor-paying schlubs manning the x-ray machines up front. The airlines, after a while, will deem the cost to be prohibitively unncessary, and there goes the whole program.

Remember those flight insurance kiosks in airports? Where are they now? Where they are now is in the scrap heap. Sure, when air travel was new, plenty of people were scared and bought flight insurance. But after thousands and thousands of flights, people got the idea that it's not so bad. Indeed, statistical evidence shows that air travel is the safest of all modes of travel. So where are the kiosks for flight insurance? Placed neatly aside an Apple Newton, I guess.

I wrote the above last year (around October), basically predicting the pointlessness of using Air Marshalls, and probably the chances that they would do more harm than good.

Here's a nice little story to back it up:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4102992.htm

On the other hand, anyone got an example of an Air Marshall saving the world from terrorists? Thought not.

[Peach]

You still reading the Philadelphia papers, Eric?