ARFlyer
En-Route
What difference would that have made in this case? What he did was already banned.
Well none. But it would make the NIMBYs happier....
What difference would that have made in this case? What he did was already banned.
Two ways to fix this:
Ban all GA from the SFRA
Realize some people are crazy and deal with it like we did before the 90s.
That would require knowing it was inbound. Fighters were probably loitering per usual. They just didn't know. Mathias Rust has been one upped.Why didn't they scramble the fighters and evacuate the Capitol? He could have just been the first of a wave.
I know that.That would require knowing it was inbound. Fighters were probably loitering per usual. They just didn't know. Mathias Rust has been one upped.
Doesn't need to be transparent. View wouldn't really change for the Congresscritters, 'cept they wouldn't have to worry about getting Preparation H on their neckties....I know that. He snuck in through the screen. Now we need a better screen -- maybe a giant transparent dome?
I know that.
I was trying to imagine a couple of F16s screaming in on a gyrocopter flying at about 15 mph at 25AGL.
He snuck in through the screen. Now we need a better screen -- maybe a giant transparent dome?
Yep, no sneaking involved. He just walked right in the front door.sorry....there was no sneaking. He called and said....I'm coming, and this is how....and don't shoot me I won't be harming anyone.
...and he did...from all the way up north....Gettysburg, PA....down I270 around the beltway....along the Potomac river....and up the mall.
Anyone listening to him would of known.....but, I suspect every agency ignored him.
Anyone listening to him would of known.....but, I suspect every agency ignored him.
maybe a giant transparent dome?
Who said we get a say in it anyway? It's Congress who wants to "fix" it. Whatever "it" is. Mostly making sure their constituents can't get anywhere near them with aircraft.
I don't think We The People much give a crap if some wacko takes any of them out.
I mean seriously, you going to not spend your "national day of mourning" someday whenever that happens (since it's not an "if" but a "when") fishing or shooting or going flying or bowling?
I could use a couple hundred days off. Dear psychos: Please harvest them for their pelts individually. I need the vacation time.
I'll claim that I'm deeply distraught for each and every one and that my personal therapy involves all of the above activities plus more.
And when they're not in session and attending funerals, they don't spend money! Win/win.
What did he do that would cause him to forfeit his pension? Not that I think that was his biggest concern.
I know that.
I was trying to imagine a couple of F16s screaming in on a gyrocopter flying at about 15 mph at 25AGL.
He snuck in through the screen. Now we need a better screen -- maybe a giant transparent dome?
Why didn't they scramble the fighters and evacuate the Capitol? He could have just been the first of a wave.
There is pretty much nothing that isn't regulated somehow. Government abhors unregulated things.
Next up: the "sharing" economy... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...mpetition-consumer-protection-economic-issues
Remember that folks that know how to work the system can influence regulations to their benefit... or at least so there's little detriment.
I can just picture a wave of gyrocopters, powered parachutes, and ultralights converging on the Capitol. It would look exactly like the ultralight field at Oshkosh.
Ok, I get that. But I don't think not having the opportunity to earn a pension is the same as forfeiting it. I also don't expect him to serve any time in prison.The post office won't let you use accumulated sick time for days spent in a federal penitentiary. A postal carrier in Portland a few years ago was caught dealing drugs from his mail truck a few months before he was due to retire and lost it all.
It sounds like Doug had 11 years in, so to reach the required combination of 80 (age + years of service) he'd have to work another four years.
Ok, I get that. But I don't think not having the opportunity to earn a pension is the same as forfeiting it. I also don't expect him to serve any time in prison.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us, by the equal rights of others.”
Thomas Jefferson
When I read of the 61 year old, Doug Hughes landing his gyrocopter on the lawn of the Capitol to deliver 535 letters of protest to the 535 members of Congress, I was gobsmacked. Not by what he did, but by the suggestion he needed to be prosecuted because of the threat his action posed to security.
What absolute rubbish!
Hughes posed no physical security threat – he and his little gyrocopter got through the wall of security because he posed no threat – the nature and mass of his intrusion was so small and harmless, it did not come up on their ‘radar’. Had his mission posed a physical threat, he would no doubt have been detected and ‘shot down’!
But even if Hughes had posed a physical security threat, Jefferson held a relevant and important position we should consider when a democracy-supporting citizen breaks the law, ‘I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.’
The threat Hughes posed was and is, the threat of his idea, that this country is "heading full-throttle toward a breakdown." Those sitting with entrenched power and not wanting the populous to think too much about that idea, do see such thinking as a threat, and want everyone who is thinking like Hughes, to be branded, ‘extremist red necks’, verging on the insane.
Just how far have we become removed from being the free society our founding fathers envisioned for us, to see Hughes action in these terms?
Why should Hughes and those sharing that thought be branded as such? Given Jefferson’s oft expressed concern, ‘I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive,’ should they not be given more serious consideration?
Anyone who cannot see oppressive government has arrived, has to be blind to seeing and/or acknowledging that reality. Government has now been in a regulating and taxing frenzy for so long, creating such a huge bureaucracy employing and supporting such a large proportion of the population, that much of the country now has a vested interest in it continuing in that way, irrespective of its corrupting, perverting influence.
As Jefferson said, ‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’
Jefferson and the founding fathers gave us so many of the ‘signposts’ by which we could recognize that time – the loss of a challenging press, of a country dominated by financial institutions, where the current generation spends beyond its means, enslaving itself and future generations to debt.
And they gave the country a Constitution to help deal with it when it arrived. Given Hughes made on intrusion on the rights of others, but simply expressed his Constitutional right of dissent, why should he be prosecuted?
There’s nothing radical or inaccurate in Hughes suggestion, "There's no question that we need government, but we don't have to accept that it's a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder."
Aspiring Presidents have promised for decades to address the excessive and perverting power of Washington’s lobbyists; they’ve just done nothing about it, other than to succumb to it. The most telling evidence of that has been government’s total inaction in regulatory control of the financial sector post the 2008 GFC. The self-interest driven influencers who so dishonestly directed the Federal Government into the regulatory framework which created the GFC, are almost without exception, the same people directing it today.
Hughes suggestion ‘no sane person would do what I’m doing’ is sadly, so tragically true.’ Most of today’s ‘sane’ people, simply accept the inevitability of a ‘corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder.’
In closing, I offer one further thought for those who feel Hughes is not insane and feel government needs to become the servant of the people, not the employer and benefactor of so many, become as Jefferson suggested, ‘a (freedom) soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.’
Or are you too happy to give up our once free state, for a government job or welfare handout?
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us, by the equal rights of others.”
Thomas Jefferson
When I read of the 61 year old, Doug Hughes landing his gyrocopter on the lawn of the Capitol to deliver 535 letters of protest to the 535 members of Congress, I was gobsmacked. Not by what he did, but by the suggestion he needed to be prosecuted because of the threat his action posed to security.
What absolute rubbish!
Hughes posed no physical security threat – he and his little gyrocopter got through the wall of security because he posed no threat – the nature and mass of his intrusion was so small and harmless, it did not come up on their ‘radar’. Had his mission posed a physical threat, he would no doubt have been detected and ‘shot down’!
But even if Hughes had posed a physical security threat, Jefferson held a relevant and important position we should consider when a democracy-supporting citizen breaks the law, ‘I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.’
The threat Hughes posed was and is, the threat of his idea, that this country is "heading full-throttle toward a breakdown." Those sitting with entrenched power and not wanting the populous to think too much about that idea, do see such thinking as a threat, and want everyone who is thinking like Hughes, to be branded, ‘extremist red necks’, verging on the insane.
Just how far have we become removed from being the free society our founding fathers envisioned for us, to see Hughes action in these terms?
Why should Hughes and those sharing that thought be branded as such? Given Jefferson’s oft expressed concern, ‘I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive,’ should they not be given more serious consideration?
Anyone who cannot see oppressive government has arrived, has to be blind to seeing and/or acknowledging that reality. Government has now been in a regulating and taxing frenzy for so long, creating such a huge bureaucracy employing and supporting such a large proportion of the population, that much of the country now has a vested interest in it continuing in that way, irrespective of its corrupting, perverting influence.
As Jefferson said, ‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’
Jefferson and the founding fathers gave us so many of the ‘signposts’ by which we could recognize that time – the loss of a challenging press, of a country dominated by financial institutions, where the current generation spends beyond its means, enslaving itself and future generations to debt.
And they gave the country a Constitution to help deal with it when it arrived. Given Hughes made on intrusion on the rights of others, but simply expressed his Constitutional right of dissent, why should he be prosecuted?
There’s nothing radical or inaccurate in Hughes suggestion, "There's no question that we need government, but we don't have to accept that it's a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder."
Aspiring Presidents have promised for decades to address the excessive and perverting power of Washington’s lobbyists; they’ve just done nothing about it, other than to succumb to it. The most telling evidence of that has been government’s total inaction in regulatory control of the financial sector post the 2008 GFC. The self-interest driven influencers who so dishonestly directed the Federal Government into the regulatory framework which created the GFC, are almost without exception, the same people directing it today.
Hughes suggestion ‘no sane person would do what I’m doing’ is sadly, so tragically true.’ Most of today’s ‘sane’ people, simply accept the inevitability of a ‘corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder.’
In closing, I offer one further thought for those who feel Hughes is not insane and feel government needs to become the servant of the people, not the employer and benefactor of so many, become as Jefferson suggested, ‘a (freedom) soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.’
Or are you too happy to give up our once free state, for a government job or welfare handout?
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us, by the equal rights of others.”
Thomas Jefferson
When I read of the 61 year old, Doug Hughes landing his gyrocopter on the lawn of the Capitol to deliver 535 letters of protest to the 535 members of Congress, I was gobsmacked. Not by what he did, but by the suggestion he needed to be prosecuted because of the threat his action posed to security.
What absolute rubbish!
Hughes posed no physical security threat – he and his little gyrocopter got through the wall of security because he posed no threat – the nature and mass of his intrusion was so small and harmless, it did not come up on their ‘radar’. Had his mission posed a physical threat, he would no doubt have been detected and ‘shot down’!
But even if Hughes had posed a physical security threat, Jefferson held a relevant and important position we should consider when a democracy-supporting citizen breaks the law, ‘I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.’
The threat Hughes posed was and is, the threat of his idea, that this country is "heading full-throttle toward a breakdown." Those sitting with entrenched power and not wanting the populous to think too much about that idea, do see such thinking as a threat, and want everyone who is thinking like Hughes, to be branded, ‘extremist red necks’, verging on the insane.
Just how far have we become removed from being the free society our founding fathers envisioned for us, to see Hughes action in these terms?
Why should Hughes and those sharing that thought be branded as such? Given Jefferson’s oft expressed concern, ‘I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive,’ should they not be given more serious consideration?
Anyone who cannot see oppressive government has arrived, has to be blind to seeing and/or acknowledging that reality. Government has now been in a regulating and taxing frenzy for so long, creating such a huge bureaucracy employing and supporting such a large proportion of the population, that much of the country now has a vested interest in it continuing in that way, irrespective of its corrupting, perverting influence.
As Jefferson said, ‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’
Jefferson and the founding fathers gave us so many of the ‘signposts’ by which we could recognize that time – the loss of a challenging press, of a country dominated by financial institutions, where the current generation spends beyond its means, enslaving itself and future generations to debt.
And they gave the country a Constitution to help deal with it when it arrived. Given Hughes made on intrusion on the rights of others, but simply expressed his Constitutional right of dissent, why should he be prosecuted?
There’s nothing radical or inaccurate in Hughes suggestion, "There's no question that we need government, but we don't have to accept that it's a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder."
Aspiring Presidents have promised for decades to address the excessive and perverting power of Washington’s lobbyists; they’ve just done nothing about it, other than to succumb to it. The most telling evidence of that has been government’s total inaction in regulatory control of the financial sector post the 2008 GFC. The self-interest driven influencers who so dishonestly directed the Federal Government into the regulatory framework which created the GFC, are almost without exception, the same people directing it today.
Hughes suggestion ‘no sane person would do what I’m doing’ is sadly, so tragically true.’ Most of today’s ‘sane’ people, simply accept the inevitability of a ‘corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder.’
In closing, I offer one further thought for those who feel Hughes is not insane and feel government needs to become the servant of the people, not the employer and benefactor of so many, become as Jefferson suggested, ‘a (freedom) soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.’
Or are you too happy to give up our once free state, for a government job or welfare handout?
Agreed....
The Postal union is way too strong to let this guy lose any benefits... And all federal workers share a perverse "job for life" attitude..
Just look at Lois Lerner... Retired with full benefits...
It's not really an "attitude" if it's true and no one puts a stop to it. It's reality, in their world. And you and I are not invited to the club. We just pay for it.
Yeah and make sure nobody inside can get out.
Airtight too.
A perfect setup for a Dutch Oven.
What if this plane would have been carrying a dirty bomb, attacking the US government Kamikaze style?
Anything you can carry on that gyrocopter would be easier to bring to capitol hill on a bicycle carrying a messenger bag.
[/FONT][/SIZE]
Anything you can carry on that gyrocopter would be easier to bring to capitol hill on a bicycle carrying a messenger bag.
I was referring to the Bonanza (or the Mooney, I don't remember)
or a pedi-cab for that matter.....Anything you can carry in a Mooney would be easier to deliver to capitol hill riding a bicycle and carrying a messenger bag.
You realize they don't have to offer anything, right? Besides the judge can impose whatever sentence he wants after conviction assuming no mandatory minimums. Sometimes in civil disobedience cases the judge will give a day. Besides, the prosecutors rarely ask for the max after conviction anyways in civil disobedience cases. If you don't like the sentencing range, tell your politicians that operating a gyrocopter without a license doesn't deserve 9 years in prison.It's such a perversion of our justice system that we coerce people into these deals with the threat of a 10x longer sentence if convicted.
"Do you want a 'fair' trial with the possibility of 10 years or would you rather just give up and go to prison now for 10 months? We have a near perfect conviction rate, by the way. And we usually seek the maximum penalty out of spite."
Statistically speaking, he should have taken the deal.
Millions feel the way Doug Hughes does.
Only one person, Doug, has done anything big to bring attention to the problem.
If only millions could do something similar.
This problem is ruining the country.
I hope the judge gives him 30 days.