Thread: The ridiculous extent of Presidential security under Obama

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

To me it means someone has information that you are not privy to. I would imagine given world affairs, racism in america, political lunatics, and just lunatics this president has a bag full of targets on his back. But doubtful they would make it a news story. With 16 million classified documents a year in america, the people really are left in the dark unless it is politically expedient to let some info out.

I'm keen to hear what information you believe could possibly exist that shows an actual, viable threat from a small model airplane being flown 30 miles away (particularly since the model in question has a maximum theoretical straight line range of under 3 miles).

Originally Posted by MattInFla

BTW - these over-reaching TFRs started to include model aviation activities in 2009. Just to forestall the inevitable, retarded "But Bush" bleat.

Are you suggesting that President Obama is the one suggesting these restrictions?
It seems you are trying to make a political point about an apolitical organization, the Secret Service.

Originally Posted by goober

Are you suggesting that President Obama is the one suggesting these restrictions?
It seems you are trying to make a political point about an apolitical organization, the Secret Service.

Obviously, the President did not write these NOTAMs.

However, the White House has been contacted about this issue by the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and these ridiculously overbroad constraints remain.

By the way, it is the FAA, not the Secret Service, that issues NOTAMs.

Originally Posted by goober

Are you suggesting that President Obama is the one suggesting these restrictions?
It seems you are trying to make a political point about an apolitical organization, the Secret Service.

He's making a point about the absolute absurdity of government restrictions and regulations and how out of control it has become.

Yes the USSS is apolitical as are the FAA, but both are government bureaucracies which can have an incredible impact on our lives.

Maybe you don't care - but some of us do. I ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet, but I am very much opposed to helmet laws. I have worn a seatbelt since i first started driving and wouldn't move a car out of my driveway without one on, but I despise seatbelt laws. I don't smoke (anymore) but find anti-smoking legislation highly offensive. I don't have a pilot's license, but the shit those guys have to go through is insane.

If you don't pay attention to the little crap pulled by an agency, when they pull the big crap, its too late to complain.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

That's quite a fantasy you've conjured up there, John.

The stuff I am talking about flies about 5 minutes on a charge, at about 30mph max speed.

You'd have to land and change batteries 12 times just to fly 30 miles.

The "threat" from such a model aircraft is completely imaginary.

If there s a credible threat from a larger, more complex model, then why not place reasonable, realistic restrictions rather than a blanket ban?

I mean, in real terms, John, your Karate skills are thousands of times more dangerous than an 8 to 16 ounce model plane. Perhaps you should be mandated to remain in your home anytime the President come within 30 miles?

You make it sound like every RC aircraft fits your 8 ounce $35.99 walmart toy description. Of course they do not. There are some very serious RC aircraft out there. Perhaps you'd be happier if instead of grounding all RC aircraft for the short time the president is flying... they had issued a 200 page list of all acceptable and unacceptable model numbers?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

You make it sound like every RC aircraft fits your 8 ounce $35.99 walmart toy description. Of course they do not. There are some very serious RC aircraft out there. Perhaps you'd be happier if instead of grounding all RC aircraft for the short time the president is flying... they had issued a 200 page list of all acceptable and unacceptable model numbers?

Yes,actually. I hold this apparently rare belief that restrictions on freedom should be as narrowly constructed as possible to control actual threats. It needn't be as complex as you present. Something like no flying models > 10 pounds would be far, far more reasonable.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Yes,actually. I hold this apparently rare belief that restrictions on freedom should be as narrowly constructed as possible to control actual threats. It needn't be as complex as you present. Something like no flying models > 10 pounds would be far, far more reasonable.

But wouldn't that unnecessarily restrict the freedom of the guy whose RC aircraft weights 10 lbs 1 oz?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

But wouldn't that unnecessarily restrict the freedom of the guy whose RC aircraft weights 10 lbs 1 oz?

Yes, actually it would. But apparently, a lot of folks here are fine with random and arbitrary restrictions on other people's freedom

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Yes, actually it would. But apparently, a lot of folks here are fine with random and arbitrary restrictions on other people's freedom

Yes. This one I am OK with. Now if it permanently banned all RC aircraft, that would be a different story. But to temporarily restrict them as a safety measure, whether overly cautious or not... I'm having trouble working up any emotion over.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Yes. This one I am OK with. Now if it permanently banned all RC aircraft, that would be a different story. But to temporarily restrict them as a safety measure, whether overly cautious or not... I'm having trouble working up any emotion over.

OK. But when they implement a ridiculous restriction of something you do care about in the interest of 'safety", and nobody else gives a shit, you'll have made your own bed.

But just for the sake of conversation, what other completely harmless activities are you OK being told you cannot do?

Originally Posted by MattInFla

OK. But when they implement a ridiculous restriction of something you do care about in the interest of 'safety", and nobody else gives a shit, you'll have made your own bed.

Were it just a temporary restriction... I'm sure I'd make do.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Were it just a temporary restriction... I'm sure I'd make do.

Is here anything you think would be unacceptable as a temporary restriction in the name of "safety"? For instance, bombers have used cell phones to detonate bombs, so how about a "no phone zone" for 30 miles?

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Obviously, the President did not write these NOTAMs.

Then why does the thread title say "under Obama"?

However, the White House has been contacted about this issue by the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and these ridiculously overbroad constraints remain.

By the way, it is the FAA, not the Secret Service, that issues NOTAMs.

The FAA is no more political than the Secret Service.

And here's the problem with nuanced regulation, whatever the diameter of the circle is, we get closer and closer to a model airplane that can be remotely controlled thru a cell phone connection, the difference between what is available to the model maker, and what was state of the art technology during the first Gulf war shrinks every day.
So I expect the circle to enlarge, because there will be "model airplanes " that would make excellent smart bombs, and that's just reality.


So bans need to be complete bans because how is someone supposed to know that that is an 8.9 pound model airplane and not a 10 pound model airplane without a close inspection?