A call to action... Everyone needs to help!!!

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-25 12:06pm

This is a call to action for all concerned members of this board (basically everybody who lives in the US), and all other members of all other similar boards, or those who have similar interests. A major battle is about to be joined against the ATFE and certain provisions of the Homeland Security Act. any and all assistance is needed!

for details, I provide the following links. the first is the page concerning the action in question, while the others are for general info:

http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

http://www.rocketryonline.com/

http://www.rocketry.org/

I also would like to add that the posting of this notice to other boards where there may be interest is encouraged. Also, I would like to request that this be made sticky for the next couple weeks... thanks

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-25 01:21pm

Sticky-fied. I can't believe they're going to ban model rockets.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-02-25 01:51pm

oh... thats the thing... it's not an 'official' ban -- but rather a means to make it cost prohibitive for anyone to acquire & transport the typical solid propellants used in the motors. Make the stuff a big enough PITA to ship, and the shippers will do your work for you.

now I dont know what the ramifications of this are for hybrids & LF engines (I think they are immune for now), but the vast majority of rocketeers -- be they kids just starting out, or adults who are seriously into High Power -- just dont have the kind of money to afford them, let alone fly them on a regular basis.

this trend is sickening... every day I see the nation I grew up in, the freedoms which it espoused -- which made the entire aerospace industry possible (where would Goddard have been had the ATFE been then what it is now... same for the Wrights, Tesla et al) -- locked down. if it gets much worse, I just might move elsewhere... Australia maybe...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-28 09:10pm

This is why I loath and despise the unconstitutional regulatory bureaucracies in this country. Some ignorant unelected civil service morlock in a Federal cubicle farm somewhere gets a bug up his ass about something, it gets banned and John Q. Citizen doesn't have shit to say about it. Goddammit, CONGRESS makes the fucking laws, not the fucking ATF (and yes, I'm aware of the Supreme Court rulings that say otherwise, but I'm a strict constructionist who thinks the Court was wrong).

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-01 10:29am

Another nail in the coffin of home-grown fun.

Another puff of helium in the new American tradition of every source of entertainment being fed from some giant conglomerate to snuff our creativity.

Fuckers.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-03-01 02:39pm

Why can't they just ban stupidity?

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-03-01 03:23pm

Darth Servo wrote:Why can't they just ban stupidity?

Because it would take 3 years for the law to be implemented, and cost $ 3 billion American.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2003-03-01 03:46pm

Try $3 trillion.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-02 11:17am

Consider for a moment that most college students are potentially well-endowed with all of the tools to commit terrorism: access to relevant texts, restricted machinery, and most importantly, dangerous materials. Add to this a motivation and moneyed patron and the threat of their building at least a “dirty” bomb or attempting to copy Timothy McVeigh’s admittedly successful “fertilizer bomb” becomes very real. Moving to prohibit the use of certain rocketry kits is an evolution of this sort of fear – and not necessarily an indefensible one. I’ve encountered numerous people who accomplished highly dangerous feats at age twelve with model rockets. I’d hate to think what somebody with a relevant education in physics, chemistry, or microbiology could accomplish in their stead. We live in a dangerous world and must sometimes make unwelcome concessions to that fact.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-03-03 10:03am

I thought that the first they would do as part of an anti-terror campaign would to restrict firearms ownership.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-06 03:11pm

Same stupid shit I was complaining about with tobacco -- these sneaky shyster puppyfuckers won't make it a ban because if they banned it it could be challenged in court. You can't present a legal challenge to a sky-high price increase; in the end they'll take it off the market without giving anyone any means of calling them on the carpet for it. This shit is essentially legislation without representation, and it has got to be stopped.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-06 03:19pm

Axis Kast wrote:Consider for a moment that most college students are potentially well-endowed with all of the tools to commit terrorism: access to relevant texts, restricted machinery, and most importantly, dangerous materials. Add to this a motivation and moneyed patron and the threat of their building at least a “dirty” bomb or attempting to copy Timothy McVeigh’s admittedly successful “fertilizer bomb” becomes very real. Moving to prohibit the use of certain rocketry kits is an evolution of this sort of fear – and not necessarily an indefensible one. I’ve encountered numerous people who accomplished highly dangerous feats at age twelve with model rockets. I’d hate to think what somebody with a relevant education in physics, chemistry, or microbiology could accomplish in their stead. We live in a dangerous world and must sometimes make unwelcome concessions to that fact.

That sounds ominously familiar.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-06 03:22pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:I thought that the first they would do as part of an anti-terror campaign would to restrict firearms ownership.

Firearms really don't fit the modus operandi of most terrorist actions. Terrorists tend to traditionally use explosives, probably because A) explosions tend to make a bigger show than gunshots, and B) the ones who want to live usually don't want to get caught. That means pre-arranging the kills and being off-site when they actually happen.

Besides, firearms restrictions would be for the most part ineffective against terrorists, IMHO. They tend not to play by the rules.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-06 03:34pm

Oh look another rivet just fell out of the american space progamme's future.

Moronic Clusterfucks.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-10 05:35pm

"Ominously familiar" in what sense?

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-03-10 08:23pm

Axis Kast wrote:Consider for a moment that most college students are potentially well-endowed with all of the tools to commit terrorism: access to relevant texts, restricted machinery, and most importantly, dangerous materials. Add to this a motivation and moneyed patron and the threat of their building at least a “dirty” bomb or attempting to copy Timothy McVeigh’s admittedly successful “fertilizer bomb” becomes very real. Moving to prohibit the use of certain rocketry kits is an evolution of this sort of fear – and not necessarily an indefensible one. I’ve encountered numerous people who accomplished highly dangerous feats at age twelve with model rockets. I’d hate to think what somebody with a relevant education in physics, chemistry, or microbiology could accomplish in their stead. We live in a dangerous world and must sometimes make unwelcome concessions to that fact.

You ever heard the phrase "Anyone who is willing to give up their liberty for security deserves neither"? I happen to be a firm believer in that one, and given that good old Ben Franklin said it, it should be applied ot America itself. Folllwong this ideaology, we should ban fertilizer next, because it can be used as an explosive. How about cows, too, sinc ehtye produce methane, which can also be used as an explosive, followed by propane, and hell, why don't we just ban gasoline, since that's also explosive. Oh, wait, we can't do that! That means removing oil company's profit margins, which is one fo the major reasons were heading off to Iraq! Oops! My bad, I suppose I should have mentioned that one...</rant>

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-10 09:11pm

Model rockets are a clear and present danger that we can afford to do without. Fertilizer is a bit more necessary.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-03-10 09:53pm

Axis Kast wrote:Model rockets are a clear and present danger that we can afford to do without. Fertilizer is a bit more necessary.

I wholeheartedly DISagree Axis... Fertilizer is no necessity -- it only enhances the yield of crops by maximizing thier growth rates... it also helps with crop quality. as to your spurious point about model rockets... what about model (R/C) airplanes? I mean, after all there are now small turbojet engines abailable either in kit form or fully assembled for a relatively small sum of 2-3 thousand dollars US that could be used to power a small cruise missile!

just how much are you willing to sacrifice for your security? I refuse to sacrifice anything, for as ol' Ben said, I would then deserve neither. this would no longer be a country worthy of my citizenship if your belief manages to become the rule.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-10 11:09pm

We live in a dangerous world and must sometimes make unwelcome concessions to that fact.

I don't know why that sounds familiar, but it is definitely ominous... something like a scary-ass Texan voice, drawling the words: "These are dangerous and uncertain times. This country has enjoyed centuries of Liberty, and we will reamin true to that legacy. But in dangerous times, some unwelcome concessions must be made..."

Yes, I can definitely picture that message, playing in a dimly-lit, trash strewn alley at midnight in a city full of locked doors and drawn blinds...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-03-11 06:08am

Axis Kast wrote:Moving to prohibit the use of certain rocketry kits is an evolution of this sort of fear – and not necessarily an indefensible one. I’ve encountered numerous people who accomplished highly dangerous feats at age twelve with model rockets. I’d hate to think what somebody with a relevant education in physics, chemistry, or microbiology could accomplish in their stead. We live in a dangerous world and must sometimes make unwelcome concessions to that fact.

Hmm... In a word, bullshit.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-11 08:41am

I hear that most terrorists utilise the method of respiration known as "breathing air". I believe this must be outlawed, not only to remove another weapon from the evil clutches of global terrorism, but to reassure the masses that we have our best brains working this think-tank for the benefit of the public and humanity in general.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-11 04:13pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I hear that most terrorists utilise the method of respiration known as "breathing air". I believe this must be outlawed, not only to remove another weapon from the evil clutches of global terrorism, but to reassure the masses that we have our best brains working this think-tank for the benefit of the public and humanity in general.

Don't forget literacy. All terrorists get their information through reading, so it only makes sense to outlaw books and literacy.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-11 05:43pm

I understand the desire to shuck what you feel are useless rules or the first of a series of encroachments, though I agree with the government: model rockets and remote-controlled aircraft are something we can do without.

Do I believe this is a gradual evolution against our freedoms? Not necessarily. You'll recall that neither Canadians nor Britons can own firearms.

As for the sentiment, "You deserve nothing if you give up something?" That's utterly beyond my comprehension. I fail to see how compliance on my part with a government edict I feel makes perfect sense does anything to diminish my worthiness for citizenship.

Captain Jack · Post by **Captain Jack** » 2003-03-11 07:00pm

What is the point in banning model rockets? Anyone can cook up gunpowder for use in a bomb.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-11 07:59pm

It's banning a method of empowerment. Certainly a terrorist could build a homemade bomb without the use of rocket engines or pre-made parts, but the object of this exercise is to make it that much harder and hopefully more detectable from that point of view.