Model-Rocket Bill Stirs Debate

Interesting thing is.... even the infamous SCUD's which had HUGE money behind them for guidance systems were incredibly inaccurate - those that made it through the Patriot missile batteries (and it would seem now that MOST of the SCUDS did indeed make it through), fell harmlessly in unpopulated areas. If the SCUDS and the PATRIOTS were ineffectual, how on earth could a hobby rocket be even remotely considered a weapon? It's insane. ML

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

That's what "honorary" or "emeritus" memberships are for. I'm sure the NAR bylaws could be amended (it requires someone to write up a proposal ans submit it) suitably.

len.

The Patriot was designed as an anti-aircraft missile to shoot down moderately supersonic aircraft by exploding near them (i.e. not direct impact). It is a very capable system for aircraft and had enough capability that it was possible to *even discuss* using the system to shoot down ballistic missiles, which travel at around Mach 6. Patriot wasn't specifically designed to shoot down Scuds, however, so the success rate will probably always be pretty low. It can be argued that it was actually zero in the first Gulf war, though it was certainly useful politically in keeping Israel out of the conflict. Patriot was pretty effective on those friendly aircraft back in March, though.

Anyone capable of building a guided missile from scratch (and those people do exist) would, of course, not be slowed down to any significant degree even by a law banning all APCP. The terrorist threat issue is a stalking horse. We can make all kinds of arguments based on the "real world", but I think it would be useful to ponder what motivates the opponents of HPR/AM/EX and what assumptions they have built into their positions. Attack the assumptions and you kick the legs out from under the table.

Brad Hitch

snipped-for-privacy@tda.com (Brad Hitch) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Lautenberg and Schumer have been pretty explicit about their assumptions: "Why make it easier for terrorists?". We know that exempting arbitrary amounts of sport rocketry APCP doesn't make anything easier for terrorists, but they refuse to believe that.

len.

Is "making it harder for terrorists" their real motivation? It is common for there to be a gap between what people say and what their real objectives are. Politicians are probably the worst. Lautenberg and Schumer refuse to believe that exempting APCP doesn't make it any easier for terrorists because ....?

One way to figure out real motivations and objectives is to "turn off the sound" and observe the actions. People's actions are much more likely to be in line with their real motivations. Simply counter-arguing puts you in an "is not" "is too" debate that won't sway many people. You can be more effective if you can determine your opponent's real motivations and objectives. At the least it helps anticipate their next action. The assumptions they use in building their arguments are often weak points that can be exploited.

As far as Lautenberg and Schumer are concerned, they may not believe it because they don't want to. People tend to hold positions that are personally advantageous and only look for data that confirms their beliefs. What advantages do Lautenberg and Schumer see in opposing S724? Nullify or reverse these advantages and maybe they would come around.

Brad Hitch

I suspect that they see it as a chance to score some cheap "anti-terrorism brownie points" - they evidently expect to use "look what I'm doing to protect you against terrorism" as a key component of their appeal to the voters in future re-election attempts, and they're eagerly collecting items to show off.

One is tempted to suspect that they are driven less by rational threat assessment than by PR reflex - their instincts are telling them that their electorate will lap up "anti-terrorist" grandstanding, regardless of its lack of objective validity. (You don't _get_ to be a Senator, for the most part, unless your reflexes are fairly accurately calibrated, and you're really good at not letting anything _else_ affect your behavior.)

As I've posted before, some people's kinky "dominance-and-submission" fantasies are about sex. Mine involve tying up a politician and forcing him to take a rational position on an issue where his PR instincts are driving him in a different direction. (Psychologically, this is probably something like forcing a wild horse to jump across fire...)

Any suggestions for methods to accomplish this?

-dave w

ROTFLMAO!!!

David Erbas-White

They see an easy way to make themselves look good while making the Republicans look bad.

I don't know how that could be achieved. It doesn't matter to them that there is no risk in deregulating rocketry. By pretending that they are protecting the public from terrorists and criminals, at the cost of only a "minor inconvenience" to a few weirdo hobbyists, they make themselves look like heros. They make the Republicans look like evil morons for even attempting to make access to "dangerous material" easier. They know the media is far more interested in juicy stories of idiot Republicans bungling the War On Terror, than they are in facts and logic. They know that we are too few in numbers to hurt them in any way. And they know that John Q. Public is too ignorant, apathetic and stupid to care.

To some extent I am just thinking out loud about this problem. Most of what comes to my mind is already being done, to some extent by some people at least. Making contact with local print and TV reporters to get our side of the story out, invite them to launches and meetings, letters to Congress, etc. (I do, however, shudder to think how a reporter and his editor can mangle a story. It seems like every time I see a story about something I have first-hand knowledge of it is always distorted, sometimes even downright wrong.) Demonstrate to reporters and Congressmen the difference in burn rate between black powder and APCP and discuss how criminals use common exempted materials such as black powder, smokeless powder and matchheads - never APCP.

One story that a wide variety of people can relate to is the David vs. ATF Goliath approach. That requires showing that the motivation behind the ATF's efforts to regulate APCP is mostly to advance the bureacratic authority of the ATF instead of actually fighting terrorism. The fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were as clean as a whistle - meaning a background check probably wouldn't catch a citizen or permanent resident terrorist sleeper and that regulating APCP significantly increases the population of LEUP holders who can

*legally* obtain large amounts of other regulated explosives. Besides, its obviously not that hard for a criminal organization to get tons of contraband material into this country. That semi full of marijuana could just about as easily be full of C4 and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Regulating APCP just wastes government resources and makes life difficult for people who aren't a threat in the first place. The ATF going after rocketeers is like the cops ticketing people for (legally) crossing the street while the mob shakes down the downtown store owners.

A second story that could have broad appeal is that the technological prowess of the US is the foundation of our economic and resulting military strength. The incredibly low casualties (historically speaking) we have suffered in military conflicts over the past few decades is due to both technical innovation, a large military budget, and the economic resources that support it. The people involved in HPR/AM/EX are generally prime movers in educational programs such as the Team America challenge and other local activities. Badgering these people until they quit the hobby means we all lose the benefits of inspiring new, innovative engineers and scientists who develop new products, reduce pollution, make the economy more efficient, and improve people's lives. Instead, we'll just get more lawyers (who probably actually have a net negative effect on GNP) and end up under a mountain of legal briefs on how to split up a dwindling pie.

The long-term solution is to interest people in science and practicing critical thinking instead of just giving full head to their emotions. Teach your kids about the different logical fallacies such as fear mongering and ad hominem attacks:

for example. Raise the level of awareness of world and US history, what is actually written in the Constitution, the thinking of the founding fathers (The Federalist Papers for example) and promote an appreciation of what a unique experiment this country is with respect to the sweep of human history. Discuss the fate of China when that culture no longer accepted exploration or risk and required conformance.

Brad Hitch

I am afraid you are right - However - acquiesing and just rolling over is part of the reason that we are where we are. It sure won't get better if we don't get off of our collective butts.

Brad Hitch

Rick Dickinson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I concede the point.

len.

"RayDunakin"

---------

AKA; We're screwed.

HDS

You have not proposed it and the "powers that be" have not approved it. I suspect it would take a "ringer" to pre-approve inclusion for such a measure to be forwarded and passed.

NAR will not even follow the federal law when it exempts rocketry in full from permit and storage requirements. What makes you think they would be any more sensible on your wacky proposal without even a clear ringer proposed?

Jerry

Jerry respects Len's accomplishments.

Would SOMEONE please forward this to congress?

Jerry

Please.

So far APCP/HPR has TRAPPED more terrorists than it has ENABLED.

HPR is GOOD for anti-terrorism. Do NOT break it!!!

Jerry

The sheet Bunny handed out at NARAM shows just under 5000 members. It's waivered a bit but been pretty flat for the past few years. It peaked at just over 5K a couple years ago. HPR certified members and section members continue to grow and track in parallel. Junior members continue to dwindle.

The beginning of this thread was lost by the time I got back. Don't know who you're looking to make an honorary member. Not sure when this was last done, but when GHS started the NAR, he held back a couple dozen low numbers, and handed them out to VIPs and family members over the years.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

That is to be expected woth the NAR's focus on HPR.

Someone suggested that the NAR had an image problem. I mentioned that now (prior to NAR BOD elections) might be a good time to concider bolstering our image by adding a couple big names to our directorship, perhaps somone like an John Glenn, O'Keefe, or even a Homeland Security bigshot. Someone else suggested honorary membership, but that would not have the same effect. With a popular power figure like Glenn on the BOD, other agencies might think twice about opposing us. Having a Homemland Security "mole" inside the BOD might mitigate whatever fears they have and help ease up on burdonsome regulation.

Alan