Rocket Hobbyists Get Blown Away by Regulations

dogfart writes "Amateur rocket hobbyists are bearing the brunt of Federal anti-terror efforts. Cumbersome regulations (which include extensive background checks) are pushing many to abandon the hobby. Even clubs associated with colleges (such as Kettering) have ended up folding under the pressure. Quoting the article: '"If we're in an environment where the government says you've got to get fingerprinted and background checked, and spend three to four months to do it, (adults are) not going to participate in my hobby," said Mark Bundick, president of the National Association of Rocketry. "We need more kids. It helps them learn technology. It's the technological base here in the country that we need to protect, and this hobby is a good introduction for kids that are interested in technology. If I lose those adults, then I will not be able to train those kids."'" We wrote about these regulations before, and followed it up with a Slashback.

Comments

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[strictnein]

you have got to be kidding me... a new low in stupid Mods

This post:

Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.

Gets you a fucking Score: 4, Insightful

What the hell? IT WAS A JOKE! Amateur rocketry played no role in anything (other than getting geeks outside for part of a day).

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Rei]

Yes, the deadly Qassam rocket, and its (0? near 0?) victims. Who knows - perhaps next, the Palestinians will invent the lethal weapon known as a "knife". Perhaps that would help them commit viscious acts of terror on the innocent settlers that are only taking Palestinian land each year and forcing them into walled in refugee camps with 20 foot high walls complete with prison-style guard towers and snipers nests.

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[Rei]

Security council resolutions 242, 338, 465, 681, 181 (there's only 5 that it's currently violating because the US has vetoed most of the ones that came forth)

General assembly (just a sampling; most passed almost unanimously, usually with just the US, Israel, and a handful of other nations obstaining):

Resolution 106: "condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: "condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: "recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: "urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: "determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: "censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: "urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: "condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: "calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: "deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: "declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: "condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: "deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: "condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: "condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: "censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: "condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: "condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: "demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: "condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: "demands immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: "deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: "demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: "condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: "deplores Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: "condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: "condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: "condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425: "calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: "calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: "deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: "determines that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: "calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: "calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: "deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: "strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: "strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: "expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: "reiterates that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: "censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: "declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: "strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: "decides that Israel's annexatio

Re:Hey, whose side are they on?

[3263827]

What a troll. "Significant damage?" The insurgents in Iraq have barely damaged the US military. Just because the media is hypersensitive about casualties doesn't mean that we're experiencing substantial losses. If you compare Iraq to other conflicts the US has been engaged in, our losses per day and per capita are incredibly low. Force protection is the key for most of our field commanders. But then again, your last sentence displayed your true grasp of reality in world affairs. Go back to playing Everquest, loser.