Isn’t this 107 stuff complete overkill?

[bsartist]

That may be your position, and obviously you are entitled to disagree with the law however futile that may be. But at least one other poster here clearly has absolutely no clue what the law says, and no interest in understanding it.

You haven’t read my post clearly. I clearly stated that I’m not advocating for either position. I’m merely stating this discussion has reduced to

“The law says X.”

“But the law shouldn’t say X.”

“But the law says X.”

Again, I’m not taking up either position right now. But these aren’t natural laws. They are laws written by men and women and can be changed. People advocate for laws to be changed all the time. That’s how we got rid of segregation.

Sure you can argue that venting the disagreement here may be futile, but it’s still an intellectually valid argument to have to challenge existing laws. And to just keep saying “but the law is...” ignores peoples’ right to challenge the law in debate. Not disobey it. But challenge it in debate. I know we would like to think that the laws we agree with are sacred. But frankly they often are not.

 

[bsartist]

No one is going to win here.

Since when must you agree with a set of rules to debate their intent?

If you’ve ever participated in scholastic debate you’d know you are frequently asked to argue the opponents views.

Agreed. But just stating “the law is X” isn’t really debating an opposing view. It’s just restating a fact that has been stipulated to.

And my point is exactly what you said. If you read my post you will see that I said the folks on the opposites sides will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

[Dwilliams35]

That may be your position, and obviously you are entitled to disagree with the law however futile that may be. But at least one other poster here clearly has absolutely no clue what the law says, and no interest in understanding it.

I'm assuming you're speaking of me, and yes, I understand full well what the law says. I'm not arguing against what it SAYS, I'm arguing the position that it was poorly written and applied, and imposes a superfluous level of licensure on a certain class of people which is well in excess of what would be reasonably appropriate given their actual activities and their impact on the NAS. Nobody here is denying what the law SAYS.

 

[sar104]

You haven’t read my post clearly. I clearly stated that I’m not advocating for either position. I’m merely stating this discussion has reduced to

“The law says X.”

“But the law shouldn’t say X.”

“But the law says X.”

Again, I’m not taking up either position right now. But these aren’t natural laws. They are laws written by men and women and can be changed. People advocate for laws to be changed all the time. That’s how we got rid of segregation.

Sure you can argue that venting the disagreement here may be futile, but it’s still an intellectually valid argument to have to challenge existing laws. And to just keep saying “but the law is...” ignores peoples’ right to challenge the law in debate. Not disobey it. But challenge it in debate. I know we would like to think that the laws we agree with are sacred. But frankly they often are not.

Agreed, but that's not the position that I was challenging. I was challenging numerous incorrect assertions made by a different poster. We cannot debate the law, its intent or its desirability with that level of misinformation. Anyway - I have no problem agreeing to disagree on opinion, but I'm not going to let fiction go unchallenged.

 

[bsartist]

;-))

 

[sar104]

Classic.

 

[gingerbloke]

Classic.

No it isn't

 

[sar104]

No it isn't

Yes it is.

 

[Phantom of the Gorge]

I took an FAA approved ground school nearly 30 years ago. I thought it was good material and passed with a 96%, we had a young man who was on his 3rd time through the course and still didn't pass.
At some point I thought "Perhaps the testing is weeding out those who should'nt be allowed to fly". Perhaps the 107 is a similar endeavor.

 

[bsartist]

I took an FAA approved ground school nearly 30 years ago. I thought it was good material and passed with a 96%, we had a young man who was on his 3rd time through the course and still didn't pass.
At some point I thought "Perhaps the testing is weeding out those who should be allowed to fly". Perhaps the 107 is a similar endeavor.

But they can still fly as a hobbyists.

 

[WV. Rootman]

It reminds me when CB radios were the rage. There were so many unlicensed operators it was out of hand. The short wave guys would preach the laws because of what they had to go through. It didn’t matter. People would still use handles instead of call letters.
My son is getting married. I’m going to film his wedding without a commercial license. I’m going to have fun watching him tie the knot. Lol

 

[bsartist]

It reminds me when CB radios were the rage. There were so many unlicensed operators it was out of hand. The short wave guys would preach the laws because of what they had to go through. It didn’t matter. People would still use handles instead of call letters.
My son is getting married. I’m going to film his wedding without a commercial license. I’m going to have fun watching him tie the knot. Lol

Good comparison.

At least as HAMs we had our own frequencies we didn’t have to share with CBers. And we could keep it more civilized.

 

[bsartist]

I passed my part 107 test. 95%. So to me Part 107 is no longer overkill. LOL. ;-)

And I don’t have to ask anymore* the question “do I need a part 107 certification to do X?” Ha ha.

*well, for the next 24 months. Assuming I don’t grow marijuana.” ;-)