Tougher Rules Needed For Airspace Incursions?

There are two major factors at play in aviation. The first is the advances of modern technology, including GPS, in-flight data systems, and automated airplane control. The second factor is that we've always given latitude for people to fly.
Look -- if flying a Cessna was on the same danger level as say, driving a station wagon, I might could be persuaded that the penalties were the same. But with most general aviation airplanes you've only got about 300 pounds of usable weight. Add to this the fact that nobody has ever caused damage on purpose using an airplane, including the kid who flew into the building down in Florida a couple of years ago. Remember that? Looked like a beer can crumpled into the side of a high-rise.
GA just doesn't have the speed, weight, and size that commercial aviation has. A fully-loaded 747 can be a human-guided bomb; a fully loaded Cessna 152 is more like a kite with a couple people hanging out of the bottom. It's just not the same thing. Can you carry chemical weapons in one? Sure. But you can do a lot worse with an average conversion van, and you don't have to learn how to fly.
This country is a great nation. Here you can literally build your own airplane in your garage and fly it -- all without an inspection, a license, or a radio. We value individual freedom. Having a freedom means some people will abuse it. So show me where abusing this freedom is causing the harm that is commensurate with such a fine. Sure, you can make the argument that it costs resources to intercept these guys, but that's circular reasoning: you decide that it's a danger, because it's a danger you expend resources, then when asked why is it so bad you respond by saying how much resources you had to use. Sorry -- not cutting the mustard with me.
Mica is looking for press coverage, and he obviously got some. I stopped flying after 9-11 -- mainly because I was afraid they would make the rules so complicated that it would be impossible not to break the law. And here comes the congressman with even more fines. Next up -- stinger missiles on the White House? Oh yeah, that's already happening. QED
So yes, security is great, and Lord knows I wish I had a job that I could be comfortably paranoid about all kinds of security threats. In the real world, however, it is always a trade-off. There is no perfect security, and there will always be people who break the rules. Instead of lining up the firing squad for these weekend fliers, perhaps give them a little more education? Surely the system isn't so complex that it can't be understood by some guy in a radio-free biplane, is it?