34 replies [Last post]
Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1585
Re: Airline Attack

Just some random thoughts about this topic.

Shooting bullet holes thru the fuselage of a commercial airliner will not cause a massive airframe failure like one sees in the movies. Airliners have Pressure Compensating Valves installed to regulate cabin pressures and those valves are usually open during most of the flight.

There are many non lethal ammunition choices available, from rubber bullets to bullets that disintegrate upon contact with solid surfaces.
However if the only weapon aboard not in possession of the bad guys, has regular ammunition in the magazine then I say shoot. Better a few wounded innocent passengers than a plane load of dead passengers. Of course I would not want to be one of the wounded but given the choice.....I'd throw expatriate or bunnyslayer under the bus to kill a bad guy and save a plane load of people. Evil! Sorry guys. Just a sacrifice I'd have to make. Laugh

We can't win when we are the only ones that have rules we have to follow.

We are now seeing the results of the programing of our children by Government run school systems. They are taught that only Government has an answer, only Government can take care of you, only Government can provide you with security and make you safe. Those of us in my generation know that is bunk and you are responsible for your own safety and of those around you as they are of you. Only by working together can we achieve safety and success but that has been misconstrued by the Government into meaning that it is Government that is the "We".

Expatriate is correct, the world is a harsh and can be a brutal place and we must be prepared to "out brutal" our enemies
We did not become a country by running our mouths, talking it out no matter what the offense. We became a country by not being politically correct and calling the enemy what they were and being on the side of right and good and standing up for those principles, drawing a line in the sand and not letting tyranny and oppression cross and not backing down or drawing another line after a "stern warning".

"if God be with us then who could be against us?"

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1066
Re: Airline Attack

ME!?? Under the bus??? Why you dirty, rotten @$&^**%* Censored Censored Jtsfju Censored Angry :rotest1 angry !!

Kidding aside, the gist of your post is correct. The only way to win a war is fight and like it or not we are at war with people perfectly willing to sacrifice themselves and even their children to kill us. The only way to win or even survive is to kill them first. I'm sure someone like old Civetcat would scream and cry foul over the sentiment but in war there's no place for the sentimental. Only the victorious, the dead or the enslaved.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
Re: Airline Attack

We're up against an enemy willing to take his own life with an exploding jockstrap so he can kill women and children. And we're worried about profiling people because it wouldn't be nice.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1066
Re: Airline Attack

I couldn't agree more Expat. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck I don't think we should worry about it's civil rights before we shoot it. In the case of the airline bombing attempt the ducks father called the intelligence community and quacked "Hey!!!! My sons a damn duck!!! You might want to do something!!!". Could it get any easier than that? The three stooges could have figured this one out. And still we blew it. According to the news this morning authorities actually let this nutjob on the plane with the intention of questioning him after they landed. Hello?? Anybody home??? Frankly it makes we wonder why we have any buildings over 5 stories left in any city in the U.S. banghead

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
Re: Airline Attack

And why is the State Department getting a free pass? Why wasn't the guy's visa revoked? Granted, in all fairness the Visa wouldn't be needed until he hit Detroit, but it's another indicator that the administration was asleep at the switch.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2974
Re: Airline Attack

Ok, going back a couple posts. The way I read your post, Ex, is that the second amendment covers carry and thus should be unfettered.

First, I don't think any reading of the second amendment could extend to unfettered carry. It would be nice if they had the for sight, but I don't think they did.

Second we are talking about carry on a private airline, property owned by someone other than government (although that is admittedly a bit iffy), I think the private property rights trump carry laws (even if you could persuade me that the 2nd amend extends to unfettered carry). In other words an owner of a residence has the right to decide whether an individual can carry a weapon onto their premise.

So any carry on airplanes would need to convince the owners of the planes that it is in their benefit to allow armed passengers onto their planes.

Just to hammer on this earlier issue a bit. Do you think convicted felons should be allowed to own firearms? Presumably if no one is thrown "under the bus", no one should be constrained from purchasing/owning a firearm, even those that walked out of prison early on a 15-20 for good behavior because the state can't afford to incarcerate them any longer.

I'm extending this issue of carry to ownership, because if carry is unfettered, presumably ownership is as well.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2374
Re: Airline Attack
tonyoneword1 wrote:
The one thing that could be added is the first thing that Hitler did in Germany before his attempt to take over the world was to disarm the citezens. If you dont think this administration is not aware of this and worried about a civilian uprising you have to get your head out of the sand. Thumbs up

Actually Hitler gets blamed a lot for doing this, but what you have to realize is the truth - that for much of it's history Germany along with most European countries have alsways been very restrictive with civilian firearm ownership. This predates Hitlers reign by many many decades. Even Britain started restricting civilian gun ownership and posession prior to WWII. Also during WWII plenty of civilians in Europe had very easy access to plenty of firearms if they wanted to take up arms, but most feared the consequences. You also have to take into account the whole idea of "obedience" in German culture especially in the early 20th century and prior. Obedience to your superiors in Germany at that time was a behavior that was highly cultivated in German culture.

I'm not sure that I want every fearfull passenger onboard carrying a loaded firearm under stressfull situations. I don't believe that you or I having a gun against someone with a bomb will do anyone much good in a crowded cabin at 35,000 ft. Perhaps something like a tazer or stun gun is a better tool for that particular environment. I'm a pilot so I see the flight environment much different than others might. But aside from this I do believe that we should never trust any government in any form who fears it's people and does not trust it's citizens.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
Re: Airline Attack

The subject of property rights is an interesting one. I've made the point before in other threads, but it highlights a very important point: the Constitution restricts government, not individuals. So people ought to have the right to set conditions on their own property. But on the other hand, should an employer be able to fire an employee for having an unloaded firearm locked in the trunk of his car parked at work? And then you have to ask the question of a municipality should have the same rights as an employer -- should a city be able to ban firearms on its property (which includes streets and sidewalks)? If an employer can fire an employee for violating the "no guns on company property" law, then can a city or state do the same with its employees? Could a federal government therefore theoretically punish a federal employee for carrying a firearm in a national forest?

The biggest issue I have with the felony rule is that it opened the door for the Lautenberg amendment. Suppose somebody's in a bad marriage frought with constant battles. Maybe his wife is abusive. But in one of those battles he picks up something and throws it, hitting the wall and putting a hole in it. Under Alaska law the presence of physical damage gives the troopers cause to haul him away and charge him with domestic violence. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, if you're convicted of MISDEMEANOR domestic violence, you're permanently prohibited from possessing firearms in the same way a felon is. This even applies to military service -- military members affected by Lautenberg aren't allowed to be armed even in a combat zone. There's no reinstatement -- just gone. I've seen it happen.

There are a lot of very slippery slopes that could easily be transformed into precedents for expansion. So overall, I tend toward maximum liberty and am very suspicious of the State denying you liberty or property rights. The crime lies in acts committed with a firearm, not in mere possession of one.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2374
Re: Airline Attack

Sadly the whole idea of property ownership in this country is one of the biggest lies told and sold to the American people for far too long. We don't own property here, we simply lease what we buy from the government for the duration of posessing it. That's what property tax is, a lease payment to the government. You stop paying that annual lease and guess who comes and takes your land and home away from you.....yup, the federal government. Maybe this is a whole other argument, but I thought I's throw it out there.

We need more candidates like Ron Paul to run for president. I respect the man for his ideals and his stance to shrink the fed and the government. He recognizes that we have allowed the government to get too big for our own good. Just remember that even Newt Gingrich himself warned about the loss of our civil liberties in this post 9/11 world and could happen as a result of the war on terror. It's been happening little by little since that unethical liarJoseph McCarthy began his reign of witch hunts. I see the same thing happening today, just with a different tactic. Our want for safety and security is being used against us so that we give into false security being offered by the government and law enforcement. It's all window dressing if you ask me. Fear is the new sex, and boy is it selling to people more than ever.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1066
Re: Airline Attack

I agree WH. Applause

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Airline tickets for hunts or land accessThumper012/31/2012 21:21 pm
Hunt wild boars in Romaniaromaniaoutfitter005/10/2013 13:19 pm
Hunt quails in Romaniaromaniaoutfitter005/10/2013 13:17 pm
***Nasty***spinner212/29/2006 16:26 pm
Local Hunting Preserve in Trouble, Help!Marine8541004/22/2003 13:24 pm