CCW in the air


PDA






Combat-wombat
January 3, 2003, 02:49 AM
Hey, I'm just seeing what peoples' opinions are on ccw on planes is. Of course most of you will say yes, and I generally agree, but I think about the scenario where there is only one CCW holder on the plane, and he is a terrorist. What is your opinion on the subject?

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW in the air" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackhawk
January 3, 2003, 02:54 AM
Has he got a 232 round magazine and very fast reflexes?

If not, he's dead, dismembered and otherwise mutilated. I'll go first if need be and if I get the opportunity.

treeprof
January 3, 2003, 01:31 PM
Assuming one could CCW on planes, if I was on the plane, he wouldn't be the only one armed. If a planeload of other people all wish to fly unarmed and risk a BG being the only one who is armed on their particular flight, then it's no different to me than those willing to walk down the street unarmed - it's their life to gamble with and I'm frankly not too concerned about it.

Combat-wombat
January 3, 2003, 02:35 PM
Yes, but the BG could ram the plane into a building and kill thousands, and it wouldn't matter if they were armed or not!

mjustice
January 3, 2003, 02:43 PM
I would think that if you could carry a weapon on a plane, that there would be a big upswing in the number of people licensed. If the feds "allowed" this, I doubt you would find a plane in America that did not have an armed crewmember or multiple armed passengers.

But, like most good ideas, the government has tossed this one into the circular file. They seem to forget that there were fewer highjackings before the metal detectors and prohibitions on "carry-on" weapons.

MJ

ReadyontheRight
January 3, 2003, 02:58 PM
I think the perception of 200+ armed passengers would stop terrorists from even trying. Altough the New York to San Francisco flight might give a terrorist better odds than Denver to Dallas.

treeprof
January 3, 2003, 03:01 PM
Huh? It wouldn't matter if WHO was armed? The BG? The people in the bldg? Other passengers?

Combat-wombat
January 3, 2003, 03:01 PM
The people in the building

treeprof
January 3, 2003, 03:12 PM
Ok, then true, but all kinds of disasters - natural, accidents, terrorism - could befall one regardless of whether they carried or not. And the 9/11 guys accomplished everything with boxcutters.

michaelbane
November 24, 2005, 04:39 PM
I have posted on several different threads, including my own, that passengers should be armed. Not just planes, but trains, ships and buses as well.

Zach S
November 24, 2005, 05:36 PM
edited

Standing Wolf
November 24, 2005, 06:06 PM
...I think about the scenario where there is only one CCW holder on the plane, and he is a terrorist.

Terrorists don't apply for concealed carry permits.

I'll reconsider flying when I'm treated as a citizen rather than a criminal; until then, I'd continue to drive.

strambo
November 24, 2005, 07:02 PM
Terrorists don't apply for concealed carry permits.


True, but playing Devil's advocate; Terrorists could easily fake the CCW ID. Currently, no one is allowed on board with a gun regardless of ID. CCW on planes would allow people to carry with a credential. CCW rates are few even is States that allow it...so a Terrorist being the only one on board with a gun is a pretty real possibility.

That said..I'd rather see it and the Feds could require a certain # of crew be licensed/trained to carry on each flight. Like an armed security position...dual hatting, serving drinks by profession and lead when needed.:)

hub
November 24, 2005, 07:34 PM
it's dosent make much since. i am a fright train conductor and i'm not even allowed to carry any weapons at all. we carry thousands of tons of dangerous and hazmat materials everyday and all i have is a radio and flashlight.

Lupinus
November 24, 2005, 07:41 PM
All for it. Even now if a plane wasnt filled with sheeple no plane would be hijakable. Two guys manage to smuggle a handgun each onto a plane. Thats what? Thirty rounds at most? Asuming that they are good shots and each round kills someone that is thirty dead pasangers and two dead hijackers with the plane landed at the nearist air port and no building crashed into. And I doubt in the confined space of an airplane if all thirty rounds would be put to optimal use with one shot equaling one kill and all shots off. And unlike popular belief a bullet hole will not decompress a plane at worst it will hit one of the hydrolic systems.

As to threatning a bomb? Ok fair enough. I know I am dead anyway and at least a few thousand souls arn't coming with us.

ElTacoGrande
November 24, 2005, 07:59 PM
I support the idea of CCW (and open carry!) on planes. Maybe they would need to do some tests to see if there's any risk from some kinds of rounds, like (dunno) maybe some kinds of shotgun rounds are dangerous or whatever. But as long as it isn't capable of bringing down the plane, people should be allowed to carry it. I know that regular pistol ammo isn't a danger to a plane; Israelis have done tests on this. The cockpit should probably be separate from the cabin by a solid bullet-stopping barrier.

I would feel safer on a plane if a dozen of us were toting M4s.

AZLibertarian
November 24, 2005, 09:05 PM
This was discussed earlier this summer. If you can get through this entire thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146298), you'll see that I think CCW for passengers is a very bad idea.

Art Eatman
November 24, 2005, 09:29 PM
Before 9/11, folks thought that if they cooperated they'd live through some sort of hostage-negotiation deal.

Not now.

Jump up with any weapon. Threaten to kill a Stew. How sad, too bad. You're gonna be dead before you can break into the cockpit. "Let's roll!" will be the order of the day.

Doesn't matter if there are CHLs on board the plane. Wouldn't hurt anything if there were. Even if a CHL holder shot another innocent passenger, there's gonna be an F16 alongside that's ready to do in all 400. All that counts is a landing you can walk away from.

:), Art

xd9fan
November 25, 2005, 02:33 PM
I have never understood the knee jerk panic I get when my thoughts on this subject come out.

Why can you protect your life in a car, bus, and a building but by God your life is worthless in a plane.
If you are scared because a bullet might rupture the cabin then your priorites are wacked. If my gun is out of my holster its because BG's are trying to down the plane......at this point holes in the cabin simple do not matter.

I got my CC permit to protect life.....mine and my families.

The Federal Govt, after 4 years since 9/11, is good at the appearence of security. A new branch of Govt and billions spent and we have the appearence of security. Look at the borders!! and yet the minutemen, God bless em, prove to be cheaper and more effective. So to with all of the CCW holders across this land.

But its about trust and control....and neither party is worried about that:rolleyes: :fire:

SMMAssociates
November 27, 2005, 01:08 AM
I've always believed in "arm the passengers", but I can see the disadvantages....

That said, the foolishness that goes with the security screenings is somewhat off-putting. I will have to fly someplace in the next few months, but at least I can rest assured that nobody else I could possibly trust (except maybe a Federal employee, and that's another thread) will be armed....

(I'm just too old and have some physical problems that would keep me from making that trip otherwise....)

What frosts me, though, is the insane rigamarole involved in checking a firearm in baggage. How is a weapon stored in the baggage compartment going to be any danger to anyone? I can't get anywhere near it after I check in the bag until I get it off the carousel at my destination.... 'Bout all this seems to do is improve the odds that the bag and gun will vanish non-randomly instead of randomly.... :fire:

I took my mom (she's 90, and was in a wheelchair) to PIT about a year ago. Special inspection, etc., using the airline's chair! I had to go through hell to get a boarding pass just to accompany her to the gate, and the TSA folks actually had to get permission from a supervisor to let me take a Sears screwdriver on my keychain.

They used to sell 'em for about a buck. Flat circular disk about 0.010" thick with several little projections that can be used as various sized flat screwdrivers....

Good thing they didn't figure out that my trusty Streamlight Stylus makes a pretty nasty weapon.... :evil:

Regards,

Hawkmoon
November 27, 2005, 11:58 AM
The people in the building
Unless they had a .50 Barrett, which as we know courtesy of the MSM can shoot down an airliner at a range of over one mile :neener:

Hawkmoon
November 27, 2005, 12:01 PM
it's dosent make much since. i am a fright train conductor and i'm not even allowed to carry any weapons at all. we carry thousands of tons of dangerous and hazmat materials everyday and all i have is a radio and flashlight.
I don't suppose you could "interpret" the regs to allow the flashlight to be something like a Surefire ... with maybe a 1911 attached to the accessory rail?

Fly320s
November 27, 2005, 12:29 PM
Hawkmoon,

Good idea. Because, really, a 1911 is just a flashlight with a very short-duration flash. :D

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
November 28, 2005, 01:46 AM
One of the best ideas I've heard, informally, of course, is to make everyone strip, give them one nice blanket and a K-BAR as soon as they get to the gate.

Even my wife agrees with that one.


Regards,
Rabbit.

Alex45ACP
November 28, 2005, 02:12 AM
It should be up to each airline what they want their security procedures to be. People will vote with their dollars. Just another question that could be solved by the market instead of government meddling.

neoncowboy
November 28, 2005, 12:00 PM
I don't see why the right to self-defense and to arms should somehow be restricted on an airplane, or at a train station, or in the courthouse or at the post office...or anywhere.

We either have the right and have a gov't that respects the right...or we don't.

Personally, I hate airline travel and avoid it whenever possible. I fly myself most of the trips I do and carry at least one gun on me at all times (along with a surefire and a whole bunch of knives :)

outofbattery
November 28, 2005, 12:42 PM
Color me blissninny:I'm not in favor of allowing non-LEO CCW on airlines.Anything that doesn't fall from the sky and I'm fine with.I'm sure that many non-conventional weapons have found their way aboard aircraft since 9/11:Blackie Collins letter openers,polymer OSS lapel thumb-daggers and so on but the chances of a terrorist being able to bring a firearm on are slim enough for me to say that allowing CCW would increase the possibility of it happening.Furthermore, there are going to be a majority of flights with people choosing to not CCW just as in any random sample of travellers as face it,those that carry daily are in the small minority of Americans.Any group of terrorists that think they could strongarm a flight with boxcutters or their alternatives like they did on 9/11 are going to be sadly mistaken that the people won't find a will and a way to fight them-and win.

michaelbane
January 24, 2006, 04:14 PM
...the chances of a terrorist being able to bring a firearm on are slim enough for me to say that allowing CCW would increase the possibility of it happening. Furthermore, there are going to be a majority of flights with people choosing to not CCW just as in any random sample of travellers as face it,those that carry daily are in the small minority of Americans.

If I understand this right, the point being made is that if we allow CCW, then the terrorists will take advantage of it as well. But John Lott's study shows that with regular CCW, that is not the case. Criminals did not respond by better arming themselves; the rate of violent crime decreased. It's not unreasonable to predict a similar result on airplanes.

only1asterisk
January 24, 2006, 06:08 PM
CCW on planes? When pigs fly!

(take it however you like, it's true)

David

U.S.SFC_RET
January 24, 2006, 06:25 PM
Take a close look at the American mentality as a people we question authority too much, I would not want any average Joe carrying on a plane. The Swiss Army reserve carry their automatic rifles home on a train by themselves, (I have seen that personally) but I cannot imagine any of our reserves doing the same here in this country. Yes I am sure that the vast majority of us are decent, hard working, pull yourself up by your bootstraps type of people. But there are those who question authority and have no respect and challenge authority in this country. We should not carry on airplanes for simple reason of a few bad Apples.

SMMAssociates
January 24, 2006, 06:40 PM
Take a close look at the American mentality as a people we question authority too much, I would not want any average Joe carrying on a plane. The Swiss Army reserve carry their automatic rifles home on a train by themselves, (I have seen that personally) but I cannot imagine any of our reserves doing the same here in this country. Yes I am sure that the vast majority of us are decent, hard working, pull yourself up by your bootstraps type of people. But there are those who question authority and have no respect and challenge authority in this country. We should not carry on airplanes for simple reason of a few bad Apples.Hate to say this, but maybe a troll?

This is one of the number one arguments the anti's have against any form of "civilian" weapon ownership, use, or carry. :cuss:

The idea that if somebody might do something bad with some inanimate object, nobody should be able to have one.... :what:

Nonsense....

I expect you also believe that a "no guns" sign will keep an armed criminal out of my kid's school room, too.... :mad:

Sheesh....

Richard.Howe
January 24, 2006, 09:23 PM
Very bad idea that sounds nice in theory.

Zundfolge
January 24, 2006, 10:07 PM
Take a close look at the American mentality...We should not carry on airplanes for simple reason of a few bad Apples.

and

Very bad idea that sounds nice in theory.

So let me get this straight.

I can be trusted to walk down the street packing a gun.
I can be trusted walking into a convenience store packing a gun.
I can be trusted walking into a bank packing a gun.
I can be trusted walking into a liquor store packing a gun.
But put me on an airplane and all of the sudden I'm going to become a rampaging maniac?


If the state trusts me enough to pack anywhere they should trust me to pack everywhere. Period. Anything less is asinine.

Richard.Howe
January 24, 2006, 10:32 PM
...all of the sudden I'm going to become a rampaging maniac?

No, not you! :D

Or me, for that matter. If I've had my morning coffee, that is.

A few things happen all at the same time on an airplane:
1. High number of bystanders
2. High density of bystanders
3. High consequence of mistakes -- maybe a bit higher than in a liquor store? Well, not if the store is filled with 200 people and flying at 38,000 feet I suppose...wonder if it gets cold up there?

All that having been said, if there were no CCW on aircraft and a terrorist situation arose over US skies, then the plane will be going down anyway at the gentle suggestion of a Sidewinder.

I just know that I wouldn't be completely comfortable in an aircraft that contained someone with all the shooting skills necessary to fill out a 1-page application.

Remember, not all bad aircraft CCW scenarios involve terrorists. They might just involve a negligent discharge. I dare say that a few more NDs occur than do acts of domestic terrorism. That's the risk balance you have to at least consider.

I don't worry when CCW holders are right next to me in line at the grocery store though...perhaps because they could screw up in a hundred ways and I still get to go home afterward.

Rich


By the way --

If the state trusts me enough to pack anywhere they should trust me to pack everywhere. Period. Anything less is asinine.

Like Federal court? Like prison? I don't buy that argument.

lucky_fool
January 24, 2006, 10:51 PM
Why can you protect your life in a car, bus, and a building but by God your life is worthless in a plane.

Not if the bus is a Greyhound. :cuss:

xd9fan
January 24, 2006, 11:11 PM
I have more "Rights" in my house than my car.....on the ground than in the air. WHY??? Is my family less valuable?? Is yours?? If somebody is worried that God forbid a bullet goes through the plane....My position is if their are terrorists on broad....the last concern I have is my bullets maybe going through the plane......My worry is trying to kill the terrorist to SAVE the plane.
But no we cant protect ourselves and 3000 die because we are all unarmed and boxcutters are used.

If conceal carry works on the ground...it will work in the air. Its a matter of trust and Control......our Govt does not trust us to protect our own lives.
This ties into the problem with the war on terror only being fought by the Govt and the Govt giving us a stupid rainbow danger color scale. But then I want an armed citizenary, Armed (too the teeth) Neutrality, and a swiss like militia...and the National Guard to never step foot on foregn soil.....The Bill of Rights taught in schools ....etc etc

U.S.SFC_RET
January 24, 2006, 11:31 PM
I have more "Rights" in my house than my car.....on the ground than in the air. WHY??? Is my family less valuable?? Is yours?? If somebody is worried that God forbid a bullet goes through the plane....My position is if their are terrorists on broad....the last concern I have is my bullets maybe going through the plane......My worry is trying to kill the terrorist to SAVE the plane.
But no we cant protect ourselves and 3000 die because we are all unarmed and boxcutters are used.


If conceal carry works on the ground...it will work in the air. Its a matter of trust and Control......our Govt does not trust us to protect our own lives.
This ties into the problem with the war on terror only being fought by the Govt and the Govt giving us a stupid rainbow danger color scale. But then I want an armed citizenary, Armed (too the teeth) Neutrality, and a swiss like militia...and the National Guard to never step foot on foregn soil.....The Bill of Rights taught in schools ....etc etc
What are the statistics of someone dying on a plane? 1000 per year? I am a firm believer of CCW on a plane but not just anyone. LEOs? Retired LEOs? anyway you get the point of what I am trying to say. Not the general public on a Jet Airplane.

Flyboy
January 25, 2006, 02:09 AM
But there are those who question authority and have no respect and challenge authority in this country. We should not carry on airplanes for simple reason of a few bad Apples.
Funny enough, these tend to be the people whom I trust the most.

--Flyboy, who doesn't board an airplane unarmed. Row 0 has its privileges.

xd9fan
January 25, 2006, 02:16 AM
What are the statistics of someone dying on a plane? 1000 per year? I am a firm believer of CCW on a plane but not just anyone. LEOs? Retired LEOs? anyway you get the point of what I am trying to say. Not the general public on a Jet Airplane.


This thinking, while you think is logical, is elitist. My line of thinking is the same reason why we have juries made of our peers and not of Govt "officals" I trust the common family man more than just another govt suit with way too much ego to fill that suit. (based on most of my experiences with them anyway)

The focus should be "we the people" first then Govt taking a second seat. Having just "law enforcement" rather then us have the say or power and still walking around thinking we are a free people is denial.

U.S.SFC_RET
January 26, 2006, 01:47 AM
This thinking, while you think is logical, is elitist. My line of thinking is the same reason why we have juries made of our peers and not of Govt "officals" I trust the common family man more than just another govt suit with way too much ego to fill that suit. (based on most of my experiences with them anyway)

So let me ask you one question? Who gave you your CCW? your local Sheriff or Police Department? I got mine from my local Sheriff Department. Just who should issue CCW for the Airlines? Everybodys Sheriff or Police Department? Local law applies in the sky? Who gets to issue sky CCW permits. CCW issuance better be stringent and not by any Police jurisdiction and not shall be issued to just anyone. Could you imagine just one gunfight among 200 or more sardine packed passengers seven miles in the air flying 450 miles an hour? That would be more than enough to feed the beast of any antigun group and give them merit. Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy and the Brady bunch would set into place more laws than we all would care for. One gunfight would overshadow any terrist or potential terrist act in the sky. I am not sure if pilots are allowed to be armed or not I've never looked into it, all that I know about that subject is that it caused a heck of a stink on Capitol hill. CCW on an Airline is not for the average Joe. I believe that there should be a way to CCW the friendly skies but your way of thinking isn't in the best interest of all concerned. I share your concern that dutiful citizens should bear the responsibility of protection so my thinking is not as elitist as you might want to think.
What kind of criteria do you believe should be selective in whether you should be able to CCW aboard an airliner? Some? None? Active Federal Law Enforcement Officer? Active Military? Retired Military? Should you go through a battery of tests? :scrutiny:
Air Marshals, how effective are they? Can the goveronment hire more? If not why not? How do they train those they qualify?......

xd9fan
January 26, 2006, 02:36 AM
sorry your talking to someone who thinks the 2ndA means what it says and as far as Conceal carry goes....every state should have the Vermont Carry as standard. I will be the first to admit that asking Govt for a permit is NOT freedom. At least the Shall issue laws take the KING/GOD complex out of law enforcements heads.

michaelbane
January 30, 2006, 01:06 AM
Just who should issue CCW for the Airlines? Everybodys Sheriff or Police Department? Local law applies in the sky? Who gets to issue sky CCW permits. CCW issuance better be stringent and not by any Police jurisdiction and not shall be issued to just anyone.

What kind of criteria do you believe should be selective in whether you should be able to CCW aboard an airliner? Some? None? Active Federal Law Enforcement Officer? Active Military? Retired Military? Should you go through a battery of tests? :scrutiny:
The permit would be "shall issue", administered by the TSA. You would go to your local airport for fingerprinting, background check and associated paperwork. You would have to provide certification from an approved instructor that you took a "sky CCW" course. The course would include a final exam of live fire that included drawing from concealment, in both a standing and seated position, and firing two shots into the innermost ring of an NRA pistol target. All within two seconds at at least fifteeen feet.

One more thing. The "sky CCW" permit would preempt state and local laws. In other words, if you live in California or New York or some place where they don't issue CCW permits, the "sky CCW" permit allows you to carry concealed when the permit holder is travelling to and from the airport.

Kodiaz
January 30, 2006, 01:21 AM
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed. Begging the sheriff for a CCW is an infringement. Assault weapon bans are an infringement. X waiting day periods are an infringement. Special stamps for short rifles, suppressors auto fire are infringements.

They go on and on and on.

Anything that restores our GOD given rights will cause a stink on capitol hill. Those usurpers dream of the day when we are like Britain and have to bend over every time they say so.

I can sit here and get arthritis from pulling up articles of every time some LEO at any level screwed the pooch with a gun. Please for the sake of my patience don't ask me when a fed LEO screwed up. Please

Herself
January 30, 2006, 01:30 AM
Take a close look at the American mentality as a people we question authority too much,
I had no idea that a civilian, on his or her own time, could possibly question authority too much!
There's no requirement to salute cops or private security or self-appointed sidewalk suprintendants.
And what's that got to do with carrying on an airplane?
How many Range Officers at private/public gun ranges get shot? "Accepting discipline" is not the same as "accepting authority unquestioningly!"

I would not want any average Joe carrying on a plane. Even though the "average Jihadiin" just might be?

The Swiss Army reserve carry their automatic rifles home on a train by themselves, (I have seen that personally) but I cannot imagine any of our reserves doing the same here in this country. Because, unlike the stolid and hardy Swiss, our reservists are drunken slackers who won't obey orders? Maaaan, that's sad news. :( When are you emigrating?

Yes I am sure that the vast majority of us are decent, hard working, pull yourself up by your bootstraps type of people. But there are those who question authority and have no respect and challenge authority in this country. We should not carry on airplanes for simple reason of a few bad Apples. So, because some people are bad 'uns, there shouldn't be CCW on airplanes? Funny, since the fact that some folks choose evil is why I started carrying a gun!

Doesn't make any difference. Next bunch that stands up in a U. S. plane and try hijacking it are going down. If they've got guns, they may get an escort into the next life, but they're not getting control of the plane.

C'mon -- I'd leap at 'em, you would, too. Do you think we're the only ones? Kids, the elderly and mothers with children excepted, most people will count the risk of confronting a hijacker small compared to the possible harm from not confronting one! I wasn't planning on getting out of this life alive anyway. Armed or not, let's roll!

--Herself

Herself
January 30, 2006, 01:34 AM
Funny enough, these tend to be the people whom I trust the most. Me, too!

--Flyboy, who doesn't board an airplane unarmed. Row 0 has its privileges.
Cheater!
...You get to be "first on the scene," too. Locomotive engineers raised quite a stink when they designed engines with the control cab at the front. That's how we know pi-luts got nerves of steel. :)

Just tell me it ain't a Warthog.

--H

Kodiaz
January 30, 2006, 01:43 AM
Herself you are absolutely wrong as I matter of fact, the next time I see a house burning unarmed wife shooting Bureau of Arson, Terror and Federal Excess officer I am going to bow.

Great post by the way.


One moment what is wrong with the venerable warthog???:fire:

Herself
January 30, 2006, 02:32 AM
Herself you are absolutely wrong
And this is news? This's the Internet, where everyone is always wrong, all the time! Gotta love it! ;)

Besides, how dare you question me? I'm an authority, it says so right here on my pajamas.

One moment what is wrong with the venerable warthog???:fire:
Is is broke? I swear I wasn't messin' with it!

'Twas a bit of badinage. For many of us, they're sufferin' difficult to keep a good grip on when they're barkin', so the fellow who is comfortable enough with one to fly with it must be A Major Hombre! :what: :D

Yummm, pi-luts. Airplanes. Private citizens flyin' planes while carryin' guns... Ooops. Married. Forgot. :blush:

--H

gunsmith
January 30, 2006, 02:58 AM
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

xd9fan
January 30, 2006, 03:44 AM
Take a close look at the American mentality as a people we question authority too much, I would not want any average Joe carrying on a plane. The Swiss Army reserve carry their automatic rifles home on a train by themselves, (I have seen that personally) but I cannot imagine any of our reserves doing the same here in this country. Yes I am sure that the vast majority of us are decent, hard working, pull yourself up by your bootstraps type of people. But there are those who question authority and have no respect and challenge authority in this country. We should not carry on airplanes for simple reason of a few bad Apples.


I for one thank God we still have americans that question authority!! The term goose-stepping morons...comes to mind for those that dont ever question authority. I think americans DONT questoin authority enough. They are just sheeple to do as they are told.

Your last statement of this paragraph is very anti-gun. and could be used (quite easily) against you. Once again the old having bad people's actions control the Rights of the law-abidding. (a$$ backwards)

"But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. ... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
--Jeff Snyder


I pay too much in taxes, raise 3 boys, married, professional, SUV owner, NRA,GOA life member, My wife and I have Social Security accounts we will never see (but we do see the taxes go out every 2 weeks), we have to budget, (but the Govt...libs or GOP spend like a drunken sailor...every year)

and you wonder why authority is questioned????????:cuss: God I wish authority was qeustioned more. The Boston Tea party was over a 2% tax hike. But I have Al gore (govt=authority) telling me that letting me have 2% control over my Social security money is a "risky scheme"

U.S.SFC_RET
January 30, 2006, 03:52 AM
Herself Allow me to ask you a few questons if I may. Have you been to Switzerland? Have you been in the United States Army? Have you been in the Army for enough time to distinguish any type of differences within the two major cultures observed. How about subcultures within the U.S Army? I have known a soldier who went home on leave and committed an armed robbery at a liquer store and never reported to back to duty (went to jail). What about the Fort Carson soldiers who went to Denver and robbed the MacDonalds there and got convicted. What about (Gangsta) soldiers who purposefully enter the U.S Army to learn tactics only to get out and go back to the gangs where they come from. The Military stopped allowing People from enlisting with certain tatoos just for this reason. These are but a few facts going on in today's service. Shootings have gone on at Army bases. Small wonder leadership will never let soldiers carry their M16s home. Face the facts and call a spade a spade, sometimes the truth hurts. I am not emigrating anywhere. Pull your head out of the sand for once and look around.

U.S.SFC_RET
January 30, 2006, 04:02 AM
XD9FAN Don't get too hot and bothered Questioning authority is OK, it has it's place in society. Makes for good politcs. jus gotta remember would you let anyone carry on a plane? That is the only point that I am trying to make. Questioning authority keeps us from becoming social democrats and communists and from paying way too much in taxes. So it has it's place. :)

Billmanweh
January 30, 2006, 04:02 AM
have civilians ever been able to carry guns on board commerical flights?

Billmanweh
January 30, 2006, 04:04 AM
my guess is that if the 1-2% of people who have CHLs are allowed to carry guns onto commercial flights, the other 98-99% of the population wouldn't step foot on an airplane. probably not a good idea for an industry barely staying afloat now.

Kodiaz
January 30, 2006, 09:28 AM
Herself I was joking. The only reason I would bow for a BATFE officer would be to tie his laces together.

Herself
January 30, 2006, 09:45 AM
Kodiaz, I was joking back!

Herself Allow me to ask you a few questons if I may. Have you been to Switzerland? Have you been in the United States Army? Have you been in the Army for enough time to distinguish any type of differences within the two major cultures observed. How about subcultures within the U.S Army?
What, reading doesn't count? 1. No, 2. No, 3. No objective criteria exist to determine, 4. How about them? Sounds like a discipline problem.
You wrote "reservists." Typically more mature abd better-adjusted than the average full-time-service recruit and much more so than the worst of them, reservists didn't enlist as the job of last resort. Most of them have full-time jobs. I trust them -- and I trust the full-time soldiers, too. The ones who:...went home on leave and committed an armed robbery at a liquer store and never reported to back to duty (went to jail). What about the Fort Carson soldiers who went to Denver and robbed the MacDonalds there and got convicted. What about (Gangsta) soldiers who purposefully enter the U.S Army to learn tactics only to get out and go back to the gangs where they come from. ...should have been shot. Such men are to decent soldiers what feral, ravaging dogs are to well-trained and loyal dogs, and should be dealt with as feral dogs are. It doesn't help to treat everyone based on the conduct of the morally unfit; it just makes moral unfitness appear to be a valid choice. It ain't -- and it's time we started shooting the sheepdogs who attack the flock rather than protect it.

If the Army's coddling the ethically retarded instead of locking them up or having tragic training accidents with them, I'm ashamed of it. What do you suppose went wrong?


Adults who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted at large in society, period. There is no middle ground. We've plenty of readily available instruments far more deadly than guns -- which is obvious to anyone not cowed by the addled fears of bedwetting blissninnies.

--Herself

wally
January 30, 2006, 09:57 AM
Hey, I'm just seeing what peoples' opinions are on ccw on planes is. Of course most of you will say yes, and I generally agree, but I think about the scenario where there is only one CCW holder on the plane, and he is a terrorist. What is your opinion on the subject?

This would prove that background checks were a waste of everyone's time and resources.

--wally.

AZLibertarian
January 30, 2006, 10:27 AM
my guess is that if the 1-2% of people who have CHLs are allowed to carry guns onto commercial flights, the other 98-99% of the population wouldn't step foot on an airplane. probably not a good idea for an industry barely staying afloat now. I agree, but once they began to think about it, I'd extend it to the bulk of the CHL holders as well. Last summer, I wrote a small story illustrating the fallacy of allowing CHL holders to carry their weapons on passenger planes here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1792936&postcount=55).

In a perfect, libertarian world, none of us would be prohibited by the government from carrying our arms anywhere we'd like. However, the airlines and other private property owners would not be so constrained. An airline could ban weapons just as a restaurant could enforce a dress code. If you don't like the airline's weapons policy--find another airline, just as you'd have to find another place to eat if you can't or won't meet the restaurant's dress standards. If I were running an airline in this hypothetical libertarian world, I'd probably end up with a very similar weapons screening policy that we see enforced by the government today.

There is simply too much downside in having marginally trained (however earnest), yet armed passengers on a plane.

Capital Punishment
January 30, 2006, 11:28 AM
I'd rather see every pilot armed and armed undercover air marshalls on every flight IMHO.

My reason for this is;

That it guarantees that there will be multiple armed good guys on every flight. With just citizens CCW'ing, you dont know if there will be 50 armed good guys or none of them.

U.S.SFC_RET
January 30, 2006, 11:32 AM
+1 to capital punishment

mrmeval
January 30, 2006, 12:03 PM
They're with the ATF?

Hey, I'm just seeing what peoples' opinions are on ccw on planes is. Of course most of you will say yes, and I generally agree, but I think about the scenario where there is only one CCW holder on the plane, and he is a terrorist. What is your opinion on the subject?

Billmanweh
January 30, 2006, 02:37 PM
I agree, but once they began to think about it, I'd extend it to the bulk of the CHL holders as well. Last summer, I wrote a small story illustrating the fallacy of allowing CHL holders to carry their weapons on passenger planes here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1792936&postcount=55).


I think their customer base would be whittled down to the few thousand people who regularly post on gun message boards.

xd9fan
January 30, 2006, 03:29 PM
I'd rather see every pilot armed and armed undercover air marshalls on every flight IMHO.

My reason for this is;

That it guarantees that there will be multiple armed good guys on every flight. With just citizens CCW'ing, you dont know if there will be 50 armed good guys or none of them.


In time that would change.

The major problem I have is outlook is that the shift of responsibilty of the protection of your life and your families is turned to the Govt and not the individual citizen. I find it amazing how inconsistant CC holders are on this issue. All the reasons why we carry on the ground apply in the air.

Its interesting how gun owners have ran to the federal Govt's side (in the war on terror) when clearly the Federal Govt sees no value in how CC holders can do their part in the defense of the homeland.......I wonder how long it will take these gunowners to realize that being buddy-buddy with the Govt will give the Govt a reason/oppertunity to control and shape our gun "Rights"..... to properly fight "the war on terror".

xd9fan
January 30, 2006, 03:31 PM
XD9FAN Don't get too hot and bothered Questioning authority is OK, it has it's place in society. Makes for good politcs. jus gotta remember would you let anyone carry on a plane? That is the only point that I am trying to make. Questioning authority keeps us from becoming social democrats and communists and from paying way too much in taxes. So it has it's place. :)


????????

Herself
January 31, 2006, 09:07 AM
I'm having trouble figuring this one out:

In a perfect, libertarian world, none of us would be prohibited by the government from carrying our arms anywhere we'd like. However, the airlines and other private property owners would not be so constrained. An airline could ban weapons just as a restaurant could enforce a dress code.
So, in your conception of a "perfect, libertarian world,"* restauranteurs and airlines would be able to search our persons and we'd be obliged to stand there and take it? --Sound more like a statist's misconception of a coporate-dominated anarcho-capitalist society, IMO! Why's it any business of theirs what's in a purse or slung from a waistband or shoulder rig?


If you don't like the airline's weapons policy--find another airline, just as you'd have to find another place to eat if you can't or won't meet the restaurant's dress standards. Again: so you conceive that the rights of the property-owner or his agent trump those of the peacable individual, even down to rights to self-defense and to personal privacy and security? On what basis? Really not followng your thinking on this.


If I were running an airline in this hypothetical libertarian world, I'd probably end up with a very similar weapons screening policy that we see enforced by the government today.
You do not offer support for this. In fact, the societal perception of the "danger" from guns and gun-owners rather than the actual danger is what drives such rules and invasive searching. If more persons were more visibly armed and our socety was used to hat, we would have a lot less foolish disarming of peacable citizens by any group, business or governmental.


There is simply too much downside in having marginally trained (however earnest), yet armed passengers on a plane.
If this is so, why is there not a correspondingly large "downside" in having "marginally trained (however earnest), yet armed" persons abroad in society under any other set of circumstances? --At a theatre, for example, or a crowded shopping mall? At a chuirch or on a bus? Under your reasoning, surely any "responsible" business or organization would be taking steps to disarm the dire menace of us half-baked gun-geeks. And yet they're not. Every year, more and more states "allow" the "marginally trained" (I have no state-mandated training at all, yet I carry legally) to bear arms, even to the movies and the May Co. -- and the aisles do not run with blood, nor do permit-carrying jihadists stand up and take such places over to promote their causes. Why do you think that is?

Do you suppose your theories about armed citizens might be a mildly out of alignment with the demonstrated reality?

If you cannot trust your fellows to be armed on an airplane, why would you trust them to bear arms in any other place? People do not suddenly become any less clever or careful when boarding a plane.

--Herself
_______________________
* Sounds like an oxymoron to me. The world's an imperfect place and a liberarian sociey would have a lot more room for imperfection than would an authoritarian one. That's good thing, not a bad thing. We're none of us perfect people. We'd be ill-suited to a perfect world.

AZLibertarian
January 31, 2006, 03:19 PM
So, in your conception of a "perfect, libertarian world,"* restauranteurs and airlines would be able to search our persons and we'd be obliged to stand there and take it? --Sound more like a statist's misconception of a coporate-dominated anarcho-capitalist society, IMO! Why's it any business of theirs what's in a purse or slung from a waistband or shoulder rig?Firstly, you mistake my analogy to restauranteurs. Many restaurants have dress codes. Enforcing a dress code does not mean that anyone has been searched.

And, no, you're not "obliged to stand there and take it". This is the essence of liberty. If I can't or won't abide by the dress code at a restaurant (or weapons code at an airline in a libertarian world), I'm quite free to take my business elsewhere. Liberty is not at all infringed upon.

Please explain how a private entity making decisions about conduct on his own private property is at all "statist". The government has nothing at all to do with the decision. And before I respond to "coporate-dominated anarcho-capitalist society", I have no idea what you mean here. Could you explain?


Again: so you conceive that the rights of the property-owner or his agent trump those of the peacable individual, even down to rights to self-defense and to personal privacy and security? On what basis? Really not followng your thinking on this.Rights conflict all the time, and I confess some surprise that we even have to talk about it here.

For example...This is The High Road. At the upper right of every THR page is a link to the Forum Rules. By participating here, you agree to these rules, which include limits on the topics and language used here. Oleg and the Moderators have every right to close threads or delete postings. This is their place--They have made and enforce the rules--If any of us are bothered by these limits, we can take our discussion elsewhere. Has Free Speech been infringed? No--because included in these rules is a note on Free Speech which includes the following......The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board....

So, to further answer your point...Yes: If a property owner announces a "No Weapons" policy, his rights as the property owner do "trump" the rights of a visiting individual to carry a means of self-defense. The property owner has made a calculated decision to limit "visitors'" behavior while on their property, and if one doesn't like these rules, he understands that you'll take your business elsewhere.

I'm puzzled that we understand and accept this concept when it comes to the First Amendment here at THR, but chafe at it when it might come to a private party limiting the Second.


You do not offer support for [the idea that airlines in a libertarian world would prohibit passengers from carrying their guns]. In fact, the societal perception of the "danger" from guns and gun-owners rather than the actual danger is what drives such rules and invasive searching. If more persons were more visibly armed and our socety was used to hat, we would have a lot less foolish disarming of peacable citizens by any group, business or governmental.Since I was talking about my view of a hypothetical libertarian world, of course I don't offer support. It is my view, and you're free to disagree with your own vision of your hypothetical world. I agree that society at large views guns as more dangerous than we do here, but that misses the point. Others are equally free to disagree with our view, and may impose restrictions on the behavior of visitors to their property.


If this is so, why is there not a correspondingly large "downside" in having "marginally trained (however earnest), yet armed" persons abroad in society under any other set of circumstances? --At a theatre, for example, or a crowded shopping mall? At a chuirch or on a bus? Under your reasoning, surely any "responsible" business or organization would be taking steps to disarm the dire menace of us half-baked gun-geeks. And yet they're not. Every year, more and more states "allow" the "marginally trained" (I have no state-mandated training at all, yet I carry legally) to bear arms, even to the movies and the May Co. -- and the aisles do not run with blood, nor do permit-carrying jihadists stand up and take such places over to promote their causes. Why do you think that is?Actually, there are some businesses (that I'm aware of) which do restrict firearms access. The laws in most CCW states have a means for a business to display a sign prohibiting weapons on their property. Here in Arizona, it is a rare gun shop which does not display a sign prohibiting loaded weapons. Some prohibit concealed weapons. In truth, to my experience, most businesses do not, on their own, restrict guns, but this is their decision to make, for their own reasons.

My "marginally trained" comment relates to the decision I would make (and I think that an airline management would make) regarding allowing CCW-holders to carry on a plane. The human density is far too great, the training of the average CCW holder is far too limited, and the consequences of poor shooting are far too great, for me to believe that an airline would allow CCWs on their property. Besides which, as I've said over and over here, allowing CCW holders to carry on a plane gives the terrorists a wide open access to repeat a 9/11 attack. As I showed here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2180119&postcount=109), CCW holders amount to a very small segment of our population. It is my view that CCW holders with the skills to do what would be necessary on a plane are even rarer.

And beyond the private property issue, I see a definite difference between CCW in places on the ground and in the air. Should a terrorist group decide to shoot up a movie theater or the May Company, just what would their further aim be? After they've killed their dozens in a movie theater, can they then move that theater someplace else to kill thousands elsewhere? The point of killing those on a plane is not just in their deaths, but to get control of what amounts to an assymetric WMD. Once they've shot up the May Company--they're done. Once they've shot up the cabin of a plane, they've only just begun.


Do you suppose your theories about armed citizens might be a mildly out of alignment with the demonstrated reality?As I see "demonstrated reality", most Americans (99%, by my math in the link above) don't choose to get a CCW. Most who do, don't practice. However, given this "reality", I believe that states which allow CCW have seen a decrease in crime, especially violent crime.


If you cannot trust your fellows to be armed on an airplane, why would you trust them to bear arms in any other place? People do not suddenly become any less clever or careful when boarding a plane.In truth, I don't fully trust CCW holders. I believe that most CCW holders don't carry their guns regularly, or even practice. There's no way to know, and your guess is as good as mine, but I'd bet that 90% of CCW holders shoot less than 200 rounds per year--far too little to consider themselves skilled. However, the consequence of this lack of skills in a restaurant or church shooting (where victims have an opportunity for escape and are at a much lower density than on a plane) is acceptable. On a plane, there is simply too much downside.

There is a difference between crime and terror. A crime is meant to victimize an individual. Terror seeks to intimidate a culture. If the likely target is a terror target, then allowing individuals to bring their weapons in is just asking for trouble. If the likely target is susceptible to crime, then allowing CCW holders to carry there is also OK with me. Next weekend, nobody's going to fly a terrorized church or restaurant into the Superbowl--so CCW (as a deterrent to crime) in the church or restaurant is fine with me. Conversely, nobody at the Superbowl should expect a mass armed-murder/robbery--so leaving the protection of the crowd at Ford Field to the LEOs is the best course.


_______________________
* Sounds like an oxymoron to me. The world's an imperfect place and a liberarian sociey would have a lot more room for imperfection than would an authoritarian one. That's good thing, not a bad thing. We're none of us perfect people. We'd be ill-suited to a perfect world.All true, until we start to talk about terror.

As with everything, YMMV.

Richard.Howe
January 31, 2006, 03:42 PM
Question:

If you cannot trust your fellows to be armed on an airplane, why would you trust them to bear arms in any other place?

Answer:

A few things happen all at the same time on an airplane:
1. High number of bystanders
2. High density of bystanders
3. Higher consequence of mistakes -- maybe a bit higher than in a bank or liquor store? Well, not if the store is filled with 200 people and flying at 38,000 feet I suppose...wonder if it gets cold up there?

ElTacoGrande
January 31, 2006, 04:52 PM
have civilians ever been able to carry guns on board commerical flights?
Absolutely! Why not? There ahve been civial commercial flights since the 30s. Gun control didn't really start to exist until the 60s (except the NFA which has nothing to do with this). "Security" screening probably started in the 70s I think? I'm not old enough to remember when screening was put in.

ElTacoGrande
January 31, 2006, 04:55 PM
my guess is that if the 1-2% of people who have CHLs are allowed to carry guns onto commercial flights, the other 98-99% of the population wouldn't step foot on an airplane. probably not a good idea for an industry barely staying afloat now.

I know for a fact that it is possible (with all the right connections) to get a CCW that lets someone fly on a plane, carry in any state, etc:

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2006/01/13/news/front.html

Essentially he was good enough friends with the sheriff that the sheriff gave him a paper which let him carry on planes.

Rumor is that a lot of Congressmen (including Sen. Feinstein) were in the Federal Marshalls program for similar reasons.

Herself
January 31, 2006, 07:49 PM
Question:
Quoting Herself:
If you cannot trust your fellows to be armed on an airplane, why would you trust them to bear arms in any other place? [pend quote]

Answer:
A few things happen all at the same time on an airplane:
1. High number of bystanders
2. High density of bystanders
3. Higher consequence of mistakes -- maybe a bit higher than in a bank or liquor store? Well, not if the store is filled with 200 people and flying at 38,000 feet I suppose...wonder if it gets cold up there?

1 and 2: more so in an airplane than in the other examples I cited? A theatre, a church, a city bus or a shopping mall during the holidays? Nope! Your first two objections are nonsense if you believe individual citizens should be allowed to bear arms at all. If you don't, well, it's been nice hearing from you but we're never going to find common ground. Have a nice day!

#3 is probably based on popular misconceptions about the effects of discharging a firearm on a passenger airplane.
Airplanes -- even the big pressurized ones -- do not blow up if a shot or twelve passes though the fuselage.
Jet fuel is not all that easy to ignite with ordinary bullets. It's along the general lines of diesel fuel or kerosene.
The odds of taking out both the pilot and the co-pilot with shots from a cabin are pretty low; low enough to not be significant.
The odds of taking out enough of the controls with stray shots to significantly endage passengers are also extremely low. Controls in passenger planes are highly redundant -- and the pilots are no slouches, either.
The odds of taking out other passengers aren't that large, either. Next time you fly, during the seat belts and oxygen mask lecture, imagine the flight attendant is a Bad Guy, and think where the round would go if you took a shot. Pretty much an upward path, the angle depending on if you were in an aisle seat or not.
Even if It Does All Go Horribly Wrong, tell me, would you rather:
A) Ride along while your jet takes out some juicy civilian-filled target hand-picked by the Bad Guys, or
B) Auger in at some random location in the US, with a high probability of avoiding densely-populated areas?
Either way, you'll be going home dead. How many other innocents need to die in order to gratify your fears of your fellow citizens? 100 on a plane, or 3,000 in an office building?

If you don't trust your fellow citizens to be armed on an airplane, you shouldn't trust them in similar circumstances either. It's just that simple. You're not going to get any deader at sabbath observances or seeing Kill Bill on the big screen than you could on flight 9999.

--Herself

Herself
January 31, 2006, 08:08 PM
Firstly, you mistake my analogy to restauranteurs. Many restaurants have dress codes. Enforcing a dress code does not mean that anyone has been searched.
Precisely. I missed not a whit of it, as you will presently see. But this will be brief, as I only have time for the high point just now.

I'm puzzled that we understand and accept this concept when it comes to the First Amendment here at THR, but chafe at it when it might come to a private party limiting the Second.
This is revealing. How is a weapon under my top or stowed in my purse like shouting "theatre" at a crowded fire?
It isn't.
A concealed weapon is like an unexpressed thought.
It is a private matter.
The thought only becomes public when uttered. The weapon only becomes public if taken out.

You would have me believe that an eatery's dress code could regulate, not my outer attire, but my underthings!

They can put up "No Weapons" signs all they like; in my state -- and in any state with an honest understanding of the actual power of such signage -- all those signs mean is "We Will Throw You Out (or call the cops, etc.) If We See Your Weapon."

I can sit in the movies and think "Fire" all I like. --Heck, I can even yell it aloud! I'll face consequences if I share my thought, perhaps very bad ones.

I can carry a pack of cigarettes into the cinema, and a lighter as well. I can think about smoking. (I can do the same in a diner's no smoking section, too). I will only face consequences if I light up.

Starting to see a pattern?

I can carry my sidearm, too. As long as I keep it out of sight, that's fine. Some places, perhap[s most places in these sad days, there will be consequences if I draw, let alone fire -- so I am careful to not do so unless the consequences of not drawing my weapon are even worse!


My Second Amendment rights work just like my First Amendment rights and so do yours. I can't sit in the doctor's waiting room reading "Staggering Stories of Preversion Illustrated" (yeeeech) and I cannot proselytize for my religious faith (Church of KYFO) there, nor can I sit there and clean my gun. But I can carry a lurid magazine if I keep it out of sight; I can pray to myself if I am moved to do so; and I can carry my weapon.

--Herself

AZLibertarian
January 31, 2006, 10:51 PM
...How is a weapon under my top or stowed in my purse like shouting "theatre" at a crowded fire?
It isn't.
A concealed weapon is like an unexpressed thought.
It is a private matter.
The thought only becomes public when uttered. The weapon only becomes public if taken out.

You would have me believe that an eatery's dress code could regulate, not my outer attire, but my underthings!I would have you believe nothing of the sort. A restaurant may regulate outer wear, and to do so does not constitute a search (which was your earlier comparison). A concealed weapon knowingly taken into a place is not just a private matter. The owners of that place have, for their own reasons, decided that they do not want firearms on their premises. We ought to allow them that priviledge, even if we disagree with it. To help them understand the error of their thinking, I choose to simply take my business elsewhere. Why patronize someone who would restrict your rights?

They can put up "No Weapons" signs all they like; in my state -- and in any state with an honest understanding of the actual power of such signage -- all those signs mean is "We Will Throw You Out (or call the cops, etc.) If We See Your Weapon." You're right that carrying a weapon into a place which prohibits them is, for the most part, child's play. And you're also right that as a practical matter, if that weapon is discovered, the worst that is likely to happen is that you'll be asked to leave. However, I think you have started down a very slippery slope. It appears that you are endorsing the idea that we may pick and choose which laws we should abide by. Technically, someone who has knowingly taken a weapon past a "No Weapons" sign has broken the law. I can't endorse that, however much I may disagree with these policies.

I can sit in the movies and [think "Fire" all I like. --Heck, I can even yell it aloud! I'll face consequences if I share my thought, perhaps very bad ones.

I can carry a pack of cigarettes into the cinema, and a lighter, too. I can think about smoking. (I can do the same in a diner's no smoking section, too). I will only face consequences if I light up.

Starting to see a pattern?

I can carry my sidearm, too. As long as I keep it out of sight, that's fine. Some place, they will be consequences if I draw, let alone fire -- so I am careful to not do so nless the consequences of not drawing my weapon are even worse! As long as there are no laws or owner's policies regulating your ability to think "Fire" while in a theater, or prohibiting the presence of tobacco on the private property, you're right. But your pattern falls apart when you connect these to "No Weapons" policies. They are not just "No Visible Weapons" or "No Weapons Unless Something Dangerous Happens" policies. "No Weapons" means just that.


My Second Amendment rights work just like my First Amendment rights and so do yours. I can't sit in the doctor's waiting room reading "Staggering Stories of Preversion Illustrated" (yeeeech) and I cannot proselytize for my religious faith (Church of KYFO) there, nor can I sit there and clean my gun. But I can carry a lurid magazine if I keep it out of sight; I can pray to myself if I am moved to do so; and I can carry my weapon. Again, you miss the point. As long as there are no laws prohibiting the mere possession of lurid magazines, or silent prayer, you're OK. But most states do have laws which allow private property owners to ban the possession of firearms on their property. Live within the law, or not. I'll choose the former.

Gatman
January 31, 2006, 11:18 PM
I am all for it. However I do not feel that TSA should have control. It should be regulated to the state of the permit holder.

On that note I also feel that it should be up to the individual airline to allow CCW on their flights. If they do I do not feel they should be responsible for the CCW personsa actions. Even if a terrorists gets on board and tries something. They did not necessarily know the terrorist was coming on board so they should not be held responsible for that guys actions either. If the CCWer has to fire and misses hitting an innocent civilian they shall be held responsible for their shots.

Overall I think in a decent world we wouldnt need to CCW on airplanes. In an even better world we wouldnt even need to CCW. In the best world there would not even be a need for defensive firearms. However since none of those things exist we will have to make do.

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 03:34 AM
Absolutely! Why not? There ahve been civial commercial flights since the 30s. Gun control didn't really start to exist until the 60s (except the NFA which has nothing to do with this). "Security" screening probably started in the 70s I think? I'm not old enough to remember when screening was put in.

Actually, I just read an article that mentioned screening/metal detectors started in 1973, apparently in reaction to a bunch of hijackings (to cuba mostly?) in the 60's and early 70's. I don't know if it was ok to bring a gun on a plane before that and there just wasn't any screening.

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 03:38 AM
If you don't trust your fellow citizens to be armed on an airplane, you shouldn't trust them in similar circumstances either. It's just that simple. You're not going to get any deader at sabbath observances or seeing Kill Bill on the big screen than you could on flight 9999.

--Herself


A church and a commercial 747 is the same thing? You must see the difference between four guys with box cutters on a commercial airplane on 9/11 versus four guys with box cutters walking into a shopping mall?

Herself
February 1, 2006, 04:17 AM
I had written "...you would have me believe that a restaurant's dress code could dictate not only my outerwear but my underthings..."
I would have you believe nothing of the sort. A restaurant may regulate outer wear, and to do so does not constitute a search (which was your earlier comparison). A concealed weapon knowingly taken into a place is not just a private matter.
Not only do I disagree profoundly with your line of thinking, it appears to be following the modern fallacy that a gun is a bad thing in and of itself. A concealed weapon threatens no one and offends no manners.

[/quote] The owners of that place have, for their own reasons, decided that they do not want firearms on their premises. We ought to allow them that priviledge, even if we disagree with it.[/quote]
...And if they don't want black lace panties worn in their establishment, should I remove mine, even though they would never be seen under ordinary circumstances?

No, you are in error. A property owner may set limits to visible behavior. He cannot -- literally cannot -- control that which is not seen.

To help them understand the error of their thinking, I choose to simply take my business elsewhere. Why patronize someone who would restrict your rights?
Because they aren't restricting my right to carry concealed, no more than they are "restricting" my right to be an atheist or wear a floral-print thong. They are merely restricting my sharing information about any of those things with others while on their property.

You're right that carrying a weapon into a place which prohibits them is, for the most part, child's play. And you're also right that as a practical matter, if that weapon is discovered, the worst that is likely to happen is that you'll be asked to leave. However, I think you have started down a very slippery slope. It appears that you are endorsing the idea that we may pick and choose which laws we should abide by.
The whims of a property-owner are not the laws of the land. (Texas and Ohio will have to fend for themselves, until they ditch their invasive an unconstitutional posting laws). Don't confuse the two. Wal-Mart and Joe's Bar are just folks like you and me unless they're paying us to play by their rules.

Technically, someone who has knowingly taken a weapon past a "No Weapons" sign has broken the law. I can't endorse that, however much I may disagree with these policies.
Only in states with the kind of posting laws in re the carraige of weapons; in Indiana and many other states, such signs are merely a request you keep your sideam out of sight -- and I am happy to comply. In Indiana, this is a matter of established precedent.

It is also a matter of Federal Law that any law contrary to the Constitution is, in fact, no law at all. That one has to be fought out before the courts to make happen, I admit.

As long as there are no laws or owner's policies regulating your ability to think "Fire" while in a theater,
No, wrong. This is basic natura law stuff: an individual's thoughs are inherently free from compulsion. No law or policy can keep me from thinking thoughts of any sort. How could any such thing be enforced, anyway? Telepathic Brazilian jujitsu ninjas? Poppycock!
or prohibiting the presence of tobacco on the private property, you're right.
Wrong again -- I can have a pack of Salems in my purse (yeech. I have not smoked in years and not tempted now) no matter what kind of "no smoking/no tobacco" rule prevails: I just can't get them out.
But your pattern falls apart when you connect these to "No Weapons" policies. They are not just "No Visible Weapons" or "No Weapons Unless Something Dangerous Happens" policies. "No Weapons" means just that.
I disagree. To agree is to buy into "guns = evil." To agree is to give firearms some magic badness-seeking power. It's bilge. The potential to do harm does not imply that harm must be done. Danger is all around you, under the often limited control of your fellows. Hadn't we better fret over what they may do with cars, lead-acid batteries or MAPP-gas torches, if we're going to be so bothered by guns?

Again, you miss the point. As long as there are no laws prohibiting the mere possession of lurid magazines, or silent prayer, you're OK. But most states do have laws which allow private property owners to ban the possession of firearms on their property. Live within the law, or not. I'll choose the former.
Not "most states," only a few; and basic human rights aren't under the control of the majority. (That's why there's a Bill of Rights, you know, to mark certain rights "hands off!" Didn't work so well but that was the aim).

The mere possession of firearms, alcohol, tobacco, potable water, bars of gold or whatever is not bad in and of itself; it is "bad" only becuase some addled rule or law may make it so.


The gun you keep concealed and under your control is precisely the same as no gun at all as far as the property-owner is concerned. --And I feel no need at all to obey any silly rule from some business or othe property owner that requres me to disarm myself. They usually have taken no effort to provide me comparable protection!

As do you, I avoid such businesses whenever possible; but when I must deal with them, I carry with a clear conscience.


Can't help but notice you've shifted from doubting the competence of others with arms to defending the property-owner's right of selective exclusion, even when the excluding factor is not visible. Is it both, just the one -- or is it a matter of seizing any excuse to control the actions of other adults with respect to firearms?

--Herself

Herself
February 1, 2006, 04:19 AM
A church and a commercial 747 is the same thing? You must see the difference between four guys with box cutters on a commercial airplane on 9/11 versus four guys with box cutters walking into a shopping mall?
In terms of danger to me and what may be reasonably done to stop them? Nope! --Though some might reasonably argue that it's worth a greate risk to bystanders to take your "four guys" down on an airplane, it being so much more difficul to crash a shopping center into things.

--H

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 05:17 AM
In terms of danger to me and what may be reasonably done to stop them? Nope! --Though some might reasonably argue that it's worth a greate risk to bystanders to take your "four guys" down on an airplane, it being so much more difficul to crash a shopping center into things.

--H

I didn't have you specifically in mind. I meant in terms of as a society, is it more dangerous to allow weapons on airplanes than it is to allow them at the mall, and the answer is 'yes'. That's why, as a society, we don't allow people to carry their guns onto commercial airliners.

BTW, anyone want to compare the number of hijackings pre-1973 when it was apparently ok for everyone to bring guns onto planes and post-1973 when screening began? That might be enlightening.

SMMAssociates
February 1, 2006, 06:08 AM
Seems to me that a major change has to be made in the way we think about hijackings since 9/11....

In the past, aircraft were destroyed on the ground if they weren't just returned, and while there was some loss of life, I guess one could say that it was tolerable. In short, "give them the aircraft"....

After 9/11, giving up the aircraft became intolerable, although a bunch of blissninnies may not have yet firgured out how to avoid it. The idea that casualties will have to be accepted - everybody on the plane - in order to avoid some sort of World Trade Center disaster is now central.

On that basis, does it really matter who's carrying?

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 06:14 AM
On that basis, does it really matter who's carrying?


Given a choice between only one person being armed onboard, a Federal Air Marshall, or an unknown number of people carrying guns onboard, you're not sure it matters? One scenario doesn't sound safer to you than the other?

Herself
February 1, 2006, 09:10 AM
I didn't have you specifically in mind. I meant in terms of as a society, is it more dangerous to allow weapons on airplanes than it is to allow them at the mall, and the answer is 'yes'. That's why, as a society, we don't allow people to carry their guns onto commercial airliners.
Would you explain again why it is more dangerous to have concealed weapons on an airplane than at the mall? I'm not seeing it.

BTW, it isn't "society" that won't allow private citizens to bear of arms on commercial aircraft, it is the government and the airlines. If The FAA had their way, pilots wouldn't be armed, either. This is clearly a widespread effort to deprive peaceable citizens on their civil rights.

It's not "society" that carries guns, either. It is individuals. Those individuals are demonstrably not more dangerous than the unarmed; you can compare gun death stats on a state-by-state basis at CDC and see for yourself.

Having us dreadful amateur gunnies carrying on the ground doesn't result in rivers of blood and does dissuade some bad guys, usually without a shot being fired.

Based on results in states allowing CCW, having us mostly untrained gun nuts carrying guns on airplanes is unlikely to result in more deaths and could result in fewer if there is a hijacking attempt. The trade-off here is possibly losing a planeload of people ibstead of a skyscraper full plus a planeload. Sure, it would be ever so nice if nobody died, but that's probably not an option.

So the question is, how many people need to die in order to satisfy your need to feel safe: a hundred or so on a plane, or an additional 3,000 in a building?

BTW, anyone want to compare the number of hijackings pre-1973 when it was apparently ok for everyone to bring guns onto planes and post-1973 when screening began? That might be enlightening.
Pre-1973, it wasn't okay to carry concealed in most states. The Indiana-to-Vermont air routes weren't especially busy, if they existed at all.

The hijacking of airplanes has never been a common occurrance. You are in more danger driving to work. And yet, somehow, you bear up easily, despite the vast number of us driving with a gun ready to hand. Shouldn't you be more worried? My goodness me, just ask the Brady folks and they'll tell you....

If you fall for blissninny thinking in the air, why not fall for it on the ground, too? You cannot have it both ways.

--Herself

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 09:29 AM
Would you explain again why it is more dangerous to have concealed weapons on an airplane than at the mall? I'm not seeing it.


Well, again, four guys with box cutters in a mall versus four guys with box cutters on a 747. It's more dangerous to have weapons on a commercial airliner than at the mall.


BTW, it isn't "society" that won't allow private citizens to bear of arms on commercial aircraft, it is the government and the airlines. If The FAA had their way, pilots wouldn't be armed, either. This is clearly a widespread effort to deprive peaceable citizens on their civil rights.


I would call the government and private business "society". I don't see it as a conspiracy. Again, outside of gun message boards, IMO not even 1% of society would want weapons carried onto commercial flights.


Pre-1973, it wasn't okay to carry concealed in most states. The Indiana-to-Vermont air routes weren't especially busy, if they existed at all.

But Pre-1973 there was no screening of weapons on airline flights. Which means there could be guns onboard. From 1968-1972 there were 130 hijackings in the US. After the screenings were put into place, from 1973-1977, there was 1. Let's recap, with guns 130 hijackings. Without guns 1.

usa today article on screening/hijackings (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/airline-safety-timeline.htm)


If you fall for blissninny thinking in the air, why not fall for it on the ground, too? You cannot have it both ways.

I can and do have it both ways. You can carry a concealed gun, but not on an airplane.

Herself
February 1, 2006, 10:03 AM
Well, again, four guys with box cutters in a mall versus four guys with box cutters on a 747. It's more dangerous to have weapons on a commercial airliner than at the mall.
Repeated assertion is not proof. Explain why you believe it to be more dangerous, or admit that it is simply your unsupported opinion. It is okay to have feelings and notions. It is not okay to pretend that they are objective facts.

...And if it is more dangerous to have such men so armed on an airplane than on the ground, is that not more reason to support the bearing of arms by private citizens aboard commercial flights?

I would call the government and private business "society". Really? And the individual citizen, what do he and his fellows comprise? "Food," perhaps? "Cannon-fodder?" "Subjects?"
I don't see it as a conspiracy. Indeed? There they are, government and private business, working to violate one of your basic rights, and that's not "criminal conspiracy?"
Again, outside of gun message boards, IMO not even 1% of society would want weapons carried onto commercial flights.
Even if "society" happened to be more than merely "government and private business," it wouldn't matter; human rights were deliberately set outside the whim of the majority by the Bill of Rights.
If only "1% of society" happened to believe in some religious faith and the rest of society thought it was wrong, would the 99% be morally justified in crushing the right of that 1% to worship as they saw fit?

But Pre-1973 there was no screening of weapons on airline flights. Which means there could be guns onboard. From 1968-1972 there were 130 hijackings in the US. After the screenings were put into place, from 1973-1977, there was 1. Let's recap, with guns 130 hijackings. Without guns 1.
However, in 1973 and earlier, most states did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons at all. No guns could be carried into the airport in most states and no guns could be carried off the plane in most destination states, therefore no guns could be carried on the plane. If you cannot get 'em there and can't have 'em after you're off, you can't have them there.

Nor can you compare hijackings (especially in the U.S.) pre-1973 to the more recent ones: a trip to Cuba does not pose the same risk to passengers and targets as does a trip into the side of a building at a high rate of speed with nearly full fuel tanks. Not the same game at all.

The Israelis had fewer hijackings after they started putting armed guards on all flights. Worked about as well as passenger screenings, and against foes more dangerous than the hijackers we were facing in the States 30+ years back.


I can and do have it both ways. You can carry a concealed gun, but not on an airplane.
You are nevetheless logically inconsistent; all you are really after is to feel more safe. You will actually be less safe, but because you are buying into the "guns are BAAAAAD" propaganda, you are trapped into illogic and emotion.

--Herself

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 10:04 AM
as long as neither one of us can carry a gun onto an airliner, I'm willing to just agree to disagree

Herself
February 1, 2006, 10:11 AM
Billmanweh, I'm not --I am working to change that dreadful state of affairs. As long as peaceable citizens are debarred the carrying of arms on airplanes, I will speak out.

And as long as even gunnies -- of whom I expect more common sense! -- parrot the propaganda of the left-wing press and blind authoritarians in office, I will debate them.

"Declare victory and go home" all you like; you're still on the side of the immoral and the gun-grabbers on this issue, and you are willing to allow innocent little children and their mothers and fathers to die at the hands of suicidal hijackers just so you won't have to worry about those awful, awful guns and the ill-bred louts that tote them when you take the SF-to-Boston redeye.

--Herself

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 10:14 AM
Billmanweh, I'm not --I am working to change that dreadful state of affairs. As long as peaceable citizend are debarred the carrying of arms on airplanes, I willspeak out.



good luck with that

Herself
February 1, 2006, 10:20 AM
Originally Posted by Herself:
"As long as peaceable citizens are debarred the carrying of arms on airplanes, I will speak out."
good luck with that

Not content with attacking the Second Amendment, now you're going after the First as well, are you?

Good luck with that.

Oh, I do take a gun with me when I fly, by the way. Ponder that.
:D
--H

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 10:22 AM
safe and sound in your checked baggage I hope?

:)

1911 guy
February 1, 2006, 11:28 AM
If I ever have the misfortune to be on a plane that is hijacked, I sincerely hope my fellow passenger is Herself, rather than Billmanweh.

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 12:18 PM
If I ever have the misfortune to be on a plane that is hijacked, I sincerely hope my fellow passenger is Herself, rather than Billmanweh.


If the plane is hijacked, I also hope it's the two of you and not me. Maybe you can borrow a gun off of one of the hijackers.

:rolleyes:

1911 guy
February 1, 2006, 12:27 PM
While not likely to succede, it beats having to work around obstactles that insist the nanny in DC will protect them. Ever heard that it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees? I consider being forced to conform to others ideals that make me and my family vulnerable an attemt to force me to my knees. That's why I'm driving my wife and son to Phoenix this April. I can be the barrier between them and things that go bump in the night. What do I do on a plane? Wish the hijackers had listened to Billmanweh?

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 12:40 PM
have civilians ever been able to carry guns on board commerical flights?

Yes actually. Remember that there wasn't screening for any weapons until hijackings became all the rage. No metal detectors, no bag searches.

As for the argument "well no one carried then because there were no permits" that's hogwash. In most states, up until the 50's or so, people were VERY rarely arrested for carrying a concealed weapon illegally. Again it was just a "don't ask don't tell" kind of thing. Law Enforcement did not have the same kind of distrust of "us civilians" as they do now.

They sold shoulder holsters to people besides law enforcement before there was concealed carry in lots of states. What do you suppose those were used for?

I have a copy of some CAA (precursor to FAA) regs from the 50's and there is not one rule about knives or firearms or lighters. Back then no one thought to ask because that kind of invasion of privacy was just rude.

BTW, anyone want to compare the number of hijackings pre-1973 when it was apparently ok for everyone to bring guns onto planes and post-1973 when screening began? That might be enlightening.

So it was the hijackings that started the screenings but the biggest fear was bombs not firearms. There were few hijackings before 1973 domestically, and anyone could have a gun.

The first major "hijacking" was November 1, 1955. This was a bomb in the luggage, not a gun.

Nothing again until February 21, 1968 and this was a flight that originated in Cuba and was hijacked to Miami. None of the passengers would have had guns anyway, they were Cuban citizens and that government does not allow guns.

Then the big rash of flights leaving Miami and hijacked to Cuba began. In the late 60's there was a rash of these. Most were done WITHOUT firearms, just the threat of a bomb on board somewhere.
In general the thinking was, and it turned out to be true domestically, that if you complied with the demands no one would be hurt.

After that we have lots of hijackings overseas, but we're talking about domestic flights here since we're talking state issued CCW permits.

Then 9/11. Now we know that compliance will get you killed. If there had been someone carrying concealed on those flights it's entirely possible we would have a very different history.

It is the bad guys that have changed everyones' attitudes, not the good guys.

American Airlines used to provide LARGE steak knives for the Filet Mignon served in First Class.

In fact, if you will remember, the banning of smoking on planes is a recent development also. Just since the 70's.

I just can't see any difference in me carrying concealed on a plane to Miami as me sitting in a crowded restaurant on Saturday night.

If I need to use my weapon, the same problems exist as far as hitting bystanders etc.

There certainly isn't going to be any kind of "explosive decompression". That crap only happens in the movies. Airliners have redundant flight control systems so even if you shoot a hydraulic line or wiring bundle the plane isn't going to come crashing down.

Given the number of carry permit holders vs total population, I've seen the number of 1%, maybe 2% of the popluation can carry legally anyway.

Carry that number to a flight. So if we say the same number of people carry, 1%, that means that on a normal domestic flight we can guess around 150 people depending on the airline and equipment used.

That means one, maybe 2 people would be armed. This is the same as the crowded restaurant from earlier.

Given all we know about CCW's effect on crime (read some John Lott) there is no reason we could not extrapolate the same crime inhibiting results to air travel.

From there if we take into account that this already VERY low number of concealed carriers rarely use their firearms, I'd guess you might see a firearm discharged on a flight what, once every 3 years or so?

I just don't see how carrying on a plane is ANY different than carrying anywhere else.

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 12:57 PM
I'm not trying to debate this really. I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's mind. If you think you should be able to carry on a plane more power to you. I just think the very idea is just ridiculous.

When guns weren't kept off of planes there were hijackings by the hundreds and since the screening was put in place there's one a decade. And we want to go back to allowing guns on planes why again? So there might be one CHL holder onboard that can engage the hijackers in a gunfight? I'd rather focus our energy towards not letting potential hijackers carry guns onboard. That way I can read or take a nap on my flight.

I mean, is it reasonable to keep a CHL holder from carrying anywhere? A tour of the White House, a prison, anyplace?

Herself
February 1, 2006, 01:00 PM
1911 Guy: Hooray! I hope we're both there, if either of us has to be. But if I had my druthers I'd never have to.
Kudos to TexasSIGman as well. For a little while I was strstin' to wonder if I was alone on this. I should have known better.


Billmanweh: You have no need to know where and how I carry my sidearm. Should the occasion arise, you will be in no doubt. The odds of that happening while you and I are in eyesight of one another are very small.

If a plane either of us is on is hijacked, you can do as you like, but me and those who think like me -- those of us who can do the math -- will be takin' down the hijackers by any means. And if that means going home in a box or not being left in pieces large enough to ID, I'm okay with that.
The stakes were raised when the bad guys decided planes make good missles. In that circumstance, you are already as good as dead; your only choice is how many others will die if you do nothing.
If I have to go in barehanded or armed with only a knitting needle, I'll do that, but I will keep on pressing for my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

--Herself

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 01:01 PM
When guns weren't kept off of planes there were hijackings by the hundreds and since the screening was put in place there's one a decade.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. There were 5 maybe 6 DOMESTIC hijackings and the majority of these used threats of bombs not firearms.

We are not talking about the international flights that originate outside the US. Those passengers don't live in countries where there is CCW anyway so it wouldn't matter.

We are talking domestic originating and ending flights. The number of hijackings like that have been relatively few until 9/11.

And yes, there have not been any more since then so you can certainly argue that it's not necessary for anyone to carry on a plane. But it's not the "necessity" that bothers me, it's the thought that my rights are different in one place than another. That just confuses me.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 01:03 PM
I mean, is it reasonable to keep a CHL holder from carrying anywhere? A tour of the White House, a prison, anyplace?

Well, I toured the State Capitol building in Texas carrying. No one shot the governor while I was there. I asked the DPS agent at the door if it was OK that I was carrying and he said "Sure, enjoy your tour".

Teachers can't carry in schools, we see lots of school shootings....
Postal employees can't carry in the Post Office, they get shot regularly....

I don't see the connection between legal concealed carriers and these crimes.

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 01:04 PM
but I will keep on pressing for my Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.


Do just that, I don't care. Somehow I've somehow given the impression that I'm debating here. I believe that I'm right and I don't care to change your opinion, so that doesn't make for much of a debate.

:)

Herself
February 1, 2006, 01:05 PM
I mean, is it reasonable to keep a CHL holder from carrying anywhere? A tour of the White House, a prison, anyplace?
No. If you cannot trust a person to be armed in one place, why should you trust them to be armed in another place? And vice versa: if I can be trusted to carry a gun, I can be trusted to carry a gun, period. Do you believe the location makes the person?

...Of course persons who have been imprisoned for crimes have demonstrated they can't be trusted to refrain from initiating force against others and thus they are disarmed; but even those efforts, under very controlled circumstances, are far from successful. That should be telling you something about disarming the law-abiding and how that give the advantage to the lawless.

--H

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 01:09 PM
I'm sorry, but that is just not true. There were 5 maybe 6 DOMESTIC hijackings and the majority of these used threats of bombs not firearms.

We are not talking about the international flights that originate outside the US. Those passengers don't live in countries where there is CCW anyway so it wouldn't matter.

We are talking domestic originating and ending flights. The number of hijackings like that have been relatively few until 9/11.


I don't know for sure, I was quoting the article from USA Today. I just don't see how it would matter where the flight originated from. If there were 130 hijackings before the screening was in place and 1 after I'd say that's significant.

Herself
February 1, 2006, 01:10 PM
Do just that, I don't care. Somehow I've somehow given the impression that I'm debating here. I believe that I'm right and I don't care to change your opinion, so that doesn't make for much of a debate.

:)
You keep on replying, so it certainly looks as if you're wanting to debate.

...But you're right, you are not debating. If you were, you would be offering facts and logic in support of your position, and those have been largely lacking from your comments.

Have a nce day!

--H

ElTacoGrande
February 1, 2006, 01:14 PM
safe and sound in your checked baggage I hope?

:)

This is nonsense. There ARE permits to CCW on planes and sheriffs can and do issue them:

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2006/01/13/news/front.html

This guy got his permit just because he was a good buddy of the sheriff. He has no more need than any of us, just a lot better connections.

Any sworn officer of the Department of Agriculture or any Washington DCer who has the connections to be a US Marshall or any yokel with a "must be armed 24x7" letter from his local sheriff can pack on planes. These people are no better qualified, trained, or safe than you or me.

As for the argument "well no one carried then because there were no permits" that's hogwash. In most states, up until the 50's or so, people were VERY rarely arrested for carrying a concealed weapon illegally. Again it was just a "don't ask don't tell" kind of thing. Law Enforcement did not have the same kind of distrust of "us civilians" as they do now.

You should say "white people were very rarely arrested for CCW". It was a "don't ask white people" policy. I'm sure a bunch of people carried back then. It's the same in Europe now, I believe. One of the great things about CCW reform is that one of the last institutions of Jim Crow has crumbled.

Anyway, your point is right: people certain could and did carry on planes. One reason why hijackings happened despite having armed passengers was that passengers probably didn't get started in gunfights, even though they could have.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 01:19 PM
I don't know for sure, I was quoting the article from USA Today. I just don't see how it would matter where the flight originated from. If there were 130 hijackings before the screening was in place and 1 after I'd say that's significant.

Well it matters where the flight originated because we're trying to make a tie in to whether concealed carry might have helped or be warranted.

If these flights originated in a place where no one could own a gun anyway then it doesn't really matter.

When talking about domestic flights, specifically the 9/11 types of hijackings then you can say that concealed carriers might have made a difference.

It is possible that there would have been a carrier on one of those flights who had to disarm. It is also possible that if someone on those flights was carrying concealed it might have changed the ending.

You can't argue that a flight originating in England might have had a concealed carrier on board.

So, carrying on domestic flights can arguably have a positive impact, just like carrying anywhere else.

SMMAssociates
February 1, 2006, 01:20 PM
Given a choice between only one person being armed onboard, a Federal Air Marshall, or an unknown number of people carrying guns onboard, you're not sure it matters? One scenario doesn't sound safer to you than the other?I don't think it really matters....

If some BG is going to try to grab the aircraft, he'll be stopped. End of problem....

AD/NAD issues and popping somebody who gets up to use the restroom at the wrong time are another story, but we live with that already.

The issue is that the hijackers can no longer be allowed to take control of the aircraft, regardless of the cost.

A situation where there are one or two Federal Air Marshalls (who used to be painfully visible and thus pretty easy to take out) v.s. a half-dozen or more BGs, doesn't inspire my confidence at all. OTOH, the hijackers likely reaction to the possibility that an unknown number of passengers might be armed should be to go find another venue.

This happened in Israel a few years ago. A group of undesireables decided to shoot up a bus, and quite a few were sent to Allah for their trouble. The survivors later complained that "they had no idea the people on the bus were armed." (Of course the good folks in the US managing Greyhound feel that nobody on busses should be armed either.... Makes you wonder who's side they're on.)

So if the airline can't guarantee that absolutely nobody on the flight will be armed (Feds excepted), then I'd prefer to be....

I have a friend who carried an S&W M36 through security at the Reno NV Airport a few years ago. No "intent" at all. He just happened to have it on his ankle, and the detector didn't see it. (No foul - working LEO; he could have badged his way through on that visit 'cause he wasn't a passenger.)

I got through one at PIT about 18 years ago because I had my then-tiny daughter in my arms. No gun (I ain't that crazy), but the thing was beeping like crazy. As a computer consultant, I carry my "office" with me - several screwdrivers, flashlights, pager, cellphone, PDA (more recently), etc. It always takes me five minutes to get through the detectors. "Keep it moving!" was the response....

El Al is the only airline I'd really trust.... Their security setup is such that you really have to want to make the flight.... I think I'd get cranked off and leave....

So, on the basis that the folks on the aircraft when a hijacking starts are expendable, no, it doesn't matter who's carrying. We're all dead anyway unless somebody gets lucky. The only positive result that we could expect would be Shanksville PA instead of Washington DC....

(Flight 93 more or less passed over my house that morning.... Some kind of miracle that plane found an empty lot....)

In all seriousness, the odds that another 9/11 with aircraft would be attempted are kind of poor. Not impossible, and a hell of a PR win for the BG's, but still unlikely. A Cessna into a natural gas storage area makes more sense, or some other "small craft" attack, simply because the whole field is unregulated and probably unregulateable in this sense.

Regards,

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 01:27 PM
Well it matters where the flight originated because we're trying to make a tie in to whether concealed carry might have helped or be warranted.

Again, I'm trying to argue the point. But wherever the 130 flights originated, I think the point is that the passengers weren't screened and either guns and bombs were allowed onboard. If a hijacker could bring a gun onboard, couldn't a non-hijacker? Between screening for weapons and bombs and not screening for weapons and bombs, I'm going to take the latter. Maybe I'm being unreasonable.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 01:28 PM
If a hijacker could bring a gun onboard, couldn't a non-hijacker?


Well that's sort of the definition of "criminal" isn't it?

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 01:29 PM
Well that's sort of the definition of "criminal" isn't it?


I'm just saying that if there was no screening, couldn't both bad guys and good guys have potentially brought guns on board?

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 01:31 PM
I'm just saying that if there was no screening, couldn't both bad guys and good guys have potentially brought guns on board?

And I'm just saying that only criminals violate the law, whether there is screening for it or not.

The law restricting carry was in place before the actual screening began.

I might not LIKE the fact that I can't carry into my son's school, but I don't carry there because I am not a criminal.

Billmanweh
February 1, 2006, 01:36 PM
And I'm just saying that only criminals violate the law, whether there is screening for it or not.

The law restricting carry was in place before the actual screening began.

I might not LIKE the fact that I can't carry into my son's school, but I don't carry there because I am not a criminal.


I'm sorry, you lost me.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 01:47 PM
I'm sorry, you lost me.

Ahh, me too :)

Anyway....

I know Bill personally and I can promise he is not anti in ANY way.

I think the argument for and against carrying on planes could be argued either way.

The idea that all some terrorist has to do is be good for a couple of years then pass a CCW background check is valid. I think that's the point that if you allow CCW holders you give the terrorists a possible avenue to get a gun on a plane.

We will never know however since there's no way in *%*%* it's ever going to happen.

I'm more concerned with the interference being run to stop pilots from being armed in the cockpit, which though legal, has run into way too many roadblocks.

I'd rather start the fight with that one first since it has a remote chance of happening.

Herself
February 1, 2006, 01:56 PM
...And once the laws were passed, the bad guys could act, secure in the knowledge that no law-abiding person would be armed.
It's the same reason schools and postal facilities get shot up: the shooter knows there's no armed citizen there who can shoot back!

Laws limiting the carrying of weapons only disarm the law-abiding. Laws and screening only disarm the law-abiding and the less-clever of the bad guys.

However, "peaceable" and "law-abiding" are not necessarily the same thing.

Further, deponent sayeth not.

--H

Ezekiel
February 1, 2006, 02:06 PM
If so, then you are familiar with the concept of "pot odds."

Quite simply, airline travel is well known as the safest method of transportation in the world. There is a much greater probability that I will be safest leaving things as they are as opposed to offering every knee-jerk and pseudo-Rambo yokel open access to the use of a .357 Magnum in a pressurized closet.

In the previous thread dating back to July, some wiseass spoke about imagining a scene wherein a terrorist does his little yell and is confronted by 300 armed passengers who thusly subdue him. "That's crap." What you'll get is a wicked crossfire from idiots, likely doing more damage then a single -- or group -- of terrorists could wreak against even an unarmed majority.

"Pot odds" squarely place my vote in the "Hell no, I don't want CCW in the air." The vast majority of our populace act like dumbasses on the ground: I don't need them adversely affecting my safety at 40,000 feet.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 02:16 PM
"Pot odds" squarely place my vote in the "Hell no, I don't want CCW in the air." The vast majority of our populace act like dumbasses on the ground: I don't need them adversely affecting my safety at 40,000 feet.

And again, if 1 MAYBE 2 percent of the total population has a CCW, you're not going to get a plane FULL of them.

While it IS true that the vast majoroty of our populace act like dumbasses on the ground, they don't all have carry permits.

Your odds making should tell you that.
The odds say you will have 1 maybe 2 people on board with a CCW even if it was allowed.

Same as you'd get in a crowded restaurant on a Saturday night.

Although there are many GOOD agrments against CCW on a commercial flight, worrying about shootouts at 40,000 feet isn't one of them.

The blood was going to flow in the streets in Florida, Texas and other states too remember?

AZLibertarian
February 1, 2006, 02:39 PM
I had written "...you would have me believe that a restaurant's dress code could dictate not only my outerwear but my underthings..."Since you're having trouble seeing what you wrote, here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2208604&postcount=64) is a link to your own words where you compare restaurant dress codes to "searches". You won't have to look far--your words are in your first sentence.

Clearly, restaurant dress codes are not searches; they are widely accepted; government has nothing to do with them; and if you refuse to abide by them, the restauranteur can have you removed for trespassing. The restauranteur has every right to set the atmosphere on his property in whatever way he likes.

A private property owner may also ban weapons for any reason. When he does so, he does so with the force of law--whether you like the law or not.

Not only do I disagree profoundly with your line of thinking, it appears to be following the modern fallacy that a gun is a bad thing in and of itself. A concealed weapon threatens no one and offends no manners.I do not believe that guns are "bad" things. I agree with the bumper sticker: "An Armed Society is a Polite Society". However...to say so does not mean that everyone else in the world agrees with you and I on that matter. They do have the right, on their property to require that you and I leave our weapons off their property.

...And if they don't want black lace panties worn in their establishment, should I remove mine, even though they would never be seen under ordinary circumstances?

Let's be real here. Show me a law or private property owner's sign which limits, in any way, the undergarments of their customers, and I'll continue with this debate. You're being ridiculous.

No, you are in error. A property owner may set limits to visible behavior. He cannot -- literally cannot -- control that which is not seen.Yes, he can. Here in Arizona, he can prevent you from entering his property while armed, and here (http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/3102.asp) are the verbatim words...
FIREARMS ARE PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES (with or without a permit)

...

State or local government/private establishments or events when asked by the operator/sponsor/agent.[emphasis mine]Now, I grant that there may be some differences state-to-state on this matter, and I'll let you do the research on this. However, you cannot say that a property owner "cannot control that which is not seen". Here in Arizona, he can do exactly that, and you are breaking the law if you ignore his wishes. I'd be surprised, and will stand corrected, if you can show me a state which does not allow a private property owner to limit firearms on his property.

Because they aren't restricting my right to carry concealed, no more than they are "restricting" my right to be an atheist or wear a floral-print thong. They are merely restricting my sharing information about any of those things with others while on their property.Again, show me a law regulating which religion one must believe in, or which undergarments are proper, and I'll return to this issue. It is a thoroughly silly analogy.


The whims of a property-owner are not the laws of the land. (Texas and Ohio will have to fend for themselves, until they ditch their invasive an unconstitutional posting laws). Don't confuse the two. Wal-Mart and Joe's Bar are just folks like you and me unless they're paying us to play by their rules.


Only in states with the kind of posting laws in re the carraige of weapons; in Indiana and many other states, such signs are merely a request you keep your sideam out of sight -- and I am happy to comply. In Indiana, this is a matter of established precedent.Again, here in Arizona, the "whims of the property owner" are the law of the land. Signs are most often used as the "reasonable request by the operator of the establishment" to not enter while armed. I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on the internet) but I'd bet that someone testing the constitutionality of these signs (or the limits themselves) would lose that case.

It is also a matter of Federal Law that any law contrary to the Constitution is, in fact, no law at all. That one has to be fought out before the courts to make happen, I admit.Is your position that these laws are unconstitional until tested, and therefore may be ignored, or do you believe that we should obey these laws until the matter is decided?


No, wrong. This is basic natura law stuff: an individual's thoughs are inherently free from compulsion. No law or policy can keep me from thinking thoughts of any sort. How could any such thing be enforced, anyway? Telepathic Brazilian jujitsu ninjas? Poppycock!

Wrong again -- I can have a pack of Salems in my purse (yeech. I have not smoked in years and not tempted now) no matter what kind of "no smoking/no tobacco" rule prevails: I just can't get them out.There's a vital difference between "No Smoking" laws and "No Tobacco" laws. One is in effect in many places; The other is as silly as "No Lace-Panties" laws.

I disagree. To agree is to buy into "guns = evil." To agree is to give firearms some magic badness-seeking power. It's bilge. The potential to do harm does not imply that harm must be done. Danger is all around you, under the often limited control of your fellows. Hadn't we better fret over what they may do with cars, lead-acid batteries or MAPP-gas torches, if we're going to be so bothered by guns?I'm not going to debate regulation of panties, lead-acid batteries or gas torches.

Not "most states," only a few; and basic human rights aren't under the control of the majority. (That's why there's a Bill of Rights, you know, to mark certain rights "hands off!" Didn't work so well but that was the aim).

The mere possession of firearms, alcohol, tobacco, potable water, bars of gold or whatever is not bad in and of itself; it is "bad" only becuase some addled rule or law may make it so."Bad" has nothing to do with it. The "mere possession of firearms" is illegal under many circumstances.


The gun you keep concealed and under your control is precisely the same as no gun at all as far as the property-owner is concerned. --And I feel no need at all to obey any silly rule from some business or othe property owner that requres me to disarm myself. They usually have taken no effort to provide me comparable protection!

As do you, I avoid such businesses whenever possible; but when I must deal with them, I carry with a clear conscience.And there we have it, so let me emphasize your words...You "feel no need at all to obey a rule" you view as "silly". Property-owners wishes, sentiments of our elected representatives, or decisions of our legal system be damned. If you think it's "silly", then there's no obligation to abide by it.

Can't help but notice you've shifted from doubting the competence of others with arms to defending the property-owner's right of selective exclusion, even when the excluding factor is not visible. Is it both, just the one -- or is it a matter of seizing any excuse to control the actions of other adults with respect to firearms?If you go back and look, you'll see that I shifted to the property rights aspect of this debate at your questioning. From a practical view, I still think that most CCW holders have far too little skills to warrant carrying while on an airplane. To allow CCW holders to carry on a plane would create far more problems than it solves.

You and I are done here.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 02:42 PM
I never thought I'd be unhappy seeing a discussion of black panties....

But I think this dead horse is beaten :(

Herself
February 1, 2006, 03:21 PM
Agreed, TexasSIGman. I was trying to make the point that a gun worn concealed was precisely as visible -- and as actually regulatable -- as one's underwear, but it is not getting through.

(I'm glad the definintion of "Libertarian" is so specific and of "libertarian" so broad, or that would be under debate in the context of the morality of supporting victim disarming as well. We're well-spared that teapot-tempest).

With regards to written signage, the law cannot even require me to be able to read, let alone search out each place I enter for various and sundry signs that supposedly limit my rights. (This is one reason why Indiana police generally encourage concealed carry though our permits do not require it. Carrying concealed makes for fewer wasted runs for them when some sad blissninny sees a gun on someone's hip but no badge and becomes all vaporish and tearful and dials 911).

And yes, AZLibertarian, I walk right into the home-improvement center with my gun concealed, right past the "no firearms" sign, and I do so with a song in my heart, a clean conscience and without breaking the law: in Indiana, such signs at a private establishment carry limited weight; all they mean is "We don't want to see your gun." They don't want to see me raped or mugged in their parking lot, either.

Some of the ranges I frequent -- not all of them -- do request that customers not bring loaded guns onto the property, and I generally comply with this request. I am not obliged to -- and they are not obliged to do business with me if I suddenly produce a SpringGlockH&K&S&W11 .50 cal with one in the chamber and a full mag. Complying with the range guidelines is a matter of courtesy and mutual respect rather than of law.


The horse is dead -- however, I suggest that those who believe citizens cannot be trusted to carry weapons in some circumstances should re-examine their opinions and their hearts. If you cannot trust your fellow citizens to carry firearms under some conditions or in some places, you probably shouldn't be trusting them to carry guns at all. I urge you strongly to consider joining the other side in the gun-rights debate, perhaps with some of the less extreme groups that support limited, European-style possession and use of arms after stringent testing and under closely-controlled conditions. You'll be happier with them; it will better satisfy your desire to control others. And I'll be able to oppose you without feeling even a little sorry for you.

--Herself

Ezekiel
February 1, 2006, 05:45 PM
Same as you'd get in a crowded restaurant on a Saturday night.

Frankly, I'm not real interested in that scenario, either.

"Most folks are dumbasses." :(

Ezekiel
February 1, 2006, 05:49 PM
The horse is dead -- however, I suggest that those who believe citizens cannot b trusted to carry weapons in some circumstances should re-examine their opinions and their hearts. If you cannot trust your fellow citizens to carry firearms under some conditions or in some places, you probably shouldn't be trusting them to carry guns at all.

Valid. And folks who trust the populace to carry weapons in all circumstances are both not very intelligent, and have tied themselves to a ridiculously broad definition of the 2nd Amendment and its "protections."

The best answer lies somewhere in between.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2006, 06:00 PM
The best answer lies somewhere in between.

And the biggest problem lies in who decides.....

Problems aplenty I'm afraid.

Ezekiel
February 1, 2006, 06:41 PM
And the biggest problem lies in who decides.....

Problems aplenty I'm afraid.

"I concur." :(

Herself
February 2, 2006, 09:42 AM
We have a winner!

What follows is a wonderful example of why people claiming to be on our side who would compromise on fundamental issues are a greater danger than the outright gun-banners on the other side:

Valid. And folks who trust the populace to carry weapons in all circumstances are both not very intelligent, and have tied themselves to a ridiculously broad definition of the 2nd Amendment and its "protections."

The best answer lies somewhere in between.
What part of "...shall not be infringed..." supports the idea that free adults can be disarmed under some circumstances -- and if we can be disarmed under some circumstances, why not all?

Open that door a crack and next thing you know, it's Proposition H time. It's Chicago or NYC, and only the criminals are armed! Don't try to tell me "it can't happen here" when it already has.

There is no "reasonable compromise" on the basic human right of self-defense; there is only freedom or the road to slavery.

--Herself

only1asterisk
February 2, 2006, 10:03 AM
This would appear to me to be a case where my unrealistic ideas about property rights meet my unreasonable ideas about the RKBA. To me, the rights of the property owners to resrict activities on their plane trumps my right to be armed. I have no right to their property or service. I have a problem with the restrictions codified in federal law.

Your in less danger on a crowded airplane, than a crowded theater. At least it's light in the airplane! :neener:

David

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 12:07 PM
if we can be disarmed under some circumstances, why not all?

"Because not every situation directly involves a pressurized tube at 40,000 feet and some gun-totting yokel placing my life in danger because he is a dumbass."

I am often annoyed when pro-gun single issue types become just as rabid as pro-choice single issue types. :banghead:

Billmanweh
February 2, 2006, 12:25 PM
I am often annoyed when pro-gun single issue types become just as rabid as pro-choice single issue types. :banghead:


I think that's a really good comparison. But don't you think that when a political/social issue is as contentious and sharply divided as guns or abortion, there's no real incentive to take a moderate position?

When the other side essentially says "we want all your guns", then what is there to gain by offering to not carry on a plane, or to accept training as a requirement for a CHL, or whatever might otherwise be a reasonable position? You might as well just dig in and say we want a 15 year old convicted violent felon to be able to buy an M16 at the airport gift shop without a background check and carry onboard. Just like the rabidly pro-choice person wants on demand abortions without parental consent for 12 year olds who are 8 months pregnant.

Like I said, there's just no incentive to offer a moderate position, even if you think it really is reasonable.

I'm as pro-gun as anyone I've ever met outside of gun message boards, and most of my family and friends think of me as kind of a "gun nut". But here, I'm a raving anti.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 12:32 PM
I'm as pro-gun as anyone I've ever met outside of gun message boards, and most of my family and friends think of me as kind of a "gun nut". But here, I'm a raving anti.

You've summarized my position much better then I've been able to...

michaelbane
February 2, 2006, 01:51 PM
Accomplishing this will be a monumentous task. It will take a long time to sway public opinion. Are there any opinions out there on how to go about it? Should a new organization be formed immediately to promote this specific idea? Or do we have to work on increasing awareness and acceptance of CCW in general before we focus on airplanes?

SMMAssociates
February 2, 2006, 03:11 PM
Accomplishing this will be a monumentous task. It will take a long time to sway public opinion. Are there any opinions out there on how to go about it? Should a new organization be formed immediately to promote this specific idea? Or do we have to work on increasing awareness and acceptance of CCW in general before we focus on airplanes?Well, the first thing we need is to get the rest of the non-CCW states on board with concealed carry, as well as the "won't issue unless you're Rosie O'Donnell" states...

Then, some common sense.... :evil:

I have my doubts about the latter, and the former may not be possible in a few states like NY....

Regareds,

Herself
February 2, 2006, 06:54 PM
This would appear to me to be a case where my unrealistic ideas about property rights meet my unreasonable ideas about the RKBA. To me, the rights of the property owners to resrict activities on their plane trumps my right to be armed. [...]

Since when is carrying a concealed weapon any more an "activity" than having a tattoo in a palce no one can see when you are clothed?
Yes, it is there.
No, it will not be a part of your normal interaction with others.

That's what people keep ignoring in this thread.

Guns ain't special. They're just objects. They have no intention. A hidden and unused gun could just as well be a soap carving or a potato.

If you never get your gun out, who's to know it is even there? --And if you do get it out in response to a threat, odds are extremely good there will be problems other than your piddlin' sidearm.

--Herself

Herself
February 2, 2006, 06:59 PM
Quote:
"I'm as pro-gun as anyone I've ever met outside of gun message boards, and most of my family and friends think of me as kind of a "gun nut". But here, I'm a raving anti."
You've summarized my position much better then I've been able to...

Incorrect, friends; you are not raving antis, you're weakly pro-gun and favor compromise, and that's the problem.

An outright anti a pretty good recruiting tool for the pro-gun side. They are polarizing.
The compromisers, those who trade a little freedom for a perception of better security, nibble away gun rights one tiny "reasonable" bite at a time, and one fine day, those rights are lost.

I'mn sure you are good gun folks, who observe the Four Rules and keep your iron clean. You are a danger to gun rights none the less.

--Herself

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 09:46 PM
The compromisers, those who trade a little freedom for a perception of better security, nibble away gun rights one tiny "reasonable" bite at a time, and one fine day, those rights are lost.

I vehemently reject this "slippery slope" hypothesis and refuse to crown Gradualism as king.

"Keeping the standard citizen from carrying a sidearm within a pressurized tube traveling 400 miles per hour at 40,000 feet assists more then the perception of my safety."

Since when is carrying a concealed weapon any more an "activity" than having a tattoo in a palce no one can see when you are clothed?

"You acting the fool with an unattractive lower back tattoo doesn't affect my person."

Herself
February 3, 2006, 12:43 AM
I vehemently reject this "slippery slope" hypothesis and refuse to crown Gradualism as king.
...So why is it you can't own a new machine gun, even after you pass all the checking to see if you're okay to pay the $200 tax, if it isn't gradual whittling-down of your rights?

"Keeping the standard citizen from carrying a sidearm within a pressurized tube traveling 400 miles per hour at 40,000 feet assists more then the perception of my safety."
What's "pressurized tube" got to do with it? You've seen too many bad movies; airplanes don't blow up when you shoot a hole in the passenger compartment.
If it's a real big hole or a lot of little ones, the breathing masks will deploy. Big deal.
Speed? Who cares. Altitude? ...The thing has wings; those plus the speed are why it flies. Or do you think I might shoot the wings off with my mighty pistol? Sorry, Ezekiel, the .50 Beowolf Webley-Fosbury automatic revolver, cool though it is, is imaginary -- and wouldn't be enough gun for the job if it wasn't.

I'm starting to see it. It's not so much the guns for you fellows, you're afraid of flying! So fearful that even the least hint of possible potential additional danger is The Last Straw.
If I were the sort of compassionate gal who cares, deeply cares about comforting the baseless fears of others, I'd be really moved. But I'm not. Coddling you is not my calling -- and it is not a fit role for society, either.


Quote:
"Since when is carrying a concealed weapon any more an 'activity' than having a tattoo in a place no one can see when you are clothed?"

"You acting the fool with an unattractive lower back tattoo doesn't affect my person."
And you believe I am liable to act the fool? On what basis? The thousands of CCW holders you hear about daily who gun down the car-wash attendant for not having change foe a fifty? The law-abiding gun-owners who snap off a shot at swarthy orthodontists for taking a parking place they wanted and lookin' "foreign?" The NRA members who stage running gun battles on the freeway?:uhoh:

Ain't happening. Not happening on the ground, therefore not gonna happen in the air. :D

You're simply afraid. Well, the world is a scary place, all the more so when we allow ourselves to fall prey to irrational fears. Boo!:what::barf:

--Herself

Billmanweh
February 3, 2006, 04:06 AM
I think maybe someone has a fear of flying without a gun. Maybe you need some coddling? Remember, it's just an object, like a potato. You can leave your gun in your checked luggage where it belongs and carry a potato the next time you fly, cause you aren't carrying a gun.

Love all the smilies!

;)

Herself
February 5, 2006, 03:49 AM
I think maybe someone has a fear of flying without a gun.
...I don't see the airlines moving to provide me an effective defense and the Air Marshals have cut way back.

Adults take responsibility for their own defense.

Maybe you need some coddling? Remember, it's just an object, like a potato. Don't tell me, tell the Feds and the airlinez! You can leave your gun in your checked luggage where it belongs and carry a potato the next time you fly, cause you aren't carrying a gun. And how do you know I'm not among the few who can carry on commercial flights?
...And where do you get off telling me where my gun "belongs?" It's a sidearm; it belongs at my side. You don't get a vote in the matter. That's why there is a Bill of Rights: to set certain matters outside the whim of the majority.

But thanks for playing!

--H

Billmanweh
February 5, 2006, 12:25 PM
It took you two days to come up with that?

:rolleyes:

Herself
February 5, 2006, 02:04 PM
It took you two days to come up with that?

:rolleyes:
Hey, look, there's another road waaaaaaaay up there!

I work for a living. I shoot for fun as often as I can manage. Explaining your self-contradictions is just a pastime.

--H

Kodiaz
February 5, 2006, 02:16 PM
Herself I think he wanted to say you need cuddling:what:

Herself
February 5, 2006, 02:29 PM
Herself I think he wanted to say you need cuddling:what:
That's so cute! At my age, it doesn't happen very often, either.

"C'mere, sonny, Granny's got a dreat biig smooooochie fer yew!":D

Sure makes those store-bought teeth worth it!

--H

Kodiaz
February 5, 2006, 02:40 PM
You have painted a very disturbing picture

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW in the air" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!