[stuartcr]

There are lots of ways to subdue large people in small spaces that do not require a handgun, but we won't go there either. While we agree there were no aircraft in 1792, the constitution does give the fed govt the ability to form organizations like the FAA to set guidelines for flight. After 9/11, do you think that any airline that wanted to turn a profit, would allow passengers to bring handguns on-board? I have dealt with crazies the world over, and the kind of people that will fly an airplane into a building, will not be deterred by the thought that a passenger MAY have a gun.

[Dead Corpse]

While we agree there were no aircraft in 1792, the constitution does give the fed govt the ability to form organizations like the FAA to set guidelines for flight.

No. It doesn't. Please provide Article and Section that authorizes the government regulatory power over airlines.

After 9/11, do you think that any airline that wanted to turn a profit, would allow passengers to bring handguns on-board?

It could also be argued that the reason so few people are currently flying is that no one feels safe in the air. Some of us are actively boycotting the airlines UNTIL they change their tune on CCW.

I have dealt with crazies the world over, and the kind of people that will fly an airplane into a building, will not be deterred by the thought that a passenger MAY have a gun.

Tell that to the Isreali's. Also, we stopped the carry of firearms by pilots and Air Marshal not too long ago as we had never had an incident of terrorist hijacking. That has changed. So should the federal imposition of regulations on the airlines in this matter. Law-abiding citzens with firearms are more of a deterrent to criminals than you are giving them credit for. Even a "crazy" wouldn't attack a police station. Ever wonder why? Don't think too hard now...