Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: epow
"The only valid policy is to have no laws regulating the ownership of guns,..."

"That one sentence sums up my philosphy regarding guns and weapons perfectly."

My philosophy as well.

And I will take this philosophy to its logical conclusion.

It is anti-liberty, it is defenseless, and it is dangerous that we allow our federal government to unconstitutionally pass and enforce laws prohibiting the private owners of airline companies from allowing their customers to bear arms on their aircraft to share and help in the defense of their property and other passengers lives from death at the hands of terrorist hijackers.

September 11, 2001 would have never happened. 3000 fellow citizens would have never died because potential hijackers would have known that 10, 30, 60 plus people would be armed on any aircraft to foil such an attempt.

The ultimate blame for the deaths and destruction of property on September 11, 2001 are the federal president's, federal congress people, federaljudges, and voters who supported such unconstitutional, anti-liberty laws now and in the past.

I do not have that blood stain on my hands.

Unconstitutionally prohibiting free, moral people, which are an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens, from bearing arms, does nothing more than empower the few dangerous citizens among us to commit crimes against we fellow unarmed citizens, as Harry Browne stated in the article.

I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 election.

12 posted on 10/25/2003 11:49:12 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: tahiti
That right the worst that could have happened was a shoot out.
14 posted on 10/25/2003 12:48:45 PM PDT by KiaKaha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: tahiti
It ain't just the federales. Two of those planes took off from Boston's Logan Airport. Boston is the capital of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, once a proud example of gun ownership and rights, but now a cesspool of gun banners.
16 posted on 10/25/2003 2:12:20 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: tahiti
Your conclusion is perfectly logical and I fully agree with every word. My son flys for a major airline, and they strongly oppose even arming pilots. I think all the major lines oppose it. He says they are opposed because of the potential liability risk. Another way ambulance -chasing lawyers have screwed up this nation, every company is scared out of their wits that they will be sued if someone gets a hangnail on their property or from their product.
20 posted on 10/25/2003 2:40:53 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson