Skip to comments.
P.C. Air Security - When will our pilots be armed?
National Review Online ^
| September 2, 2003
| John R. Lott, Jr.
Posted on 12/10/2003 1:51:06 AM PST by snopercod
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
If this was previously posted, I couldn't find it.
1
posted on
12/10/2003 1:51:06 AM PST
by
snopercod
To: Southack
Unable to accept pilots carrying guns, the administration continues to float suggestions for Tasers...More disinformation?
2
posted on
12/10/2003 1:52:26 AM PST
by
snopercod
(The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999.)
To: snopercod
Is the Secretary of Administration trying to help the President or harm him?
3
posted on
12/10/2003 1:56:28 AM PST
by
AmericanVictory
(Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
To: snopercod
The Clintonistas in the TSA are fighting tooth and nail to make sure we can't prevent another 9-11. Its almost like they want to prevent armed pilots from flying by design. One has to mystified by their rejection of the best and surest way to keep terrorists from hijacking aircraft in U.S airspace in the future.
4
posted on
12/10/2003 1:57:14 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
The President is in charge of the TSA, is he not?
5
posted on
12/10/2003 2:00:17 AM PST
by
snopercod
(The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999.)
To: snopercod
Excuse me but anyone qualified to fly the damn plane is qualified to carry a weapon.
6
posted on
12/10/2003 2:00:40 AM PST
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
To: snopercod
Yes. Isn't it time to clean house over there? Or do we have to wait for more Americans to be killed before it happens? The solution to our security problem happens to be the simplest - and also the most obvious one. Political correctness will be the death of us all unless its gotten rid of quickly.
7
posted on
12/10/2003 2:02:26 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Kozak
Agreed. None of the objections to armed pilots are persuasive.
8
posted on
12/10/2003 2:03:03 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: snopercod
Pilots must also fly the airplane, but, with two pilots, one pilot would continue flying the plane while the other defended the entrance. In any case, if terrorists are in the cockpit, concentrating on flying will not be an option.
Actually most likely "George" the autopilot will be flying the plane under these conditions. Freeing both pilots to defend the cockpit.
9
posted on
12/10/2003 2:05:18 AM PST
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
To: goldstategop
The solution is to arm the passengers, not the pilots.
10
posted on
12/10/2003 2:12:43 AM PST
by
snopercod
(The federal government will spend $21,000 per household in 2003, up from $16,000 in 1999.)
To: snopercod
Following what seemed like a successful first class of pilots this spring, the TSA fired the head of the firearms training academy, Willie Ellison, for "unacceptable performance and conduct." Ellison, who won the praise of the students, was reprimanded for holding a graduation dinner for the first graduation class and giving them baseball caps with the program logo.
There has to be more to this part of the story than that.
The training facility was closed down and relocated immediately after the first class, prompting Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee, to complain that the closing appeared to be "just another attempt to disrupt the program."
Just a WAG, but was the training facility located in DeFazio's district?
To: leadpenny
Pilots will be armed and gun control issues will be abandoned when politicians fear terrorism MORE than the possibility that armed citizens might stage a rebellion against the politician's insane spending and regulation.
12
posted on
12/10/2003 3:40:05 AM PST
by
meenie
To: snopercod
Since his inaurguration, Bush has continually failed to sweep the lefty Clintonistas from Federal agencies.
Bush's stated policies are continually undermined by them.
Maybe it's just that he does not realize how much the lefty Clintonistas hate him and want him to fail.
Nevertheless, it's time to take a really big broom and clean house; it's nearly too late.
13
posted on
12/10/2003 3:46:02 AM PST
by
auntdot
To: meenie
I'd go further than that. I still believe that anyone authorized to carry a gun (federal, state or pvt citizen) should be allowed to carry a weapon on commercial flights. The only stipulation (as it is now), each armed individual needs to know where every other armed individual is sitting. BTW, I'm not authorized to carry.
To: leadpenny
Virginia is a "shall issue" state.
To: goldstategop; Kozak
It's just a damn shame that too many people in our society are afraid of guns. Did you two hear about that school drug raid in a South Carolina High School where police officers went in the hallways with their pistols drawn? It's debatable if the actions of the police were over the top - I happen to think that the only reason it's viewed that way is because it happened to be guns and not nightsticks.
I happen to think that the officers did the right thing; God knows what kind of debate we would have had had no weapons been drawn and an officer been injured or killed by a student's weapon. In the end, this queasiness of guns we have in our society and the hostility towards the 2nd amendment have no business existing in this day and age of terror. But since it does exist, it doesn't surprise me any that three of four passenger planes were taken over, by force, by individuals with box-cutters.
The president should make this one of the many issues he'll run his reelection campaign on. The weak sisters out their need to have the dangers and the solutions spelled out for the @$$es.
To: ArrogantBustard
I don't know what that means.
To: meenie
Yes!
To: leadpenny
You're flying a Virginia flag on your profile page. I ass-u-me that means you are a legal resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA.
If that is, in fact, the case, you are most fortunate. If you are older than 21 years of age, are not legally barred from owning a firearm, and have received certain minimal firearms training, then upon receipt of your application the judge of the circuit court in the county of your residence shall issue to you a permit, good for five years, to carry a concealed handgun.
Interested? Mash here for the application form SP-248.
To: ArrogantBustard
Kinda figured it was something along those lines. I have just not felt the need to have the authorities know anymore about me than they already do. If someday I feel the need to be armed, I guess I'll go through their "blessing" process.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson