Posted on 09/28/2001 9:17:37 AM PDT by Search4Truth
I really need an answer to this question. I don't understand why President Bush is opposing arming pilots. This simple measure could have averted this whole tragedy.
Don't these pilots already command a tremendous amount of respect by the millions of people they safely fly to their destinations every day? Instead we are going to be escorted by armed Marshals. This solution is consistent with the anti-gun lobby that we are to be protected by the government, but not allowed to protect ourselves.
Why is it that President Bush seems to be taking this anti-gun position? This does not make sense. He asks us to trust him, by being patient; I am willing to do so. I have confidence in him. He appears to be an honorable man. But why does he not trust us to protect ourselves. Pilots are probably one of the most qualified people to carry a gun on his airplane. What other professions commands more respect than commercial airline pilots. They all look like my dad. And it is this pilot, the captain of the ship, the last line of defense, that MUST be armed. He is ultimately the one in control of the plane and the one ultimately responsible for its safety.
How can we trust President Bush, when he apparently does not trust us? President Bush now has the opportunity to mend a deep wound of distrust between many Americans and the Federal government. I hope he will do so by trusting us to protect ourselevs. We trust him!
I pray to God that he is indeed the man he presents himself to be. If he is, he MUST allow us to protect ourselves. 7,000 dead Americans should have already awakened us to that fact. I'm not willing to fly again until I know the pilot is armed.
We trust these pilots with our lives already. Why not give him the tools he needs to do that job better? Maybe when 70,000 people are killed we will awaken to this simple fact. We must be able to protect ourselves. The Federal government has already proven that they can not protect us. We seem to be forgetting too quickly that 7,000 Americans were just massacred because the pilots could not defend the cockpit.
An armed pilot behind a bulkhead protected cockpit would be the last line of the defense. A ex-military pilot properly trained in the use of firearms in a close combat siutation, a 2 day course, would not be so easily overtaken by men with box cutters.
"What about stun guns and pepper spray? I'll bet every flight attendant has pepper spray or mace on them now! LOL!
This is probably a good idea. I would trust attendants to carry pepper spray. Althoug, in a close space such a an airplane, it could annoy a lot of peolpe
How are we going to screen our pilots? Or the pilots from other countries who are flying around on international flights?
If they have good screening of pilots, background checks, etc thats fine.
As far as cowboys go, I think having a few in the back seat is just as effective as having a few in the front...
I think it is of upmost importance that EVERYONE who sits in the cockpit of a plane have access to weapons. Period. No steel door is going to keep the captain from helping passengers or attendents in distress. It may not be the cowardly terrorists wanting IN but the Captain needing to get OUT into the cabin. IN such a case-he needs to be able to come out ARMED.I want my pilots armed....if my pilots WANT to be armed.
But I trust our President, 100%. I just disagree with him on this issue.
What if the President wants to "maintain control of the chain of accountability" ???
I think that idea of plain clothes marshals is a good one. Terrorist would never know, who they were or how many there were. The terrorist could be certain of one thing. There are trained and armed pilots in the cockpit.
There is no doubt. You are correct.
Are we to add President Bush to that list?
I have never considered President Bush the staunchest pro-defense candidate. However, he has his hands full at the moment, and I'm not ready to give him a hard time. He is maintaining the status-quo, not furthering the disarmament of Americans. I do wish he would stand up for our right to self-defense though.
More than one way to skin a cat.
I even think access to the cabin should be only through a seperate door from the outside of the plane. In other words, no walking from the cabin to the cockpit... It would be sealed off completely.
In order to get in the cockpit you have to be parked on the ground...
re: "..Bush is also NWO.... this terror incident is just the right catalyst to speed up the New World Order by 100 years... Bilderbergers all..." (watta moron) |
I treat people according to theiir nature, and start by giving them the benefit of the doubt. I believe that President Bush is an honorable man, until he proves himslef otherwise.
To the point at hand, I hardly think this is a small matter - the arming of pilots, the simplest thing that can be done to avoid or avert this kind of tragedy in the future. I hardly think that I am unfairly criticizing President Bush by pointing out that his stance on this is consistent with the the anti-gun lobby and is anti-2nd Amendendment. I truly hope that I am wrong. If I am correct, than I will be treating President Bush as I do all anit-2ND Amendment types, according to their nature.
Given your screen name, I would think that you would have simlar objections with what President Bush is doing.
Example: a simple cross-country flight from NYC to LA with a stopover in Chicago.
- NY does not grant CCW permits to non-residents.
- Should an exemption be made or the pilot live in NYC, CCW permits in NYC are terribly difficult (nearly impossible) to obtain.
- Illinois prohibits carry of firearms, period.
- Chicago requires registration of all firearms possessed, and is refusing to register any more.
- California, practically speaking, does not grant non-resident CCW permits.
- None of these states recognize CCW permits from other states.
And that's just the beginning.
Should Bush push for arming pilots, he would have to push for major overhaul of gun laws in nearly every state, plus force the Supreme Court to rule on applying the 14th Amendment to state gun permits. While it is a huge battle that must be fought and won, even if he is adamantly totally unquestionably passionately for arming pilots, he simply doesn't have the time to deal with it now as he's got a war to run.
If you don't feel safe, don't fly. That's my plan.
The government and the airlines have proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that they are incapable of protecting American citizens. I'm not prepared to risk my life while giving them a second, third, or fourth chance to get it right. They have both failed miserably.
If the Federal government can not protect us, only give us legalese as an excuse, then why in the hell do I pay more Fed taxes than most people make.
The one thing that the Federal government is legitimately responsible for, they have failed in. And like so many other things they have failed in, they are not willing to allow us to handle ourselves. It is apparently business as usual.
Why doesn't he apparently trust pilots to be armed? Probably because he feels at this juncture that it is not politically expedient to do so. He's trying to maintain coalitions both domestically and internationally. On the domestic front, there are plenty of true believers in Victim Disarmament that would go ape-sh__ if he were to suggest that anyone other than the police/military carry arms on a routine basis.
For many, Victim Disarmament is a major part of their religion of state-worship. Attack this fundamental premise of their religion, that the state should not have a monopoly of lethal force and you'll see serious opposition begin to mount on many more fronts than we see now. I think that overall, he's being pragmatic in that he doesn't want to expend political capital (and being foolishly cautious IMO) by making such a suggestion. I'd like to see the pilots, cabin crew and passenger armed as well, but that is not going to happen in this country any time soon. Much more will be necessary to transpire before we regain our lost liberties.
The airlines would be a perfect target to hit again. It work so well the first time, and they are still vulnerable. We know the terrorsist are willing to die in the attempt. And the terrorist goals to detroy confidence would make hitting the airlines again an effective move. We would be under estimating these terrorist again, if we did not think that they would strike again in the same way.
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.