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.
What about imposter air marshalls? They don't even have uniforms, they are undercover. How hard can it be to fake an air marshall ID? How does the crew decide between the real air marshall and the fake one who is a suicide bomber?
Hey DC, RF has a project for ya! ;^)
If the imposter pilot successfully gets on board, is in the cockpit and has total control of the plane already, WHAT DOES HE NEED A GUN FOR?
Bush really has only three options to the issue:
1. Leave the Gordian Knot of CCW laws intact
2. Untie the Gordian Knot of CCW laws
3. Cut the Gordian Knot of CCW laws in one stroke with the sword of the 2nd Amendment.
As much as we (likely including Bush himself) all want #3, we must recognize the serious impact such a swift stroke would have on the country. While we would accept it gladly, the trauma to "the blue zone" would be immense. I'm not saying don't do #3, just be ready for the consequences. Bush isn't quite ready.
The handgun could be in a secure container already in the cockpit, so weapons would not need to be carried on. Keys or a combination could be required to get the weapon out. This combination could be given to them by the tower or electronically, when in flight or as needed. This would control access to the weapon.
Isn't it the job of all these high paid politicians and their consultants to come up with ideas like this. What they seem to be good at is expanding their own power. I'm getting angry about this. 7,000 Americans are dead and still the Federal government is playing political games with our lives.
Some trauma to the Blue zone is exactly what we need, and now is the best time. They are all complicit in this massacre. I hope President Bush is not joining their ranks, He has an opportunity not afforded most men, a chance to be a great American.
Indeed. There are more of us than you might think though.
I don't think that it is cowardly to refuse to fly as a protest against a government which is infringing the right to keep and bear arms despite an explicit Second Amendment prohibiting such infringement.
The alternative to the many peaceful means which many of us pro-gun people are seeking is to take up arms and destroy the government. You aren't advocating that, are you?
Since I am not a coward, I intend to take a flight in October which was planned months ago. But I intend not to fly again until some progress is made at restoring the right to keep and bear arms to the public.
The people who I think are cowardly are the ones who look to others to protect them and prevent me from exercising my rights because of irrational fears.
The airlines that do this will have a distinct competitive advantage over those who do not. Americans overwhelmingly want the pilots to be armed. They have trusted these men with their lives by the millions for many years. They are icons of trust worthyness. President Bush's position stands in stark opposition to the will of the American people. He is trading our safety for political gain.
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat their mistakes".
Keep the Faith for Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC. <p) Greg
The power to regulate inter-state commerce has been used by Congress to outlaw firearms which never leave the state in which they are manufactured. I believe that this is clearly unconstitutional.
Forbidding states from dis-arming the pilot of a conveyance being operated in inter-state commerce is unlikely to be found unconstitutional. Flights which are begun and ended in a single state would not be covered by such a law. The Second Amendment would have to be used to prevent the government from infringing on the right of pilots and airlines to keep and bear arms.
I have suggested to others that the term "wily" describes George W. Bush. His support of the airline pilots association might not be enough. He may be waiting for some Democrat to take the lead. Then he can pile on. George W. seems like the kind of guy who doesn't care who gets the credit as long as the right things are done.
Never thought I would live long enough to hear this - That President Bush is waiting for a Democrat to take the lead on a 2nd Amendment issue. I wont hold my breath.
When I first saw that cartoon, all the passengers had their thumbs crossed over their weapons.
Doing that with a revolver may work okay, but if you try it with a semiauto the edges of the slide will cut two deep, parallel slices ("railroad tracks") in your weak thumb when you fire. As a common gun injury, this rates right up there with "M1 Thumb" (shoving a loaded clip into a worn Garand and not getting your thumb out of the action before the bolt slams shut on it) and "Telescope Eyebrow" (snuggling up too close behind the scope on a heavy-kicking rifle and having the rim of the scope take a divot out of your forehead).
Apparently enough people mentioned it, and now all the passengers (even those with revolvers) are using the recommended weak-thumb-over-strong grip.
Cool.
It doesnt really matter what they want when there is a bunch of terrorists on board.
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.