Many innocent passengers would likely be killed, electrical systems would be compromised or destroyed, and if well enough planned, the cockpit would be taken. Few Americans would want that, and few would agree that the 2d Amendment requires that we permit the arming of travelers.
You see, here is where you are bass-ackwards. The Second doesn't "permit" us to do anything. It FORBIDS you from disarming us.
You sound as if you would prefer the loss of thousands of lives, and billions in property damage, than have one plane lost because those on board had the means to resist.
Many innocents would be killed? As opposed to all of them being killed if they do nothing? Not all citizens shoot like cops to anyway. Provided none of the passengers were feds or cops, collateral damage would probably be kept to a minimum. Then again, we could just have only the terrorists be armed. I'm sure that would make things so much better.
Few Americans would want that, and few would agree that the 2d Amendment requires that we permit the arming of travelers.
Funny. In the 50's and early 60's, you could walk onto an airplane with a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, and noone cared other than that it was stored properly. We didn't have problems with passengers shooting up the cabin.
When I was young, taking a rifle to school didn't rate a call for swat teams.
We've become a nation of squeemish worms who have been indoctrinated to think that the government will "protect" us, even though the courts have stated on many occasions that they have no duty whatsoever to do so. Even when, through their own actions, they've turned you into a completely disarmed victim, they are under no duty to protect any individual. That's because they write the rules, and they know that sheep are easier to manage than wolves.
Personally, I prefer wolves, especially in a country that is drifting more towards the evil of "democracy" every day.