Replies

Re: civilians not able to defend themselves: guess again. I just am not willing to accept the combination of LIKELY miss distances under combat stress of untrained personnel and the distance between hijacker and innocent bystanders on an airplane--which means that I will demand that anyone on the plane with a gun meet a very high standard of performance. Maybe you're willing to accept it--which means that you think that there is such a thing as "acceptable breakage," and that says much more about you than it says about me.

Maybe you're willing to accept it--which means that you think that there is such a thing as "acceptable breakage," and that says much more about you than it says about me.

Remember when we were "discussing" the James Beck episode? As I recall, your position was that any collateral damage was Beck's fault. Government agents who acted improperly and killed/injured innocent civilians were not be held accountable, because Beck started it. In this case, the terrorists "started it", yet here you are unwilling to allow any "acceptable breakage". It seems your standards change based on whether the person in question gets a check cut from Uncle Sam or not.