Replies

Another time. I am impressed that you think you are a second amendment constitutional scholar. If you are really interested, I will link you to a rather complete law review article on the subject. In any event, apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no. Whatever.

Torie, I have read that Law Review Article... and a lot more besides... and give it very little weight.

The employer is not the controlling factor in regards to arming airline pilots... it is the myriad gun laws of various Federal, State and local jurisdictions that must be eliminated.

Either the Federal government must unequivocally recognize the Right of the individual (including airline pilots) to keep and bear arms, or it must carve out a specific regulation to permit airline cockpit crew members to be armed regardless of the local prohibitions to secure the safety of planes and passengers.

I would prefer a few airliners falling out of the sky (ala Flight 93) or others landing resembling swiss cheese, because either the crew or passengers fought back, than to allow another multi-million pound, hate-guided missile to slam into thousands of innocents on the ground. It would be a small price to pay.

In actual fact, Torie, neither would happen as terrorists, like bullies, will avoid the problem... if they perceive a good chance of failure, they will take their plans elsewhere. Had the crews of those four planes been armed, the terrorists would have made the classic error of bringing a knife to a gun fight!

In any event, apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no.

How about requiring that any aircraft which flies between states with a gross weight or fuel weight that exceeds certain limits be required to be secured against hostile takeover by at least two armed guards whose credentials are as impeccable as those required for pilots of such craft (hint hint).

apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no.

Couple things to keep in mind. The plane belongs to the company, but the license to fly belongs to the pilot. The plane doesn't go anywhere and the company can't do business without the consent of the person who holds the license. And the person who holds the license is responsible for the passengers and crew and plane.

What we haven't seen here is any kind of a breakdown of what percentage of pilots want to be armed and what is their rank (Captain, flight officer, ?) and seniority (years of experience). If it is the most experienced and the highest ranks that are MOST in support of this, then maybe we should hear them out.

In any event, apparently you think the pilots should have a right to arms on the job even when their employer says no.

The proper function of government is protection of citizens against war and crime. An employer that wants to run potential flying bombs around the country without taking prudent steps to keep them secure is a legitimate subject of government concern, up to and including laws prohibiting such recklessness. QED.