Skip to comments.
Pilots Push for Return of Weapons
AP
| 10/13/01
| ANGIE WAGNER
Posted on 10/13/2001 3:15:57 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
1
posted on
10/13/2001 3:15:57 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
"A major concern is the impact of onboard gunfire. Aviation experts say a stray bullet could rupture a fuel line, wrench a hole in a fuselage weakened by corrosion or spark a fire. Any of those could bring down a jet." (Associated Press)
At worst, that just means those aboard all die - which sure beats the hell out of them dying plus 10,000 more at a football game.
GUN REVIEWS unbiased by ad money - read before shopping!
To: glc1173@aol.com
To paraphrase never show up at a gunfight with a box cutter.
3
posted on
10/13/2001 3:32:14 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
To: kattracks
Everyone who is authorized to carry a gun should not only be allowed, but encouraged to check in with their sidearm for any flight. Any law enforcement officer, on duty or not, should be a welcome site to the flying public.
The only prerequisite would be for each person who wishes to carry a firearm receive an FAA/Airline approved orientation course on what NOT to shoot at while putting a bullet through a hijacker.
More Guns = Safer Flights.
4
posted on
10/13/2001 3:32:58 AM PDT
by
leadpenny
To: glc1173@aol.com
It is a part of the bill in congress. Only caveat is the pilot has to have weapons training, which is obvious.
5
posted on
10/13/2001 3:45:05 AM PDT
by
beekeeper
To: beekeeper
Yes we can see the beginning of the failed policy of viticm complying with their attackers. The whole idea that a person should bend over and kiss it good bye. Is a trend set by the left and libs to disarm us and make us sheep.
We who have been fighting the disarming of the people all along have know it is better to defend oneself then to just become another victim. Never ever give up your arms.
To: kattracks
I'm disappointed, but not surprised that Bush isn't real enthusiastic about this idea. Bush trained as a pilot; I'm sure he knows enough about firearms to be able to endorse this idea. Why is he holding back? Does he want us to depend only on the government to protect us?
7
posted on
10/13/2001 4:55:26 AM PDT
by
waxhaw
I just did a search and can't find the following article. Could someone please help me? It is the article about passengers on Brazilian airlines being able to carry weapons. The article was posted after 11 September. Thank you.
To: glc1173@aol.com
But what are the chances that a couple of bullet holes are going to severely damage the plane? Pretty close to zilch! Why would there be a fuel line anywhere close to a cockpit? It's a total cop out by the anti-gun idiots out there.
9
posted on
10/13/2001 5:09:38 AM PDT
by
dr_who
To: dr_who
It's a total cop out by the anti-gun idiots out there. There is no need for the pilots to defend plane from the terrorists. Much simpler is to shoot the plane down.
10
posted on
10/13/2001 5:26:34 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: kattracks
Aviation experts say a stray bullet could rupture a fuel line, wrench a hole in a fuselage weakened by corrosion or spark a fire. Any of those could bring down a jet. Yeah, right. Remember Aloha Airlines Flight 243?
11
posted on
10/13/2001 5:49:46 AM PDT
by
frossca
To: frossca
Thanks frossca. I was just going to post that link about Aloha. Proof that one bullet hole will not bring down the plane!
To: leadpenny
Everyone who is authorized to carry a gun should not only be allowed, but encouraged to check in with their sidearm for any flight. According to my research (I read the Constitution) everyone has the right to bear arms, no 'authorization' needed.
13
posted on
10/13/2001 6:03:58 AM PDT
by
l0newolf
To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
Could someone please help me? It is the article about passengers on Brazilian airlines being able to carry weapons. It was a bogus article that was pulled.
To: l0newolf
According to my research (I read the Constitution) everyone has the right to bear arms, no 'authorization' needed. You do NOT have a Constitutional right to bear arms on the private or corporate property of others without their permission.
To: sneakypete
Thank you. I was unaware it was bogus. I'm glad to learn about it being bogus before it was too late because I was about to send it on. Thanks again. (whew!!!!! wiping sweat off brow.) You just saved me a lot of embarrassment!
To: kattracks
I'd be a lot more willing to get in a plane with an armed pilot and armed air marshalls than a plane that is a gun free zone! Nothing speaks louder than cold hard steel looking you straight in the eye!
17
posted on
10/13/2001 6:59:25 AM PDT
by
Lucky2
To: sneakypete
No argument. If private industry wants to assume a stance against bearing arms on private property or in private service then that is their right. Let the market then decide the wisdom of their policies. However, to all intents and purposes, the executive has assumed a de facto control of airspace in our nation...thereby preempting private policies via licensing and permits and their attendent regulations.
Since the prohibition of the 2nd amendment is directed at the federal government it's assumption of public domain does still not give it the right to pass rules and regulations that accomplish what federal law cannot...disarm Sovereign Civilians. If private or public entities do not allow the pilots to be armed then it is obvious then that Citizens must do so for their OWN protection.
18
posted on
10/13/2001 7:03:26 AM PDT
by
l0newolf
To: Lucky2
Okay, Ive got it. Crew and passengers who want to fly on gun free zone aircrafts -- Good. These gun free zone flights should be advertised in newspapers and TV, and pack them in with the anti gun folks. Those of us who want to fly with an armed crew and air marshals can have our own flights. These armed aircrafts should also be advertised in newspapers and TV. At least I know I will always get to my destination.
To: l0newolf
Since the prohibition of the 2nd amendment is directed at the federal government it's assumption of public domain does still not give it the right to pass rules and regulations that accomplish what federal law cannot...disarm Sovereign Civilians. I'm in total agreement here. The gooberment has no more right do this than they do to ban smoking on foreign airlines,tell you that you can't refuse to rent or sell your private property to certain groups of people,tell you that you can't exclude people from your private clubs,pass and enforce laws that punish for previous crimes,or a thousand other un-Constitutional acts. None the less,they ARE getting away with this. They get away with it because the American public lets them get away with it. People don't give a damn unless it is THEIR ox being gored,and most seem happy to see anybody else get screwed by the gooberment. Until the character of the American citizen changes to the point where they recogonize that when they give/allow the gooberment the power to abuse one class of citizens,they are allowing/giving them the power to abuse ALL classes of citizens.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson