I am merely getting tired of having to deal with you newbies who don't take the time to lurk for a while, recognize other FREEPERs general background and opinion before you start throwing accusations around about what I believe and don't believe. (If you want, feel free to review my profile and I think you will get the general idea).
I will offer a correction though. My post should have read "the government has caved to pro-gun control". So, I would guess that we would agree on that point.
I am afraid that you have yet to make a point that we would debate about. We would agree that having guns makes everyone safer. We would probably agree that the liberal media and their cohorts in government have demonize gun ownership to degrees that most reasonable humans can't comprehend. And, yes, if all the sudden there were no (or less) terrorist threats due to counter measures like armed pilots, then their house of cards would come tumbling down. A point we would also agree on. Which brings me to my original comment to you...
I made each of these points several times throughout the thread. You woud have seen this, if you had read all the post. This was the only point that I was making to you. I wasn't arguing about armed or unarmed, because I stated my position as being in favor of arming pilots (several times). Your first post (#248) was a little late to the discussion. In post #5, I was making the point that pilots should be armed and if a passenger is killed in the process, then fine. I have advocated, throughout this thread, that arming pilots is key to safer flights. In post #249, you said I missed a point that I had already made, at least, 10 times before you logged on. Hey, if you get FREEPing late in the day, fine. Just don't jump into the discussion without having read the posts and the context with which the posts were made.
To review: We agree on pilots being armed...and you need to read the posts more thoroughly.