Wyoming man with loaded gun arrested at San Jose airport

KCBS.com ^ | August 14, 2002 | kcbs staff

[spodefly]

What was he possibly thinking? That he was a Free man in the "Land of the Free"?

I am free to carry a concealed weapon in many places, but there are restrictions, and for the most part they are there for a good reason. I can't carry into places that serve alcohol, big public gatherings like concerts, and airports.

Isolated in an ideal world, and looking at it from a strict constitutionalist mindset, my right to carry should not be infringed regardless of my location, so I see the position you take. But, I know this is not an ideal world, and even though I wish all gun owners were as responsible as I try to be, I know that is not the case.

The laws have been well promulgated with regard to weapons and airports ... anyone that says they didn't know they had a loaded pistol in their carry-on is someone that I do not wish to have a gun at all. He was careless, and firearms and 'careless' do not mix.

[Mulder]

I am free to carry a concealed weapon in many places, but there are restrictions, and for the most part they are there for a good reason. I can't carry into places that serve alcohol, big public gatherings like concerts, and airports,

Here in Florida (and many other states), you can CCW in places that serve alcohol (unless it's a bar) and in "public gatherings".

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that gun crimes are more numerous in states with loose CCW laws, than those with strict CCW laws. The bottom line is that CCW holders don't commit crimes. Criminals, on the other hand, ignore and even take advantage of "no carry zones".

Contrary to your suggestion, a bunch of tyrants telling Free Americans where they can't carry is not for a "good reason". It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with giving the sheeple a false sense of security while scoring cheap political points for themselves.

Isolated in an ideal world, and looking at it from a strict constitutionalist mindset, my right to carry should not be infringed regardless of my location....

Although I haven't mentioned it yet on this thread, it's also a "Right to self-defense issue".

People have a Right to self-defense that no government or no person can take away. The most effective method of self defense is carrying a loaded firearm. When a government tells you that you can't carry on planes, they are infringing upon your Right to self-defense, especially since the government has proven their ineffectiveness at defending us on aircraft.

[gaffin]

" A three foot tall armed Hobbit was arrested at San Jose airport. Details to follow..."

[mvpel]

Fine! Blame it on "projection" and get on board with someone from DU who has a gun and yell "Clintons SUCKS! Gore LOST! Reagan and Bush are the BEST". Let's see how far you get.

There you go, projecting again.

I notice the smiley, though, so perhaps you're catching on that no reasonable person would seriously believe that a legally armed person, even one from DU_h (is that even possible?), would really shoot someone for being a loudmouth.

The analogy to the anti-gunners hysteria over CCW reform in 34 states is quite apt - they said that Florida would become the "Gunshine State" before their pioneering 1987 shall-issue CCW law went into effect, but their crime rate actually dropped when the rest of the nation's was rising, and fell faster than the rest of the nation later on. For references, check the most recent state, Michigan. They adopted their law just over a year ago.

So the question thus becomes, why do you feel that you would be inclined to shoot someone for verbally insulting your deeply-held beliefs? 1/2

A friend of mine and I are going to fly down to Phoenix for the Gun Rights Policy Conference from the SF Bay Area under the rubric of the Armed Pilot and Citizen Air Marshal Program - ah, the joys of General Aviation and a private pilot's license!

(If anyone in the area wants to join us in flying armed, we're looking for people to split the cost with.)

[NEWwoman]

>>If you can show me a personal attack vs. a question, feel free.
>>"Hell" is not a profane word.


OK.

1. "are you nuts"?
- personal attack, no real question asked or substantial argument here
2. "Grow the Hell up."
- personal attack: condencending, nasty
- profanity - (Would you talk to your mother like this?)

Otherwise, I have no problem with the substance of your arguments. As you see, many agree with you, some don't. Thanks to the Marines, you've kept this a Free Country.

Siempre Fi

[CWRWinger]

Our Constitutional rights are not extended to foreigners of foreign and hostile cultures.

[CWRWinger]

Since 9/11, I have flown zero miles. And I don't intend to fly anytime soon either. There isn't anywhere that I need to go that I can't simply drive to.

Same here. I have not flown seven times since 10/2001 (the month I quit flying). The airport security measures are not only a farce, but an insult to American citizens. I do miss flying because it's a long drive from SC to Austin, TX. But I have driven that trip three times since last Oct.

The airports need a freep or two, with the message, "We don't fly again until passengers and pilots are armed." (In fact, Freepers flying to Las Vegas need to be freeped)

I have seen little indications that the government and the airlines are getting that message, though they won't admit it openly.

[ninenot]

Countless thread bits on FR debunk your thesis that bullets cause explosive depressurization. The Hawaii incident was not a result of bullets--it was a structure defect.

It's possible that full-auto .50cal fire would create a big problem. Ban full-auto .50cals on airplanes.

[Tennessee_Bob]

Countless thread bits on FR debunk your thesis that bullets cause explosive depressurization. The Hawaii incident was not a result of bullets--it was a structure defect.

That's cool by me - you go by Free Republic, I'll go by my experience in aircraft maintenance. Ok?

[ninenot]

No problem. First of all, I have stopped flying, for all practical purposes. Will avoid it like the plague until this crap about "frisking" American citizens like me: 50, Anglo-Saxon, native-born, is over with. Besides, the prices are ridiculous.

Keep maintaining aircraft, and explain the shredded B-17s that flew home.

[Tennessee_Bob]

explain the shredded B-17s that flew home.

You mean those non-pressurized B-17s??

[Tennessee_Bob]

Countless thread bits on FR debunk your thesis that bullets cause explosive depressurization. The Hawaii incident was not a result of bullets--it was a structure defect.

And before we get into a pissing match about pressurized and unpressurized aircraft - you need to go back and the post you responded to - and then tell me what you consider an explosive decompression. The "Hawaii incident" you refer to was not an explosive decompression nor was it a "defect." It was a structural failure, brought on by poor maintenance.

I'm thinking that we're dealing with a problem of semantics here. When I say "explosive decompression," apparently, you're conjuring up some image where the sides of the aircraft blow out, passengers are sucked away, and the plane crashes.

Hate to disappoint you, but that's not an explosive decompression. Explosive decompression is a sudden, rapid loss of cabin pressure. Ever been through one? I have, on an Air Force KC-135. The sudden drop in air pressure really screws up your ears, but what's really interesting is you find out why the oxygen masks on civilian aircraft are bright orange. When the pressure drops, all the moisure in the air condenses - suddenly you can't see more than a few inches in front of your face.

Also, when you read my original post, please point out where I said there would be a crash or anything like that. All I said was "nothing like an explosive decompression to really make your day."

[Don Joe]

"But how, if they allow passengers to have concealed weapons, will they make the distinction between a regular passenger and a possible hijacker?"

You're missing the whole point.

The purpose of "an armed society" isn't so that everyone goes around shooting everyone else. The purpose of an armed society is to prevent people from shooting each other.

It's called "deterrence", and it's been proven to work. Most recent/dramatic example? It was called "the cold war".

Therefore, your question is meaningless, because "if they allow passengers to have concealed weapons," there won't be any hijackers on the plane -- and thus, no reason to even try to "make the distinction between a regular passenger and a possible hijacker."

[Don Joe]

"You never had a constitutional right to carry a gun on a commercial plane anyway. A plane is someone else's private property and they get to make the rules."

Maybe, maybe not. If the rules that were applied to schools that "receive federal funds", the heavily subsidized airlines would have no say in the matter. What the feds said "applied" would apply, or they'd receive no further funding, and, likely be prosecuted for violations that occured while the did receive the funds.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

ROFL! Hey, that's cheating!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

What makes you think FAM's are the first and only armed people on aircraft?

[DuncanWaring]

The "Aloha" problem was due to faulty construction of the aircraft, and a lot of use.

Note that even with a barndoor-sized hole in the roof, the aircraft was landed successfully.

[Don Joe]

"That's cool by me - you go by Free Republic, I'll go by my experience in aircraft maintenance. Ok?"

Sounds good. Please back up your claims with some evidence, OK?

So far, I am aware of exactly ONE example of "explosive decompression" caused by gunfire.

However, I discount it, inasmuch as it occurred in a James Bond movie.

OK, I'm all ears. Please document some real-life examples of "explosive decompression" caused by gunfire.

Be warned, however, that the threads that you so readily discount carried beaucoup documentation from those in the industry who scoff at the idea you assert.

Oh, and in closing, it occurs to me that YOU are "on Freerepublic" too. So who the hell are YOU that we should ignore all of the documented evidence and bow down at your knees?

[Don Joe]

"So do you think I am anti-handguns or referring to them as evil handguns because I think they should not be allowed on aircraft in the cabin area, loaded?"

There are about 3,000 people who would disagree with your sentiments -- if only they were alive and breathing for the past 11 months.

[Tennessee_Bob]

So who the hell are YOU that we should ignore all of the documented evidence and bow down at your knees?

Odd.

In my posts, I don't recall asking anyone to go by my experience. In fact, what I said was "you go by Free Republic, I'll go by my experience in aircraft maintenance."

But hey, feel free to interpret what I say in any way you want.

BTW, you might want to read the other posts I have on this thread regarding "explosive decompression," ok?

Have a nice night, and you might want to cut down on the caffiene.