Right to bear arms is not absolute

Denver Post ^ | 2-16-03 | State Sen. Ken Gordon

[TheBlackFeather]

I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.

Let's consider an equivalent of the times; sailing ships. Although no one would question the rights of the passengers & members of the crew to own & carry, once aboard they were under the command of the ship's Captain. Firearms were maintained in an armory or locker until Captain's orders (or mutiny conditions) distributed those weapons. At most, senior officers may have carried a pistol to keep sailors, a sometimes unruly lot, to help keep order. With that in mind, ships were frequently armed with crew served weapons, (cannon/weapons of mass destruction) to guard against attack by other ships, supporting a right and practice of keeping a class of weapons now banned as destructive devices.

[Eagle Eye]

Would you restrict it to handguns? Obviously if it is the airlines's rules they can do anything they want. But if you are chairing the 'passengers and guns' committee, what do you sign off on?

[dcwusmc]

As carry-on, yes. I think that's all that would be necessary, considering that, say, a .30-06 would penetrate the skin of the aircraft with almost any load, but a 1911 could be loaded with frangible rounds that would not. Understand, this is my PERSONAL notion, based on years in aviation (with the Marine Corps). Unless you are on a helo, headed for a HOT LZ, it would not be unreasonable for the airline to require that you stow your tommyguns and frags in checked baggage. Besides, getting a long-gun into play in an emergency on a crowded airliner would probably cause more damage than a live hijacker could.

[dcwusmc]

Interesting Status System!

Am I dead or not?

[harpseal]

Although no one would question the rights of the passengers & members of the crew to own & carry, once aboard they were under the command of the ship's Captain.

This was very far from the case with many vessels especially those engaged in commerce on the reular shipping lanes or American costal commerce. Further absolutely every sailor carried a knife that would also be a weapon as could belaying pins (normally used for securing parts or the rigging). Swords and muskets were not normally locked away on many of the ships it very much depended upon the captain and the specific crew. I would suggest the archives in Mytic Seaport contain some very good information on this subject including some Captains logs of the times.

[Eaker]

Interesting Status System!

I like to keep tabs on myself!!!!

Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker Freeper Status

[Travis McGee]

During the first 60 or so years of aviation, passengers were free to pack a revolver in their purse or briefcase along with their notebooks and toothbrush.

I am not aware of any hijackings or passengers going berserk with these pistols. None.

Look at the effect of airplane disarmament on the events of 9-11: the 757s became pure victim zones, where a handful of fanatics with boxcutters were able to take complete control and kill thousands.

Which arms on planes paradigm was more effective at preventing hijacking and mass death?

On 9-11, if you were on one of those planes, would you have preferred to have been on a plane with a dozen screened and tested citizens who were carrying sidearms?

I can see how they could have prevented 9-11, how exactly could they have made the situation worse?

"Gun free zones", whether the zones are schools, churches, businesses or airplanes, invariably do nothing to increase safety, but only turn them into death traps. These "gun free zones" become murder magnets for maniacs bent on mass slaughter.

I have heard of deranged killers rampaging in "gun free" schools and businesses. I have NEVER heard of a shooting rampage at a rifle range or gun show.

Now why do you suppose that might be?

[thisiskubrick]

I checked your FReep page and you are asking others to support the First Amendment and are now damning the Second Amendment. What a hypocrite.

There's nothing hypocrtical about supporting the 1st ammendment, but realizing that the 2nd ammendment is obsolete.

Don't worry though, I'm sure your right to bear arms will be there for generations to come. I just don't think it has actually helped protect anyone from the government's abuse of power. I'm all for guns being used responsibly, but the 2nd ammendment has allowed for guns to be placed in the hands of lunatics too many times. How many Columbines will it take before people realize the 2nd ammendment doesn't make sense anymore??

[thisiskubrick]

If a few patriots had been carrying on AA Flt. 11, they could have shot Mohammed Atta's sorry ass and saved us all a lot of trouble.

Yeah, then we'd only have to worry whenever a disgruntled postal worker boarded a plane. Besides.. I hear a whistling sound.. called "loss of cabin pressure!"

[facedown]

Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.

Just damn.©

© mhking

[The Toad]

So, I guess the guy who wrote the article would also agree that the 1st Admendment does not apply to e-mails or other forms of electronic communication since they did not exist in the late 1700's.

You gotta love the anti-gun rights crowd's fallacious arguments.

[Aarchaeus]

The anti's hate guns and it has nothing to do with crime or accidents.

Actually, I don't believe it's guns that they have such a hate for. What I believe they hate is for citizens to have anything that they (the collectivist freak SOBs) don't have control over.

[The Toad]

Certainly, Americans have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean? Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns?

More great logic--comparing freedom fighters to murderous drug dealers. Were George Washingon and gang simple thugs then?

The problem is that it's difficult to argue from a position of logic with people who do not understand logic.

[Eaker]

How many Columbines will it take before people realize the 2nd ammendment doesn't make sense anymore??

Your grasp on reality and understanding of the American Constitution is such that any further explaination to you would be the same as showing a chicken a card trick.

I'll stay safe by staying armed. You keep 911 on your speed dial.

[Travis McGee]

Besides.. I hear a whistling sound.. called "loss of cabin pressure!"

You must be new around here, or you have learned your physics from watching James Bond movies.

Planes can be riddled with bullet holes, it just means the pilot slowly descends to below 10,000 feet and returns to land. 15 years ago an Aloha air jetliner lost 20 feet of the top of its fuselage and landed. Bullet holes in the fuselage mean nothing.

[Travis McGee]

There's nothing hypocrtical about supporting the 1st ammendment, but realizing that the 2nd ammendment is obsolete.

Well you just go on and pray for a speedy police response, I will defend my family in person.

And when your designated gun toters in uniform come to my house to enforce your unconstitutional gun ban, I will shoot them dead.

And then I will go hunting for craven bleating sheep.

[dcwusmc]

Ping to see the Liberal Gun-grabber, Neil. Ain't he a HOOT? When did the Second "AMMENDMENT" stop government abuses?

Well, Stan... if it were not a direct threat to those who wish to expand their power over us, there would not be such a concerted effort to:
A.) Demonize gun-owners;
B.) Question the "effectiveness" of the Amendment;
C.) Marginalize or trivialize the stats which show its effectiveness at preventing FREELANCE crime; and
D.) Get "reasonable" gun-laws passed on every level...

And you either have an oar in that pond or you have been brainwashed successfully... which would it be?

Any more questions I can answer for you?

[Robert_Paulson2]

what is reasonable for a community should be up to the community in question.

---

Glad you said it JUST that way... your communism is showing buddie... fwiw... the commune form of government is NOT in the penumbra of our constitution. And states don't have the right to perpetrate it on the folks, even IF they are too stupid to recoginize it for what it is.

Just because a state SAYS they have the power to pass and enforce a "reasonable" law, does not mean it will forever pass constitutional muster... and the dinosaurs of the communal movement are nearing extinction... reasonable or not.

[Mulder]

And when your designated gun toters in uniform come to my house to enforce your unconstitutional gun ban, I will shoot them dead.

You speak for millions of Americans when you say that.

And that is going to give the bootlicking contigent here nightmares. But that is their problem.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Rule 308 section 223 paragraph 22 through 45, and 50 say the opposite. Our rulers govern by temporary consent only. Millions of well trained, proven, honorable men and women have sworn to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.