I think we should be able to pack while flying on passenger airlines. I mean think about it, the 911 hijackers wouldn't have had a chance with passengers packing. Am I missing something here? Why should the right to defend ourselves and exercise our Constitutional rights be ended at the airport terminal?
Just the fact that an errant bullet could kill everyone on the plane if it hit a window, crucial wiring, or the fuel tank, making a gun unsuitable for self defense in such a situation. Just like a grenade would be unsuitable in that situation. The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense. So, while I'm not saying that "arms" shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying use the right tool for the right job.
The idealistic 2nd Amendment kinda loses credibility when discussing this sort of thing, as with most absolutist ideals that don't mesh with praxis.
What's wrong? Don't you believe good red blooded 2nd Amendment loving Americans should have adequate fire power to take down hijacking Middle Eastern terrorists? You just want to leave us helpless and hand cuffed apparently. I guess that's what nanny state conditioning does to folks. Leave all the initiative to the terrorists and have American pleading on their knees for mercy. SHAME!
Government shouldn't make it illegal, but airlines should. I have similar thoughts on smoking on planes. Sure, the government shouldn't get involved, but all but a few will regulate themselves. That's their right, it's their property. If you don't like it don't fly with them. Government tends to regulate a lot of stuff that would be privately regulated anyway.
There's always excuses for not letting the good guys shoot down the bad guys. I hope Wayne isn't reading this wimpy sell out stuff. The right to carry arms is the right to carry arms. What about that don't you get? As he says the answer to a bad guy killer is a good guy having him eating floor. Good guys packing on planes is the answer to bad guys taking them over..
What? The constitution is a limitation on government power, it doesn't limit the people unless explicitly stated (ie: with treason). You're not obligated to let someone swear at you on your own property just because the they have freedom of speech. If he doesn't like it he can get out of my house.
Unlike your home, airplanes exist to serve the public. You can't for instance discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Why should you be able to discriminate against 2nd Amendment patriots? Better check in with Wayne and get educated.
You should be able to discriminate on the basis of race and religion, on your own property, and in voluntary contracts. If the other person doesn't like it they can sod off, they're not entitled to your property.
"Arms" include more than just guns. As I pointed out, firing a gun on a plane is suicidal. Let someone use an appropriate weapon. A knife, a baton, or a taser could all be appropriate responses. I realize that this whole OP is just a troll, but I am just pointing out that your straw is showing. Edit: who is Wayne?
One BIG problem I have with not allowing a law abiding licensed citizen to carry on board is I hate to put my firearm in checked package as I just so mistrust the baggage loaders. In addition the chances of a missed flight, lost luggage etc, with a firearm in the luggage just bothers me no end
I think you and I got it right It's a nice little bait and switch and troll thread all in one. I'll be done with this one LOL
Maybe, maybe not. As any soldier knows there is price to be payed to send the bad guys a message. Man up! Wayne Lapierre, our guide and hero? Where have you been? He layed it out for everybody. The answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Let them shoot it out and decide whose who. If you get killed on the side lines well virtuous deeds can sometimes have unfortunate consequences. Just remember as you take one, you are dying in a good cause.
Sorry airplanes operate on airports which are public property. No way around it, us true blue 2nd Amendment patriots won't stand for you trampling on our rights on our property. And your 44 don't bother us no way. Some of us have been playing in the big theater if you know what I mean.
For one the hijackers were on a mission. If they had been free to carry firearms onto the plane, they undoubtedly would have been the best armed passengers on the plane, the best organized force and perfectly willing to kill and be killed. Of course they would have "had a chance"! That was their plan. I remember when there were no passenger screenings, and passengers could carry anything they liked onto a plane. The only reason why there weren't more incidents (only one that I can recall) was because most people wanted to live. The 9-11 attackers were prepared to die. If there had been four crashes like Shanksville, it might not have made that much of an impression. OTOH if only one plane hit its mark, we'd still be remembering it like December 7. Extraordinary circumstances aside, airliners are private property. Part of private ownership is the right to make rules in your house...or plane as the case may be. I don't know of many pilots who would want to risk a running gun battle on their plane. I don't know of too many passengers who would welcome getting perforated at 30,000 feet in the name of freedom. If the FAA hadn't intervened, I have little doubt that the airlines would have. I was once relieved of my Swiss Army knife, and had it returned to me at the end of the flight. I can imagine jetways with gun-check areas, just like the bars in Westerns. Remember too that times have changed. People have become more belligerent in the US. Back when weapons were banned in 1973, it was because the flying public wasn't willing to take an unscheduled trip to Cuba. Back then there were lots of skyjackings, but very few injuries. By 2001 there had been several incidents with unruly passengers requiring the intervention of passengers and/or crew. What if one of them had discharged a firearm? Another thing to consider is states' rights. Since airplanes tend to travel over many jurisdictions, is it really practical to enforce what some imagine is their Second Amendment rights and the states' rights? Would you be able to afford a plane ticket that includes the cost of carrying "a well regulated militia"? That's in the Second Amendment too! I get this funny feeling that some may not have invested much thought into this matter. Even if you think of yourself as a responsible firearm owner, would you be willing to die a pointless death to defend the rights of some idiot who thinks that the second amendment is a license to kill? Perhaps this topic was never intended to be more than a dog whistle talking point for the lame-brained to repeat over and over in obedience to their authoritarian overlords.
Having quite a bit of knowledge about aircraft, I would have to disagree. Depressurization at altitude can be deadly and it could be set off by just a single stray bullet and it's effects on the skin of the aircraft, and that doesn't even take into account the possibility of hitting the center fuel tank, flight control cables, hydraulic systems, fuel lines or other critical components. Had you said Tazer, I'd be all in, but that is a time where bullets are unsafe for more reasons than just the tight confines of so many passengers.
Despite your seeming impenetrable logic the 2nd Amendment rules. We all have one death coming so buck up. I would draw the line on bombs. They seem so unfair; no equalizer. Anyway if planes become too dangerous you can always drive. Why should the nanny state protect you from what is an optional choice?
Upon further reflection, and while in principle I have NO issue with a CCW/HCP holder carrying on a plane, I would be afraid that after having to sit 2+ hrs on a tarmac waiting to take off or disembark that someone may lose it.
