Reagan

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
Now it becomes clear where you get these nutty ideas about the US Constitution and its amendments.

Your ideas come directly from a group of crazies that opened an on-line forum.

Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.

People without some kind of brain disease wouldn't even waste their time on such nonsense.

You are completely relying on the Martians for your information but believe me, these aliens are lying to you.

Get some professional help....

I had never been to this site until today. Also are you aware that this forum is funded by donations from its readers?

Travis

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

I had never been to this site until today. Also are you aware that this forum is funded by donations from its readers?
Travis

You just went to this site for the very FIRST time today?

Your previous posts are almost word for word from this forum introduction.

Isn't that a coincidence?

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
You just went to this site for the very FIRST time today?

Your previous posts are almost word for word from this forum introduction.

Isn't that a coincidence?

Well when coming from the same particular principle, it is not that unusual that the arguments might be similar. Besides I typically start threads with URLs for people to read, not post them a few days later. But to be honest I really do not care if you beleive I have been to the site before. I just thought you might be interested in reading that since it argued many of the myths that you are promoting all at once. I thought you were interested in learning more about protecting gun rights. I was wrong.

Travis

 

[leojoeyjoe]

You just went to this site for the very FIRST time today?

who cares? Leave the conspiracy theories to the left...they'll need 'em come election day.

 

[tpahl]

I will try one more time to post something that will hopeful dispell the myth regarding guns being fired inside an aircraft results in everyone dying.

This article is written by John Lott. A respected expert on guns in america.

here is an excerpt from http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott15.html

I recommend reading the full article.
****
The fears of having guns on planes are exaggerated. As Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, noted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives:

Boeing commercial service history contains cases where guns were fired on board in service airplanes, all of which landed safely. Commercial airplane structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft. A bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization. Aircraft are designed to withstand much larger impacts whether intentional or unintentional. For instance, on 14 occasions Boeing commercial airplanes have survived, and landed, after an in flight bomb blast.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

I will try one more time to post something that will hopeful dispell the myth regarding guns being fired inside an aircraft results in everyone dying.

Your American Enterprise Group (a think tank) in no way suggests that passengers should be armed with weapons. The thrust of this article is that PILOTS should be trained and armed for emergencies. That is your own idea from that nut forum site.

A few reports of airplanes surviving small bomb blasts and multiple gunshots neither makes a double blind study nor does it prove the statement "in all cases" planes do not crash. There was one plane in recent past that even the top part of the front cabin came off in mid-air with only a SMALL loss of life but the plane was ultimately landed without crashing. Does that single incident prove that all planes are safe when drunk passengers fire wildly into rows of men, women and children. I guess that is an acceptable risk for your 2nd Amendment rights.

Now there is advanced technology that is termed 'smart guns' with which only the owner of the gun can fire the pistol or rifle. No one can fire a police officers gun, no kids can fire their fathers guns at school, no terrorists or criminals can fire stolen guns, etc.

read: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-04-14-smart-chips_x.htm

This techology has been developed and reported by MAIN STREAM media outlets such as this USAToday article.

Drunk drivers and drunk gun owners can kill and cause injury but there is no need for them to be on aircraft. This would INFRINGE on the right to life of the passengers.

Get a life.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps

Your American Enterprise Group (a think tank) in no way suggests that passengers should be armed with weapons. The thrust of this article is that PILOTS should be trained and armed for emergencies.

And in showing that pilots should be armed, they dispell the myth that you keep implying every post. Here is all the different times you have tried to use the fear of a bullet ripping a plane apart to support the government infringing on peoples right to protect themselves.

first you said...

Be sure to tell the Arab terrorists to use non-aircraft piercing ammo when they shoot the pilots and you to death. Everyone will breath a little easier knowing that the plane's outer shell is safe from blowing wide open. Whew that makes me feel a lot better.

then you said...

Drunk citizen militas on 600+ miles per hour airlines will make quite a few flights go down in flames.

then you said...

I have not only read but examined the tests perfomed on pressurized airplane cabins when a large caliber projectile penetrates the skin of a plane. The pressure differential between the inside pressure in lbs/inch squared and the extreme low outside pressure is devastating when a window is shot out.

then you said...

How long would a plane stay in the air if the cabin crew were shot by drunken gunfighters or those nice double paned windows shot out by drunks firing pistols on planes?

Do you perhaps want to change your stance on bullets effect on commercial aircraft?

A few reports of airplanes surviving small bomb blasts and multiple gunshots neither makes a double blind study nor does it prove the statement "in all cases" planes do not crash.

No it does not. But the fact that in ALL of Boeing aircrafts history a bullet has NEVER brought down a plane. There is a chance that a bullet COULD bring down the plane. But the evidence so far shows that it is far more likely that a terrorist will take over a plane full of disarmed passengers.

There was one plane in recent past that even the top part of the front cabin came off in mid-air with only a SMALL loss of life but the plane was ultimately landed without crashing. Does that single incident prove that all planes are safe when drunk passengers fire wildly into rows of men, women and children. I guess that is an acceptable risk for your 2nd Amendment rights.

One single incident proves nothing. An entire history of the largest aircraft producers history does show that something is unlikely however.

Travis

Now there is advanced technology that is termed 'smart guns' with which only the owner of the gun can fire the pistol or rifle. No one can fire a police officers gun, no kids can fire their fathers guns at school, no terrorists or criminals can fire stolen guns, etc.

read: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-04-14-smart-chips_x.htm

This techology has been developed and reported by MAIN STREAM media outlets such as this USAToday article.

Drunk drivers and drunk gun owners can kill and cause injury but there is no need for them to be on aircraft. This would INFRINGE on the right to life of the passengers.

Get a life. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

And in showing that pilots should be armed, they dispell the myth that you keep implying every post. Here is all the different times you have tried to use the fear of a bullet ripping a plane apart to support the government infringing on peoples right to protect themselves.

Do you perhaps want to change your stance on bullets effect on commercial aircraft?

Not at all....

No it does not. But the fact that in ALL of Boeing aircrafts history a bullet has NEVER brought down a plane. There is a chance that a bullet COULD bring down the plane. But the evidence so far shows that it is far more likely that a terrorist will take over a plane full of disarmed passengers.

So you admit that a bullet COULD bring down an airplane. Do you perhaps want to change your view about this possibility?

One single incident proves nothing. An entire history of the largest aircraft producers history does show that something is unlikely however.

Actually so many aircraft have been brought down by gunfire that the immense number of such air crash events is not even countable. I guess that those planes in wars since WW1 were not brought down by bullets. The reason that commercial aircraft crashes are minimal is because so few of them have had citizen carrying or using guns as their Constitutional rights not being infringed upon. How long would a commercial jet liner remain in the sky if one single bullet struck a jet engine or the immense amount of control wires and electronics running the entire length of commercial airlines?

-----Now there is advanced technology that is termed 'smart guns' with which only the owner of the gun can fire the pistol or rifle. No one can fire a police officers gun, no kids can fire their fathers guns at school, no terrorists or criminals can fire stolen guns, etc.

read: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-04-14-smart-chips_x.htm

This techology has been developed and reported by MAIN STREAM media outlets such as this USAToday article.

Drunk drivers and drunk gun owners can kill and cause injury but there is no need for them to be on aircraft. This would INFRINGE on the right to life of the passengers.-----

Get a life.

Great reply. I guess using safe weapons would be an infringement of your 2nd amendment rights. I suspect that you don't approve of such safe weapons being sold instead of those just anyone can use to shoot just anyone or shoot an jet engine and cause a disaster.

Learn to live with the liberties the framers of the US Constitution gave you instead of reintepreting them for insane reasons.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
And in showing that pilots should be armed, they dispell the myth that you keep implying every post. Here is all the different times you have tried to use the fear of a bullet ripping a plane apart to support the government infringing on peoples right to protect themselves.

Do you perhaps want to change your stance on bullets effect on commercial aircraft?

Not at all....

That is too bad.

So you admit that a bullet COULD bring down an airplane. Do you perhaps want to change your view about this possibility?

I have never claimed it was not possible. Only that the odds are so low. While the odds that armed hijackers will take over more planes is relatively high so long as we continue to disarm passengers.

One single incident proves nothing. An entire history of the largest aircraft producers history does show that something is unlikely however.

Actually so many aircraft have been brought down by gunfire that the immense number of such air crash events is not even countable. I guess that those planes in wars since WW1 were not brought down by bullets. [/quote]

Very good. You have managed to ignore the difference in size and technology between modern commerical airliners and WWI fighter planes.


[quote[The reason that commercial aircraft crashes are minimal is because so few of them have had citizen carrying or using guns as their Constitutional rights not being infringed upon. How long would a commercial jet liner remain in the sky if one single bullet struck a jet engine or the immense amount of control wires and electronics running the entire length of commercial airlines?

As long as needed to safely land. They are "designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft.

You would have picked up on that had you bothered to read what Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, said in the article I posted. Or at least not been so stubborn as to pretend you know more than him about commercial airliners.

-----Now there is advanced technology that is termed 'smart guns' with which only the owner of the gun can fire the pistol or rifle. No one can fire a police officers gun, no kids can fire their fathers guns at school, no terrorists or criminals can fire stolen guns, etc.

read: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-04-14-smart-chips_x.htm

This techology has been developed and reported by MAIN STREAM media outlets such as this USAToday article.

That is great. I am not sure why you keep posting about this however. It hardly seems relevant to the points being discussed.

Drunk drivers and drunk gun owners can kill and cause injury but there is no need for them to be on aircraft. This would INFRINGE on the right to life of the passengers.-----

Gun owners COULD cause injury on the ground. Should people who drink alcohol not be allowed to own a gun? That is the extension of your argument.

Get a life.

Great reply. I guess using safe weapons would be an infringement of your 2nd amendment rights. I suspect that you don't approve of such safe weapons being sold instead of those just anyone can use to shoot just anyone or shoot an jet engine and cause a disaster.

First of all, those were YOUR WORDS. I just did not delete them properly as I meant to. If you were offended when you thought I said that, then perhaps you should not have said them to me. Secondly I have no idea why you think I am opposed to safe weapons. I have never claimed to be against them. They sound great. Maybe I will buy one some day.

Travis Pahl

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Yeh right, the size and newer models makes a lot of difference when shot with lead bullets. How ignorant can you get?

The rest of your replies are not worth the time and effort to respond to except for your quote from Ron Hinderberger, director of avation safety at Boeing (manufacturer and sales of aircraft).

You take his statement from the site as:

As long as needed to safely land. They are "designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft.

You would have picked up on that had you bothered to read what Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, said in the article I posted. Or at least not been so stubborn as to pretend you know more than him about commercial airliners.

Why don't you take a better look at your own copy/paste paragraph from this Boeing sales site?

The use of fixed and concrete statements like 'never, ever, forever, always and WOULD NOT mean that these folks aren't telling the whole truth. There is no such thing for something that WOULD NOT result in the loss of any aircraft.

In other words, when you want to sell something worth millions of dollars many times over, would one put in a warning that there is a good chance that their product can be brought down by bullet fire? Is that a WOULD NOT?

Think before you speak....