Reagan

[tpahl]

www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2955

(1) He supported a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases.
(2) He called the Brady Bill "just plain common sense."
(3) He said "I support the Brady Bill and I urge the Congress to enact it
without further delay."
(4) He endorsed the federal government mandating "local law enforcement
officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun."
(5) He signed into law an edict "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on
one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street."
(6) He executed an "administrative ban" on importation of shotguns that can
hold more than 10 rounds, which later became codified into law.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

But every American continues to have the right to own and bear arms in their own protection.

Every American can still obtain a 'gun dealers' license allowing anyone to legally keep an arsenal (for sale or use) in case we are ever attacked by our own govenrment.

American remains the only country in the world where every citizen can be armed to the teeth to protect himself.

Most of those other laws were meant to keep arms out of the hands of terrorist and criminals and not American citizens.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
But every American continues to have the right to own and bear arms in their own protection.

Every American can still obtain a 'gun dealers' license allowing anyone to legally keep an arsenal (for sale or use) in case we are ever attacked by our own govenrment.

No. many can not. Included in that group are airline passengers and most NYC residents.

American remains the only country in the world where every citizen can be armed to the teeth to protect himself.

No. Plenty of other countries have similar or more freedom when it comes to firearms. Costa Rica, Switzerland, and afghanistan all come to mind.

Most of those other laws were meant to keep arms out of the hands of terrorist and criminals and not American citizens.

Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Terrorists generally seem to ignore them as well. These laws make it harder for law abiding american citizens to get guns. Reagan despite his supposed support of the second amendment supported these laws. Bush does as well.

Travis

Travis

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

No. many can not. Included in that group are airline passengers and most NYC residents.

Airline passangers can carry guns in their baggage stowed below but not on their person during trips. The reasons are obvious. Many flights now have Federal Marshals who do carry firearms and those who would attempt to take over a flight do not know who or if there are such people on board. Ergo, there is little need to protect oneself from illegal attacks upon themselves are protected onboard planes.

All, not most of New York citizens have the legal right to own handguns since April, 2003. See the attached NRA site for laws pertaining to firearms in New York State.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=NY

No. Plenty of other countries have similar or more freedom when it comes to firearms. Costa Rica, Switzerland, and afghanistan all come to mind.

Yes Afghanistan is a great example as well as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If the people of Europe had similar gun bearing laws prior to WW2, few Nazi stormtroopers would have broken into people's homes to take the family into the street and shoot them dead.

Don't think for one minute that a despot could not come to power in the USA. As the US Constitution allows for the protection of your lives and liberties from the potential tyranny of your own government.

Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Terrorists generally seem to ignore them as well. These laws make it harder for law abiding american citizens to get guns. Reagan despite his supposed support of the second amendment supported these laws. Bush does as well. Travis

The laws for honest citizens does make it harder for them to obtain and carry firearms. But that law does not prohibit anyone from this freedom provided for by the framers of the US Constitution. Criminals and terrorists also have a difficult time obtaining and keeping their firearms for if they are caught with illegal weapons in their possession, the penalty for same is significant enough to keep them in warehouses for a very long time. Reagan and Bush did help draft these laws that allows you and every honest citizen to keep and bear arms and make it harder for terrorists and criminals to do the same.
:firing:

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
No. many can not. Included in that group are airline passengers and most NYC residents.

Airline passangers can carry guns in their baggage stowed below but not on their person during trips.

Alot of protection that will give you!

The reasons are obvious.

To those that watch lots of movies. To those of us that understand that a plane does not fall out of the sky if a shot is fired and also understand that you can special ammo to that will not peirce the aircraft, the reasons are much less obvious.

Many flights now have Federal Marshals who do carry firearms and those who would attempt to take over a flight do not know who or if there are such people on board. Ergo, there is little need to protect oneself from illegal attacks upon themselves are protected onboard planes.

Why can we trust an air marshal with a gun but not a regular citizen?
And most flights do NOT have an air marshall. So if we are safer when the terrorisr do not know who has a gun, wouldn't we be even more safe if any or ALL of the passengers might have a gun?

The excuses you are giving are the same excuses that liberals give for disarming people on the ground.

All, not most of New York citizens have the legal right to own handguns since April, 2003. See the attached NRA site for laws pertaining to firearms in New York State./quote]

What it says in the laws and the actual reality are two different things. I have lived in NYC. The EASIEST way to legally own a gun is to be VERY VERY rich or become a police officer.

No. Plenty of other countries have similar or more freedom when it comes to firearms. Costa Rica, Switzerland, and afghanistan all come to mind.

Yes Afghanistan is a great example as well as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If the people of Europe had similar gun bearing laws prior to WW2, few Nazi stormtroopers would have broken into people's homes to take the family into the street and shoot them dead.

Don't think for one minute that a despot could not come to power in the USA. As the US Constitution allows for the protection of your lives and liberties from the potential tyranny of your own government.

I understand it and want to elect someone that will work to REVERSE the 20,000 gun laws we have in this country. It is you who is supporting a president that supports these unconstitutional laws.

The laws for honest citizens does make it harder for them to obtain and carry firearms. But that law does not prohibit anyone from this freedom provided for by the framers of the US Constitution.

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Criminals and terrorists also have a difficult time obtaining and keeping their firearms for if they are caught with illegal weapons in their possession, the penalty for same is significant enough to keep them in warehouses for a very long time. Reagan and Bush did help draft these laws that allows you and every honest citizen to keep and bear arms and make it harder for terrorists and criminals to do the same.

It does not stop criminals and it does infringe on regular citizens. You should be ashamed to support presidents that support gun restriction laws.

Travis

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Alot of protection that will give you!

Right.... I would like to give Islamic terrorists the same protection to carry weapons on the plane on which you are traveling. Then you can have a good ole western shootout among the men, women and children passengers who all will have their own guns.

Real nice....

To those that watch lots of movies. To those of us that understand that a plane does not fall out of the sky if a shot is fired and also understand that you can special ammo to that will not peirce the aircraft, the reasons are much less obvious.

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.

Why can we trust an air marshal with a gun but not a regular citizen? And most flights do NOT have an air marshall. So if we are safer when the terrorisr do not know who has a gun, wouldn't we be even more safe if any or ALL of the passengers might have a gun?

Well first of all air marshalls are well trained to handle terrorist activities on airlines. Regular citizens drink about six or thirteen little whiskey bottles, feel a bit tipsy and pull out their gun and blow a nice big hole in your empty head.

The excuses you are giving are the same excuses that liberals give for disarming people on the ground.

Really? I thought the liberals on the ground want to take away the right of all citizens to bear arms in defense of their lives or property. Drunk citizen militas on 600+ miles per hour airlines will make quite a few flights go down in flames.

I understand it and want to elect someone that will work to REVERSE the 20,000 gun laws we have in this country. It is you who is supporting a president that supports these unconstitutional laws.

What unconstitutional gun laws are you talking about? The right to bear arms laws are meant to allow honest people to obtain weapons and KEEP MORONS AND CRIMINALS from obtaining weapons to kill and maime fellow good Americans.

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

None at all. What part of the current laws which allow good honest citizens to keep and bear arms do you not understand?

It does not stop criminals and it does infringe on regular citizens. You should be ashamed to support presidents that support gun restriction laws.

I sure won't support any presidential candidates that want to take my right to take my gun out of your cold dead hand.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
Alot of protection that will give you!

Right.... I would like to give Islamic terrorists the same protection to carry weapons on the plane on which you are traveling. Then you can have a good ole western shootout among the men, women and children passengers who all will have their own guns.

Real nice....

Appearantly you are not familiar with how the old west actually was. It was not like the movies, just like shootouts on planes are not like the movies.

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.

Perhaps you should read what some aerospcae engineers have said about what would ACTUALLY happen if a bullet pierced the hull of a plane. Also airlines could still restrict what ammo they allow on their planes in a free society.

Well first of all air marshalls are well trained to handle terrorist activities on airlines. Regular citizens drink about six or thirteen little whiskey bottles, feel a bit tipsy and pull out their gun and blow a nice big hole in your empty head.

So once again you are making arguments that liberals make on the ground. Why is it that people are responsible enough to own, carry and operate a gun on the ground but the second they are in an airplane you think that only government employees are responsible enough to have such a right?

Really? I thought the liberals on the ground want to take away the right of all citizens to bear arms in defense of their lives or property.

Which is what you are arguing for in the air.

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

So you say based on hollywood movies. Reality disagrees.

What unconstitutional gun laws are you talking about? The right to bear arms laws are meant to allow honest people to obtain weapons and KEEP MORONS AND CRIMINALS from obtaining weapons to kill and maime fellow good Americans.

I am talking about the 20,000 gun laws in this country that the NRA fought everytime they were proposed but has accepted after they were passed. And again I must ask, why is it you want to keep honest people from protecting themselves while on an airplane?

None at all. What part of the current laws which allow good honest citizens to keep and bear arms do you not understand?

They do nothing but make it more difficult to obtain guns. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why are you supporting gun laws that republicans claimed to oppose before they were passed?

travis

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

Appearantly you are not familiar with how the old west actually was. It was not like the movies, just like shootouts on planes are not like the movies.

How many shootouts between drunkards in airplanes have you become familiar with? Why do you equate what you see in movies with reality? What makes you think that I don't know more about the old wild west than is shown in the movies?

Perhaps you should read what some aerospcae engineers have said about what would ACTUALLY happen if a bullet pierced the hull of a plane. Also airlines could still restrict what ammo they allow on their planes in a free society.

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.

Now you would have airlines checking bullet caliber, type, lead weight and size of large bore weapons before every man, woman and child entered thru the metal detectors. You are really a genius way beyond that of mortal man.

So once again you are making arguments that liberals make on the ground. Why is it that people are responsible enough to own, carry and operate a gun on the ground but the second they are in an airplane you think that only government employees are responsible enough to have such a right?

RIGHT.... That is the NRA view as well and the view of any sane human being.

Which is what you are arguing for in the air.

What kind of warfare would be waged on a several hours flight between cities or countries that requires weapons on airplanes?

So you say based on hollywood movies. Reality disagrees.

What does drunken passengers killing other passengers with bullets flying killing babies and blowing holes through the airframes have to do with hollywood movies? Do you truly believe that martians are stealing your brainwaves? I'll bet you learned this fable in your local movie theater with a mouthfull of popcorn.

I am talking about the 20,000 gun laws in this country that the NRA fought everytime they were proposed but has accepted after they were passed. And again I must ask, why is it you want to keep honest people from protecting themselves while on an airplane?

In your scenario of everybody carrying guns on airplanes that the right for militias to keep and bear arms while flying six miles above the earth's surface. Arguing with an imbecile is not only a waste of time but discussing nonsense and absurdities to a clear psycho.

They do nothing but make it more difficult to obtain guns. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why are you supporting gun laws that republicans claimed to oppose before they were passed?

Difficult to obtain guns does not keep honest Americans for obtaining guns thereby no infringement of the constituion. But it does make it much more difficult for terrorists and murderers to obtain guns for purposes other than protection.

I am an NRA member and believe holdheartedly in the right of each honest American to keep and bear arms.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps

How many shootouts between drunkards in airplanes have you become familiar with?

none. I also am not familiar with shootouts between drunkards in all the bars (where far more alcohol is drank than on an airplane).

Why do you equate what you see in movies with reality? What makes you think that I don't know more about the old wild west than is shown in the movies?

I am NOT equating what I see with movies with reality. In the movies there were shootouts in the west all the time and planes instantly loose all cabin pressue fall out of the sky if one shot is fired. Reality is much different.

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.

There is a difference but it is NOT devastating. Don't just say you read and examined things, actualy do it!

So once again you are making arguments that liberals make on the ground. Why is it that people are responsible enough to own, carry and operate a gun on the ground but the second they are in an airplane you think that only government employees are responsible enough to have such a right?

RIGHT.... That is the NRA view as well and the view of any sane human being.

What? that people become irresponsible the second they step on a plane unless they recieve paychecks form uncle sam? I have not heard many others make that argument.

What kind of warfare would be waged on a several hours flight between cities or countries that requires weapons on airplanes?

sept. 11th 2001 our militia was unfortunately disarmed. Imagine if it had not been...

What does drunken passengers killing other passengers with bullets flying killing babies and blowing holes through the airframes have to do with hollywood movies?

You for some reason think that allowing people to have guns on planes would result in wild west shootouts. Well the wild west was not the way it was on TV and was in fact safer than the east coast at that time. And people are able to handle their liquor and carry guns on the ground with out getting into wild gunfights. I still have not seen an argument showing why once they step on a plane they no longer can.

Do you truly believe that martians are stealing your brainwaves? I'll bet you learned this fable in your local movie theater with a mouthfull of popcorn.

I am not the one basing what will happen in an airplane based on what movies I have seen.

In your scenario of everybody carrying guns on airplanes that the right for militias to keep and bear arms while flying six miles above the earth's surface. Arguing with an imbecile is not only a waste of time but discussing nonsense and absurdities to a clear psycho.

You are not making any sense anymore. What exactly are you trying to say in the paragraph above?

Difficult to obtain guns does not keep honest Americans for obtaining guns thereby no infringement of the constituion. But it does make it much more difficult for terrorists and murderers to obtain guns for purposes other than protection.

No. Criminals and terrorists do not obey those laws and do not buy from people that do. That does not make it harder for them. By making it harder for regular people to buy guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Even if they can eventually own one, it is infringement. So to answer my question earlier, appearantly it is the word 'infringemened' that you did not understand. look it up.

I am an NRA member and believe holdheartedly in the right of each honest American to keep and bear arms.

No. You beleive that government approved americans can have government approved guns if stored in government approved ways and so long as the person paid the government for that right as well as gave them all their information and promise not to carry it on airplanes or schools or any other place the government decides it does not want guns. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms that was intended by the 2nd amendment.

Travis

 

[HGROKIT]

pssst, hey travis - better take your meds - i think your brain is freezing again.

:cof:

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

none. I also am not familiar with shootouts between drunkards in all the bars (where far more alcohol is drank than on an airplane).

Thank you..... My point exactly as our emergency rooms fill up on Friday night payday when good men and women become intoxicated and shoot one another to death. But they do not endanger hunrdreds of other people in a closed plane that would certainly come crashing to ground and kill untold more good citizens.

I am NOT equating what I see with movies with reality. In the movies there were shootouts in the west all the time and planes instantly loose all cabin pressue fall out of the sky if one shot is fired. Reality is much different.

According to reality or your unreal reality? Are you an aeronautical engineer? 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? Those men living in the old west rarely if ever used their guns like you apparently see in your movies. Are you insane?

There is a difference but it is NOT devastating. Don't just say you read and examined things, actualy do it!

Do you have any idea of what you are saying? What is your educatonal background in pressurized plane cabins suddenly having pressure loss from multiple holes from people shooting one another at 32,000 feet in the sky?

What? that people become irresponsible the second they step on a plane unless they recieve paychecks form uncle sam? I have not heard many others make that argument.

Apparently you haven't heard a lot of things or maybe you can't comprehend the reality.

Sept. 11th 2001 our militia was unfortunately disarmed. Imagine if it had not been...

Do you really think that a group of armed militia in an airplane would have shot a group of terrorists who also would have the the constitutional right to carry guns instead of box cutters? Ergo, the result would have been the loss of every soul on those planes and anyone whom they crashed into on the ground. The highjacker terrorists would have used a different plan of action and the results of 9/11 would have been identical.

You for some reason think that allowing people to have guns on planes would result in wild west shootouts. Well the wild west was not the way it was on TV and was in fact safer than the east coast at that time. And people are able to handle their liquor and carry guns on the ground with out getting into wild gunfights. I still have not seen an argument showing why once they step on a plane they no longer can.

You just said that drunk people are out there killing other people every day but that drunks on airplanes would be able to handle their liquor. Do you know how many airline employees are accosted by drunk passengers as we speak? Right now without guns there is no death to the stewardesses or crews but give everyone loaded weapons and watch the result. How many people would fly the skies if they knew everybody was a loaded weapon with alcohol in their brains?

I am not the one basing what will happen in an airplane based on what movies I have seen.

It is you who keep referring to movies. I am referring to reality and not actors and actresses who get shot on screen then get up and go home.

You are not making any sense anymore. What exactly are you trying to say in the paragraph above?

Do you have trouble understanding the English language? If you have no viable response to my statement then cease claiming that you graduated with a kindergarten degree.

No. Criminals and terrorists do not obey those laws and do not buy from people that do. That does not make it harder for them. By making it harder for regular people to buy guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Even if they can eventually own one, it is infringement. So to answer my question earlier, appearantly it is the word 'infringemened' that you did not understand. look it up.

Are you one of the criminals or terrorists who seem to know how to easily obtain illegal weapons?

Security is a small price for every delayed infringement of human freedom. Rash and impatience is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

No. You beleive that government approved americans can have government approved guns if stored in government approved ways and so long as the person paid the government for that right as well as gave them all their information and promise not to carry it on airplanes or schools or any other place the government decides it does not want guns. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms that was intended by the 2nd amendment.

Now you claim to be a Constitutional scholar and expert on the second amendment meanings. You haven't the vaguest idea of what you are talking about. From my perspective you are a coprophile. Look it up....

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by tpahl
No. You beleive that government approved americans can have government approved guns if stored in government approved ways and so long as the person paid the government for that right as well as gave them all their information and promise not to carry it on airplanes or schools or any other place the government decides it does not want guns. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms that was intended by the 2nd amendment.

Travis [/B]

Travis, I think you are one of maybe a handful of Americans who would actually argue for people to be armed on an airplane. I am totally in favor of armed pilots and air marshals (cops) on airplanes. But to be honest, I don't want 100 armed people on an airplane. I certainly don't want bullets flying on a plane, for whatever reason, but if they are fired, I want them to be by someone who is shooting as a last resort (i.e. pilot/air marshal) and knows how to use the damn thing.

And for the record, I am also an NRA member and view the Right to Bear Arms as the most important of all the enumerated rights in the Constitution. So please don't preach about how I'm all about restricting gun rights. In this particular case, I am willing to give up my right to carry for a temporary period, just as I am willing to give that right up in federal courthouses, bars, churches, etc. where firearms are not allowed.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
Thank you..... My point exactly as our emergency rooms fill up on Friday night payday when good men and women become intoxicated and shoot one another to death. But they do not endanger hunrdreds of other people in a closed plane that would certainly come crashing to ground and kill untold more good citizens.

I am not familiar with such events because they simply do not happen.

According to reality or your unreal reality? Are you an aeronautical engineer? 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?

I am not an aeronautical engineer but I am an metallurgical engineer and have talked to aeronautical engineers as well read reports by them. The plane would stay in the air for as long as the fuel allowed it if a hole was shot threw a window. As for the whole crew being shot... that is far more likely when the passengers and crew are not allowed to defend themselves.

Those men living in the old west rarely if ever used their guns like you apparently see in your movies. Are you insane?

[

No just well read in history.

Do you have any idea of what you are saying? What is your educatonal background in pressurized plane cabins suddenly having pressure loss from multiple holes from people shooting one another at 32,000 feet in the sky?

More than just movies which it appears is where you have gotten all your information.

What? that people become irresponsible the second they step on a plane unless they recieve paychecks form uncle sam? I have not heard many others make that argument.

Apparently you haven't heard a lot of things or maybe you can't comprehend the reality.

Nice dodge.

Sept. 11th 2001 our militia was unfortunately disarmed. Imagine if it had not been...

Do you really think that a group of armed militia in an airplane would have shot a group of terrorists who also would have the the constitutional right to carry guns instead of box cutters?

yes. It is that hard to beleive that people would fight terrorists?

Ergo, the result would have been the loss of every soul on those planes and anyone whom they crashed into on the ground.

No. that was the result when the passengers were NOT allowed to protect themselves. If they had been allowed to protect themselves the terrorists would never have ATTEMPTED to hijeck the plane.

You just said that drunk people are out there killing other people every day but that drunks on airplanes would be able to handle their liquor.

No. i said I was unfamiliar with such events because they are not happening.

Do you know how many airline employees are accosted by drunk passengers as we speak? Right now without guns there is no death to the stewardesses or crews but give everyone loaded weapons and watch the result. How many people would fly the skies if they knew everybody was a loaded weapon with alcohol in their brains?

there would probably be proportionately speaking about as many stewardesses killed as their are bartenders killed by upset drinkers. How many bartenders are shot in a year?

It is you who keep referring to movies. I am referring to reality and not actors and actresses who get shot on screen then get up and go home.

You are refering to what you would think would happen based on the tv shows you have watched.

Are you one of the criminals or terrorists who seem to know how to easily obtain illegal weapons?

No. But I am aware that it is easy to do. I also do not buy crack but I know it is easy to find.

Security is a small price for every delayed infringement of human freedom. Rash and impatience is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

So you are admiting it is an infringement now. That is a step in the right direction. Now read the 2nd amendment again.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

And for the record, I am also an NRA member and view the Right to Bear Arms as the most important of all the enumerated rights in the Constitution. So please don't preach about how I'm all about restricting gun rights. In this particular case, I am willing to give up my right to carry for a temporary period, just as I am willing to give that right up in federal courthouses, bars, churches, etc. where firearms are not allowed.

I know I am in the minority, but I feel that has alot to do with both major political parties being weak on the second amendment. The republicans are weak not just on the airplane issue, but also their support of the tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books.

I can understand your concern for not wanting to fly on a plane with citizens with guns. That is why i am not saying that all airlines should allow them. I am in favor of the free market deciding. Instead of a free market, we have the government mandating the rules of private airlines. If the feds elliminated those regulations and all the airlines decided on their own to still ban guns, that is fine with me. I have a feeling some wouldn't and some would and people like you and I would decide for themselves which they wanted to fly on. over time the track records of each airlines would speak wonders about their safety rules.

As for trusting private citizens, i only have one question, why do you trust them to have a gun on the ground and use it responsible but not in the air?

Travis

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by tpahl
I know I am in the minority, but I feel that has alot to do with both major political parties being weak on the second amendment. The republicans are weak not just on the airplane issue, but also their support of the tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books.

I am all in favor of repealing over-restrictive gun laws, as are most Republicans. It's not really a forefront issue because of the WOT. And I think you will notice a huge difference between the GOP's favorable stance towrads gun rights and the Democrat's outright hostility towards them.

I can understand your concern for not wanting to fly on a plane with citizens with guns. That is why i am not saying that all airlines should allow them. I am in favor of the free market deciding. Instead of a free market, we have the government mandating the rules of private airlines. If the feds elliminated those regulations and all the airlines decided on their own to still ban guns, that is fine with me. I have a feeling some wouldn't and some would and people like you and I would decide for themselves which they wanted to fly on. over time the track records of each airlines would speak wonders about their safety rules.

As for trusting private citizens, i only have one question, why do you trust them to have a gun on the ground and use it responsible but not in the air?

A stray bullet on the ground may hit the ground, or a building, or a tree, endangering no one. A stray bullet on an airplane is going to pierce the skin of the plane, and that puts everyone in danger. And yes, you could decide that through the free market, but I'll let you in on something: 99.9% of people aren't going to want to fly on a plane where anyone could be armed, so there's no need for an experiment.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

I know I am in the minority, but I feel that has alot to do with both major political parties being weak on the second amendment. The republicans are weak not just on the airplane issue, but also their support of the tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books.

You say that you are in the minority? Yes in that I would agree wholeheartedly. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives free men and women the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection or to fight a tyranical goverment who, in the future, might want to use their power to revoke the rights granted to them by the framers.

The Republicans are not weak on gun laws for they simply want everyone who desires to keep arms, the right to do so. You are reading the 2nd Amendment to read that all men have the right to keep and bear arms anywhere and anytime no matter what the consequences to other people around them.

I can understand your concern for not wanting to fly on a plane with citizens with guns. That is why i am not saying that all airlines should allow them. I am in favor of the free market deciding. Instead of a free market, we have the government mandating the rules of private airlines. If the feds elliminated those regulations and all the airlines decided on their own to still ban guns, that is fine with me. I have a feeling some wouldn't and some would and people like you and I would decide for themselves which they wanted to fly on. over time the track records of each airlines would speak wonders about their safety rules.

You say that not all airlines should allow the passengers to bear arms. Exactly which airlines do you think should lose their privelege to allow armed passengers? The free market has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd amendment. The free market is the privelege given by the framers to privately own your own business or the freedom to work for an employer or both. In countries where the free market doesn't exist, everyone is owned and governed by the government with only government jobs for all those not in the government.

You speak of airline 'safety rules' telling people what rules or laws the airlines set up so that folks can be armed in an airliner. That would also be an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Would'nt it?

As for trusting private citizens, i only have one question, why do you trust them to have a gun on the ground and use it responsible but not in the air?

Non-criminal and non-terrorists should have the right to bear arms for their protection, on the ground. Having weapons in a closed confined space with many humans in this small space would be the equivalent of locking the doors of a full movie theater and because of the 'free market system' throwing gasoline under the locked doors and lighting a match.

The results would be the same. All the theater goers and all the airline passengers would be killed because of the irresponsibility of only one person.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I am all in favor of repealing over-restrictive gun laws, as are most Republicans. It's not really a forefront issue because of the WOT. And I think you will notice a huge difference between the GOP's favorable stance towrads gun rights and the Democrat's outright hostility towards them.

That is my whole point. I DO NOT see a difference. I am not aware of ONE SINGLE gun regulation that has been repealed while the GOP control the legistlature and the white house.

A stray bullet on the ground may hit the ground, or a building, or a tree, endangering no one. A stray bullet on an airplane is going to pierce the skin of the plane, and that puts everyone in danger.

Stray bullets can still harm innocent people on the ground yet you claim to have no problem letting people carry guns on the ground. Stray bullets piercing the skin of the plane is not as devastating as you have been led to believe. Also responsible gun owners would get the type of bullets that would not peirce the aircraft skin, just as the responsible air marshals use.

And yes, you could decide that through the free market, but I'll let you in on something: 99.9% of people aren't going to want to fly on a plane where anyone could be armed, so there's no need for an experiment.

The free market is not an experiement. It has been proven many times over.

Travis
So

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by ajwps
You say that you are in the minority? Yes in that I would agree wholeheartedly. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives free men and women the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection or to fight a tyranical goverment who, in the future, might want to use their power to revoke the rights granted to them by the framers.

The Republicans are not weak on gun laws for they simply want everyone who desires to keep arms, the right to do so. You are reading the 2nd Amendment to read that all men have the right to keep and bear arms anywhere and anytime no matter what the consequences to other people around them.

Yeah silly me. I am interpreting 'shal not be infringed' to mean that the right shall not be infringed, even by republicans.

You say that not all airlines should allow the passengers to bear arms.

No. I said that all should be allowed to make their own rules.

Exactly which airlines do you think should lose their privelege to allow armed passengers?

None. I beleive in freedom. That means that all airlines should be free to decide their own rules.

[qoute] The free market has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd amendment.[/quote]

You must not understand the free market then.

The free market is the privelege given by the framers to privately own your own business or the freedom to work for an employer or both. In countries where the free market doesn't exist, everyone is owned and governed by the government with only government jobs for all those not in the government.

The free market is not a priveldge. It is an extension of human rights which are not granted to us by the government. Governments can and do regulate a free market and in doing so are violating our rights. When the government makes a regulation deciding how free individuals must run their business they are making the market less free.

You speak of airline 'safety rules' telling people what rules or laws the airlines set up so that folks can be armed in an airliner. That would also be an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Would'nt it?

The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on what the Federal government can not do. It does not have any bearing on what private individuals say. If you go into a grocery store and start giving religious speeches in the produce department the Grocery store will ask you to leave. Are they violating your first amendment right? No.
The same is true for an airline or grocery store that asks you to leave your gun at home.

Non-criminal and non-terrorists should have the right to bear arms for their protection, on the ground.

except that it is infringed by republicans and democrats that support things such as background checks and waiting periods which prevent and delay their ability to own a gun. have you forgotten what the word infringe means again?

Having weapons in a closed confined space with many humans in this small space would be the equivalent of locking the doors of a full movie theater and because of the 'free market system' throwing gasoline under the locked doors and lighting a match.

If that is how guns make you feel, then I suggest you do not go on an airline that allows guns. I am not afraid of private citizens with guns however.


Travis

 

[tpahl]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/528265/posts

For those that want to learn a little more about planes and guns

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/528265/posts

For those that want to learn a little more about planes and guns

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....