Obama to End Pilot Carry Program - Why?
- Thread starter gretske
- Start date
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That is the very reason why we shouldn't pay for additional measures. The taxpayers are already providing the highest level of security for the airlines. Should we also pay to train the stewardesses? Pay for the in flight meals? Pay for there gas?
Obama and Holder
I read this story on the NRA website. We all are very lucky to have the NRA/ILA looking out for us. Obama, Holder, and all of their anti-gun friends are going to do all they can to "sneak" their laws in where ever they can. Chris Cox and all of the rest of the organization do a good job of keeping up on the legislation so that they aren't able to "sneak" them in. We as an organization need to up our activity too. Write all the lawmakers, just not the one's that represent your area but others, even from different states. When it comes down to the voting, Senators from New York affect people from California the same with their one vote as much as a California Senator affects them with his one vote. It's still one vote affirmitive or negative. In fact they may pay more attention when someone that they don't formally represent contacts them because it gains their interest and curiousity. Also we could make a personal commitment to solicit everyone we come in contact with to join NRA, GOA, etc. There are a lot of new gun owners who bought guns after the Obama takeover that just might join if they were asked!!! stay safe
I read this story on the NRA website. We all are very lucky to have the NRA/ILA looking out for us. Obama, Holder, and all of their anti-gun friends are going to do all they can to "sneak" their laws in where ever they can. Chris Cox and all of the rest of the organization do a good job of keeping up on the legislation so that they aren't able to "sneak" them in. We as an organization need to up our activity too. Write all the lawmakers, just not the one's that represent your area but others, even from different states. When it comes down to the voting, Senators from New York affect people from California the same with their one vote as much as a California Senator affects them with his one vote. It's still one vote affirmitive or negative. In fact they may pay more attention when someone that they don't formally represent contacts them because it gains their interest and curiousity. Also we could make a personal commitment to solicit everyone we come in contact with to join NRA, GOA, etc. There are a lot of new gun owners who bought guns after the Obama takeover that just might join if they were asked!!! stay safe
The question remains unanswered. Please give an account of on which these constitutional rights were accorded or which other President supported the ACLU/Al Quaeda position.
That's a D- or F answer even for an undergrad conlaw course. Again, cite a case or at least an accepted constitutional theory.
Last edited:
PBP said:
Because the flight attendant's (you need to be more politically correct here
) training, what they had to eat, or the gas in their personal vehicle have nothing to do with providing a last line of defense to prevent a 100 ton object from being used to kill thousands of people. It IS a national security issue, not just an issue of concern to the specific airline.Fly
I think enemy combatants have the same rights afforded them
under the Geneva convention... the issue was that the folks at Gitmo don't even have those. Once the smoke clears and the 'enemy' is trusted up and made secure they should have those rights and I'll die with a gun in my hand before you convince me differently.. doesn't matter who that enemy is or what they are 'alleged' to have done to get there.
I find if kind of funny that every dern little thing the fed government does now that we on these gun forums find offensive is the fault of B.O. even though I consider myself a liberal, I didn't vote for him and don't really think most of what his party is trying to do will help much... I still find it hard to blame him for everything that is going down. Kind of like blaming G.W.B. for Katrina.
under the Geneva convention... the issue was that the folks at Gitmo don't even have those. Once the smoke clears and the 'enemy' is trusted up and made secure they should have those rights and I'll die with a gun in my hand before you convince me differently.. doesn't matter who that enemy is or what they are 'alleged' to have done to get there.
I find if kind of funny that every dern little thing the fed government does now that we on these gun forums find offensive is the fault of B.O. even though I consider myself a liberal, I didn't vote for him and don't really think most of what his party is trying to do will help much... I still find it hard to blame him for everything that is going down. Kind of like blaming G.W.B. for Katrina.
as of this pm (pacific time)
according to one of the talk radio pundits I listened to on my way home from work, the administration has withdrawn any plans to disarm pilots.
Quite probably one of those trial balloons, which they fly to draw flak. Since it did, the drop the idea, at least, for now.
according to one of the talk radio pundits I listened to on my way home from work, the administration has withdrawn any plans to disarm pilots.
Quite probably one of those trial balloons, which they fly to draw flak. Since it did, the drop the idea, at least, for now.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Kmar40 said:
The US did ratify all the Conventions, with the exception of the protocols of 1977, and they are binding on US conduct on foreign battlefields.
As to my point about the supremacy clause giving treaties equal standing with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, I stand by what I wrote, and I'm in fairly good company: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., for one, took the same position (cf. his opinion in Missouri v. Holland, 1920), and I think he probably did OK in "con law."
So, yes, I'd say that the provisions of the Geneva Convention have the same status ("supreme law of the land") as those of the Constitution. I'm perfectly aware that the supremacy clause is anathema to "black-helicopter" xenophobes, but they need to get over it: Article 6 is what it is.
Hkmp5sd said:
Mmm. Defined, just lately, by Mr. Bush and his cohorts.
You're correct, of course, that the US signed but did not ratify the 1977 protocols. The other countries to have failed to ratify them are Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey (which I think ratified 2 but not 1), so the US is in some really good company on this one...
Mike Irwin
Staff
Hey, everyone...
Let's all tread lightly with the "cute" and "cagey" Nazi style titles, accusations of communist sympathies, etc., OK?
As in, don't use them at all, OK?
If that's all you have to round out your message, you don't have a message, OK?
Let's all tread lightly with the "cute" and "cagey" Nazi style titles, accusations of communist sympathies, etc., OK?
As in, don't use them at all, OK?
If that's all you have to round out your message, you don't have a message, OK?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_obama_is_dropping.html
There just doesn't seem to be any basis of fact whatsoever. But then that would explain why this is an op-ed and not an article.
There just doesn't seem to be any basis of fact whatsoever. But then that would explain why this is an op-ed and not an article.
When an airliner that is commandeered by suicidal hijackers, that airplane then becomes a guided cruise missile. And as seen by the example of 9/11, these cruise missiles are primarily aimed at high-value public and government buildings. If we allow airline companies to foot the bill for their own training programs, eventually these airlines will cut costs and curtail profit loss by slashing "certain" programs as they see fit. This program could very well be one of the first to be reduced or cut altogether. The federal government doesnt allow the airline companies free reign to regulate and oversee themselves when it comes to maintenance and safety policies. Why would we allow them to oversee their carry program?
And the other side of the coin...
Balanced against the federal bureaucracy making a "training program" so cumbersome and costly to the individual pilots and flight crew that they will not take the training? Balanced against federal "guidelines" or rules requiring the handling of a loaded gun multiple times each flight? Balanced against a mandated "safe storage" mechanism that actually increases the risk of an accidental discharge? etc.
The simple truth of the matter is that individuals and groups who apparently disagreed with the matter of pilots having access to firearms (being armed) added so much junk into the "requirements" as to discourage pilots from completing the "necessary training", and added a host of other potentially dangerous requirements in order to have onboard firearms stored "safely". This is a documented fact, and has been discussed at length, both on this board and elsewhere.
So we are left with the choice of allowing the airlines to determine an efficient and cost effective program that meets basic safety parameters (and risking financially strapped airlines canceling the program when convienient to their bottom line), the bloated cumbersome and possibly dangerous govt concieved program as it currently exists, OR unarmed pilots.
Somehow, the simple common sense approach desired by the American people got lost in the shuffle.
Balanced against the federal bureaucracy making a "training program" so cumbersome and costly to the individual pilots and flight crew that they will not take the training? Balanced against federal "guidelines" or rules requiring the handling of a loaded gun multiple times each flight? Balanced against a mandated "safe storage" mechanism that actually increases the risk of an accidental discharge? etc.
The simple truth of the matter is that individuals and groups who apparently disagreed with the matter of pilots having access to firearms (being armed) added so much junk into the "requirements" as to discourage pilots from completing the "necessary training", and added a host of other potentially dangerous requirements in order to have onboard firearms stored "safely". This is a documented fact, and has been discussed at length, both on this board and elsewhere.
So we are left with the choice of allowing the airlines to determine an efficient and cost effective program that meets basic safety parameters (and risking financially strapped airlines canceling the program when convienient to their bottom line), the bloated cumbersome and possibly dangerous govt concieved program as it currently exists, OR unarmed pilots.
Somehow, the simple common sense approach desired by the American people got lost in the shuffle.
LoneWolf22056
Moderator
Gitmo is a prison for prisoners of war. POWs. They are NOT U.S. citizens and are therefore not given the same rights as a U.S. citizen. How exactly can you prove your innocence when you're captured after opening fire on US/coalition troops or wiring an IED?
Considering the way our people are treated by foreign enemies, they've got it made in the shade down there in Cuba. But that's not enough for the bleeding hearts. They think we should have takeout delivered to their cell from the establishment of their choice. They think we should offer them HBO and other PPV channels. Hell, why don't we throw in a spa and swimming pool?
EDIT: one more thing... How do you exactly feel about Guantanamo Bay being closed down?
Since we took possession of it, all captured enemies have been put there. If we can't put them there, where can we? How about your back yard? No? I don't want them in mine either.
If you left it up to the airlines, there would be no pilots carrrying guns. It has nothing to do with the cost, its a liability issue. If a terrorist takes control of a plane and does a lot of damage, the airline is not likely to be liable. But if the plane should crash as the result of a gunfight on board involving a pilot - the case will come before a jury which is likely to contain a number of hoplophobes - and the airline gets whacked - for trying to protect its passengers. Ain't our legal system wonderful?
The airlines are listening to their lawyers, the politicians are playing politics, and it appears that the only folks who really care about the passengers are the pilots. But then the pilots are in the same boat - uhhh airplane.