U.S. Gov't. position: We The People are EXPENDABLE

P

progunner1957

Moderator
Ladies and gents, how do you feel about this: "Our" government is so in love with its power and control over We The People that it would rather blow a hijacked airliner full of American citizens out of the sky than to allow us to fly armed and have a fighting chance against hijackers.

"Our" government has made it abundantly clear by its actions and policies that We The People are expendable, plain and simple.

If you disagree, you are not paying attention.

If that is not the case, then WHY has TSA and the Bush administration made it EXTREMELY difficult to the point of being almost impossible for a Pilot/First Officer to fly armed??

WHY is it that active duty military personnel cannot fly armed??

WHY is it that Police officers find it next to impossible to fly armed??

WHY is it that after the atrocities of 11 September, We The People cannot fly armed?? WHY is it that our Second Amendment RIGHTS - not priveliges, but RIGHTS - must be left at home when we fly????

Do you think "Our" government protects us? Do you think sky marshalls will save you? Newsflash, folks - sky marshalls are on board LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT of all commercial flights within the U.S. - the 5% that fly into Washington, DC. Bottom line: "Our" government protects itself, not us.

"Our" government says it is "too costly" to put sky marshalls on board all flights. It is much more cost effective to have an F-16 shoot down a plane full of inncoent American citizens. Face it, ladies and gents: We The Pepole are expendable, plain and simple.

How do we explain this to our children - that it really is for the best that we all sit here on this plane and die so that "Our" government can be safe and not have to honor the Bill of Rights it supposedly protects???

Mr. and Mrs. America, "Our" own government would rather make a fireball of a hijacked airliner full of We The People than allow us to fly armed; the only conclusion that can be reached is this: We The People are expendable, plain and simple.

When we fly, we have no Second Amendment RIGHTS. We have the right to sit there and die like sheep. The policy is in place. The F-16's are on alert. The pilots have been briefed.

Does this P*SS you off?? It should - it should fill you with a black, vile rage - as black and vile as the policy of "Our" government that We The People are expendable.

REFUSE TO FLY UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS!!!

My life and my family ARE NOT expendable!!!
 
Nooooooooooo - what I'm saying is -

"Our" government is so in love with its power and control over We The People that it would rather blow a hijacked airliner full of American citizens out of the sky than to allow us to fly armed and have a fighting chance against hijackers.
Click to expand...

I'm also saying that it is wrong - it is beyond wrong; it is sick and it is depraved.

It is the philosophy of "leaders" - both Democrat and Republican - who can only be described as without honor, without integrity and who are completely and totally corrupt.

It is the philosophy of "leaders" who have the thinking processes of persons who are psychopathic in nature.
 
The government would rather harass two year olds and old ladies, and shoot planes down, than let a pilot be armed because of their idiotic stigma and complete mismanagement of the problem.
 
Geez ... which I had time to answer all the ]silly statements put forth here in large colors and fonts -- which are really just SHOUTING to make a point. My advice in general -- use logic, not big fonts or angry words.

And when you say things like

If you disagree, you are not paying attention.
Click to expand...

you sound like a right wing version of Michael Moore. We should be better than them in all ways, not stoop to their "believe my way or you're stupid" rhetoric.

But a few things ...

I'm a big believer in getting pilots armed. I'm disappointed that our government isn't pushing this through. Don't understand why they're dragging their feet. I agree with you there.

But for some other points ...

Why don't we automatically let active servicemen carry weapons in airplanes? Would that include the army soldier who rolled grenades into his co's tent and killed several other soldiers just before the Iraq invasion? How about the other soldiers who have been found passing information on to Al Quaeda. Like the muslim army chaplain at Gitmo.

Cops generally go through a little more background check. From the cop departments I've known, though, I wouldn't want all of them flying armed. There are a LOT of cops out there, and some with shaky backgrounds are being hired by big city departments that are afraid someone is going to yell "discrimination" if they don't hire regardless of afiliations. Could Al Quaeda get people into a police department? Hell yeah.

But basically, the reason few people are armed on planes is that the same situations that make it a positive to have armed people in general society don't apply. i.e. if a suicidal nut jumps up in a restaurant and starts blazing away with a gun, there's no single person/place he can shoot that would slam the whole restaurant into the ground at 800 mph killing everyone inside. So having other people (or everyone) armed to bring the nut down before he can shoot very many people is a good thing.

You also can't screen people everywhere/everytime, so being armed is the best way to defend ourselves and others.

Letting just one suicidal nut on an airplane with a firearm can bring down the whole plane if he shoots the pilot/manages to get a round in to some other spot (and yeah -- they'll probably study up on exactly where to shoot/talk to mechanics who are on their side).

So everyone armed on an airplane is a bad thing. While I don't like being unarmed, I'm willing to put up with the restrictions to be safer (in general) than not.

I am glad they're allowing small knives back on planes, as a knife will never again be used in a successful hijacking (unless they manage to kill everyone in the plane with it AND the pilot doesn't have a gun) but I'm glad they stop firearms overall. Of course I wish they would just allow me to carry one, as I am a responsible person, but since I don't know about the rest of the people on the plane ... I'll take my chances. My life and family are not expendable either, but I will make rational choices on how to best defend them.

If you don't agree with those chances, then DON'T FLY .

And has I've said before ... There IS NO constitutional RKBA. There should be ... there was meant to be ... we should all work to get this corrected ... but if there was a COTUS RKBA would New York, New Jersey, CA, etc. have the laws they currently have? How about D.C.? How about the assault weapons ban that was imposed at a federal level and stood until it sunsetted? So there's no point in arguing the 2nd amendment actually means anything at this point ... in the real world it doesn't.

But again ... that should be the goal of all of us. To make the 2nd amendment a real part of the BOR and not the ignored right-turned-into-a-privilege.
 
If Joe American CCW-holder was allowed to carry on a plane, do you think the terrorists would hesitate to get permits? Look at that nitwit they recruited to fight for the Taliban. All they have to do is find some simpleton who doesn't have a criminal record and brainwash him.

Tim
 
Some people on planes should be armed. The typical military person isn't one of them. And really, anyone who doesn't have a ton of training, especially in weapons retention, has no business cramming himself in with 200 strangers.

The pilots or other flight deck crew - locked behind a door, make the best choice. But the government did legislate them being armed. Lower level bureacrats seem to be preventing it, not Congress.
 
People have always been expendable. The degree is what is in question.
Look at the revelolutionary war. Lets stand in ranks in front of each other, and shoot! And they were called military tacticians.
 
Some people on planes should be armed. The typical military person isn't one of them. And really, anyone who doesn't have a ton of training, especially in weapons retention, has no business cramming himself in with 200 strangers.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I've been thinking they could take someone like myself -- I have a government clearance (just because I occasionally work at government sites/military bases) and travel all the time so it wouldn't take much to check me out, and I know there are a LOT of people like me who make 30 or more round trips per year.

So ... I realize it would take some specialized training, but maybe they should take us frequent fliers who are not anti gun and give us sufficient training to carry on aircraft. It would be like getting free air marshals. And if you trained 20 or so thousand, there would be a good chance there would be an armed person on board the majority of flights.

But ... if they won't even let pilots carry guns (or at least drag their feet on certifying them) ... what are they chances they'll take Federal Marshal auxilliaries and start giving them training. Not very high, I'm guessing ...
 
G.I., the government and airlines would be far more concerned about the LIABILITY they would bear if they allowed anyone like you mentioned to carry -- and be responsible for reacting to a terrorist.

What happens the first time they take down someone who turns out to have been innocent?

That's what they live in fear of.

-blackmind
 
It would be like getting free air marshalls
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose I'll get labeled as one of those who'd prefer that grandmothers, little babies and puppies get bombed :rolleyes: ....but when it comes to an offer of free amateur law officers, frankly, I get a little nervous. Here's what I worry about, for starters...

  • Do they have the marksmanship skills to hit the bad guys and miss the good ones in a packed airplane if terrorists aboard?
  • Do they have the martial skills to hang onto their weapon in hand to hand struggle if terrorists aboard?
  • Are they wannabe ninjas? what is their mental state? their stability, judgment? knowledge of proper use of force?
  • If an angry, obnoxious, drunken, ordinary Joe begins to assault a flight attendent (which does happen, and a heck of a lot more often than terrorist attacks), is the amateur cop going to draw his gun? then what? :eek:

You need to be sure the "cure" isn't worse than the problem.
 
The problem is that there has only been one 9/11. As far as TSA and the FAA is concerned, the problem seems to be handled. It may not be, but there is no evidence since no one has gotten a weapon on a plane since.
 
Yeah, I agree, why not let 200+ people die, either from being crashed into buildings or into the ground and less worry about maybe one, or two, innocent people being killed while 198+ won't.

I just say that we should all wear diapers only on the plane (issued and viewed as you put them on via TSA agents) and then we'll all be safe and have the security that everyone wants.

edited: Forgot to put in the :rolleyes: last night.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
Well, I might point out, that right here on TFL, there is much handwringing and teeth gnashing over how trained police officers and FBI agents, who've undergone some level of psychiatric evaluation, and thorough review of rights and judicious use of force, actually do use force - if that is considered to be problematic, why would it be good to have untrained, unfiltered anybodies use force?

I am not exactly trying to protect the terrorists here, more like the everyday passengers. I am not real confident that you won't get Barney Fifes, ninja/mercenary/hero wannabes/just plain idjits - and I am a lot less worried about what they'd do if there were terrorists on board then if there aren't any terrorists aboard and they just do something really stupid. My point is that being an effective law officer probably has a lot more to do with when not to be shooting than how best to shoot bad guys.

I am all for trained, level-headed, reasonably sane and average (or better) intelligence persons doing this job - once you remove all the preceding constraints, it also removes my enthusiasm. In other words - sure, he has an IQ of 60, and he has fantasies of being a hero, and he hates Muslims but he doesn't know what one looks like, and he has a criminal record, and tendancies towards violent behavior, has no real weapons training and suffers from paranoid delusions... but hey! He has a Close Quarters Battle M1911, a belt with 6 mag pouches on it, he made his own "badge" from a Buick hubcap, and he's eager for action! ...no way.

IMO, they should keep the bar reasonable, but reasonably high for admission, but increase funding for hiring and training and deploying more qualified personnel faster.
 
Last edited:
Handy wrote:
The problem is that there has only been one 9/11. As far as TSA and the FAA is concerned, the problem seems to be handled. It may not be, but there is no evidence since no one has gotten a weapon on a plane since.
Click to expand...


Excuse me??

I can think, offhand, of at least three instances where people have gotten on planes with GUNS that they later "discovered" they had accidentally left in their carry-on bags. Actual loaded guns. Slipped past security screeners, in post-9/11 America. Claimed to have been forgotten. Never noticed by TSA personnel.

The stories I am thinking of came to light only because these people then went to the authorities and admitted that they had been on the flight with a gun that slipped through security! (I had to scratch my head, because these people could have simply left the airport with a big quiet "oops" to themselves, and breathed a sigh of relief that their idiotic mistake had not gotten them arrested.

So if there are people who get onto commercial airliners with guns and then make the news for admitting to having done so, surely there are people (an unknown number of them) who have gotten on with guns or other weapons they have brought deliberately.

What did you mean by, "no one had gotten a weapon on a plane since"??

-blackmind
 
Show me a bullet that wont severely damage or put the flight at risk if it goes through the hole or some vital equipment...........

As for me, I'd much rather have a knife. Metal is metal, put it where it needs to go.

Now if only they will hurry up and let us carry those 5 inch and under blades like they was saying..............
 
Ingram, the idea that a bullet or several are enough to bring down an airliner, which has redundancy built into every system, is a myth. And the idea that a bullet piercing a window or the skin of the airplane will result in catastrophic explosive decompression is another myth, for which we have Hollywood to thank. :rolleyes:

-blackmind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top