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

"Show me where I have ever argued that civilians should be armed on planes..."

So which is it armed, unarmed, or cannot commit?
 
So which is it armed, unarmed, or cannot commit?
Click to expand...
Answer (again): In an armed society, I don't much care who is carrying guns in my presence, whether I am armed or not. That's where you keep tripping over my point. I don't care.

What I DO care about is a mindset that promotes historically baseless fears and emotional appeal as valid reasons for enacting "a few common sense restrictions" on Rights that were granted men by Birth, not Citizenship. You're the one supporting restrictions on personal freedoms for the "Safety of the Collective"; you're the one that needs to support your position; Individual Freedom requires no such rationalization.

Rich
 
"....mindset that promotes historically baseless fears and emotional appeal as valid reasons for enacting....."

My point exactly - your fears are not sufficient grounds to put others at risk. Your fear of hijacking is unrealistic, and the thought that having a gun could change anything is supposition. My position is emotionless - I dont need a gun on an aircraft because a rational evaluation of risk indicates that the potential negative impact of the gun outweighs the potential positive.

I have no illusion that you will change your opinion, rest assured you will not change mine.
 
sendec-
If you're gonna quote a man, at least do so in context.

Now, as we were saying; God Granted Individual Freedoms require neither explanation nor justification. Only the infringement of those Rights does.

Where were we? Oh, that's right. You were explaining how "common sense" restrictions of those rights, for [fill in the blank] citizens, at specified times or in [more fill in] places was necessary. Your reasoning? The historically disproven fact that American citizens cannot be trusted with dangerous objects....something along those lines.

We've read the argument before, sendec. There isn't a gun control advocate in the nation that doesn't agree with you wholeheartedly. Only difference from one to the next is that you each want to shape the list in accordance with your own....ummm...agenda. ;)

By all means, carry on.
Rich
 
My position is emotionless - I dont need a gun on an aircraft because a rational evaluation of risk indicates that the potential negative impact of the gun outweighs the potential positive.
Click to expand...

Your position is most decidedly not emotionless. If you'd let it stand at the above statement, I would not agree with its rationality (how many planes have been hijacked versus brought down by accidental gunfire?), but I could accept it as legit for you alone.

The problem, however, is that you support the legislative forcing of your position on people like Rich and myself; people who do not share your assessment of the risks involved. That is an emotional argument, because the only thing that makes you take that position is the fear of us bringing down your plane with our guns by accident. It has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with emotion.

Besides, your position reads like an ex post facto rationalization of an existing condition. It's totally irrelevant whether you think it prudent for yourself to not pack a gun on a plane; the fact is that thanks to the law you couldn't take one on a plane even if you wanted to do so.

The point that Rich has been trying to drive home is that his position needs no explanation, or rationalization, since it's the default position of freedom. If I choose to walk down the street or eat a hamburger, I do not need to justify myself to anyone, since I have the right to do as I please. If you want to restrict my freedom in any way and prevent me from walking down the street or eating the burger, you're the one who has to both explain and rationalize your position, since you're the one who wants to abrogate my freedoms. And they better be convincing and rational arguments, because "it would make me feel safer" is simply not acceptable.

Now you're going to say that my freedom doesn't give me the right to endanger you when you're flying on a plane. Fine, you are correct, it does not. But the kicker is that you have to prove, empirically and with objective data, that my carrying a gun on a plane would endanger you. "Common sense" doesn't play into it, because it's an un-word and an un-concept; it always means "the way I see things" to the speaker. Feelings don't play into it, either...any time you wish to restrict someone else's freedom, your argument must be based on facts and logic, not emotion, or the restriction becomes arbitrary.
 
Expendable

Personally I don't appreciate being considered Expendable by .gov dictates in regard to my security.

Then again I am not real keen about some folks breathing my air either...

Forget being a passenger actually in/ on a conveyance such as a plane, bus, or train, for second.

Also put aside the ability to follow TSA regulations to transport firearms.

One has to arrive and depart these conveyance locations.

My local Int'l Airport is NOT in the best part of town, nor does one travel thru real safe parts of town to access it. Train Station is NOT either.

I used to go to the Airport to pick up/ send valubles. I was CCW-ing. I no longer use the Airport.

I have been near it to meet with a Forum member at a Motel. I was careful to not get "too far in" and get myself in a jam.
This Member also was careful - no only was he CCW-ing - with a recip permit, he had firearms in his vehicle.

FL had a real problem with Travelers getting robbed, car-jacked and such once upon a time. BGs knew the travelers by rental cars, casing the Airport Baggage area and such. This was before WoT btw.

When FL did such a great job with CCW and recipricosity , folks were NOT restricted in CCW, these crimes fell.

Go pick up a relative, drive someone to the Airport for a trip. These Restrictions are enabling BGs to do harm to folks, whether these folks are CCW'ers, that do CCW, Complacent CCW whom don't all the time, or the Rabid anti gunner who thinks are guns are evil.

BGs could care less if the crime or rape victim is Pro-gunner, Anti, Retired LEO/ Military...or whatever. The inability to have the option to take personal responsiblity for ones security is wrong.

I have certain inalienable rights.

I cannot find in the COTUS Where I am supposed to "expendable to give warm fuzzy's to folks who freak out about guns.

Have an airport rental sputter and die down a dark road in a bad area. Better yet let it be your cute 21 y/o daughter getting caught with car trouble to pick up the parents in the family car in that bad area enroute to airport.

This is what irks me. I and others being restricted in our daily affairs so others can have warm fuzzy's because guns are bad.

Security Officer taking night classes - where is he supposed to put his gun when coming to class before or after work?

How about the Employee who is a CCW with valubles needing to be sent via airport / picking up from airport? Train Station?

Maybe a Retired LEO/ Military person needing to pick up a daughter. grandkid from school and the sign says "NO Firearms".

Basically folks got a right to do what they want. I have the right to do the same.

This being expendable so some can have warm fuzzy's ain't setting too well with me.
 
You're the one supporting restrictions on personal freedoms for the "Safety of the Collective"
Click to expand...
Actually, Rich, lots of people support restrictions.

Here's Wayne, Mr. Second Amendment, proposing a ban on ammo:
As to the snide remarks, why don't everyone that carries get checked in and no carry on ammo is allowed. The airlines either provide you with the ammo that you need or you buy it and they inspect it, multiple times, and then you board.
Click to expand...

And of course, you seemed pretty supportive of my restriction on certain types of weapons.


Restrictions aren't binary. Sometimes a right has to be restricted to meet the situation, but that isn't the same as losing the right.
 
Probably would serve as an object lesson to millions that they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and safety....which of course is the simple reality of the world.
Click to expand...

Yep, that'd be good. I have a feeling if America were given the choice, everyone has to carry a gun, and no one can carry a gun, no one would be carrying a gun.

What about this. Once the flight crew is in the cockpit, they cannot leave until the plane is on the ground. The first sign of an attempted takeover, they flip a switc that releases gases into the passenger area, that knock everyone out. That would solve the problem of the terrorist still being able to kill people, becaused the armed guards are in the cockpit.

But I still think that letting the airlines, and the pilots making the regs for their planes is the best thing to do.
 
Weak, Handy.
Weaker by the minute.

I accepted your "compromise", as a hypothetical, because it still allows for effective self defense, but most importantly, because it requires people (especially yourself) to admit that you cannot be protected by your alternative, Head-in-the-Sand, approach.

Are you somehow disquieted by my agreement to that compromise? I don't see why, as it would seem to obviate any grounds you and I have for further debate of the subject.....then again, perhaps I have just uttered the reason for your discomfort? Cognitive Disonance? Seller's Remorse? Admission that the Status Quo doesn't work?
:D
Rich
 
Handy, nice one, now your trying to win your argument by taking my words out of context :(.

Everyone knew what I meant when I said that. That since you and Sendec are afraid that ammo will go through the hull of the aircraft, that when you carry your gun onboard that the ammo is either issued by the airlines or you buy the special ammo and then they inspect it to ensure that it's the right kind.

Then you load up with that ammo and carry your gun onto the plane.

Please don't try to win an argument in such a manner, it just shows that you're losing ;) .

Oh, and if you don't understand a statement that I've made, I'll be more than happy to explain what I meant :)

Wayne
 
Rich,

I have never felt that "the government is going to protect me". My tact, from the beginning, was the firearms, in particular, offer a special risk on airplanes. Not nunchucks on buses, not rifles in grocery stores. The fact that this was my sole objection is why I was even able to see a compromise.

But until I proposed it, I couldn't see a workable way to put together the weapons and aviation without it being a suicide pact, which forced me support armed pilots and LE (which isn't the status quo). I am not debating you on the subject of weapons in the air (since we do now agree), but I do find your take on horror of restrictions dissonant with your agreement to compromise.

"Compromise" and "restriction" are two sides to the same coin.


Wayne,

You proposed limitations on ammunition. That doesn't make you a traitor. But agreeing to have the FAA or TSA tell you which kind of ammo you can or can't use is most definitely a restriction. And it made a good example.

Do you wish to now withdraw that suggestion? I thought the logistics of it would be a little too messy to bear, but the basic idea of allowing only frangible ammo is very much like what I proposed, and achieves a similar, if louder, end.
 
Handy, I was trying to compromise with you and Sendec to show that if you were afraid of the ammo that I could use, then I'll compromise and allow the AIRLINES (never mentioned TSA) to issue the ammo. In no way is this a ban but a compromise to ease your fears.

So, I'll withdraw the comment and offer no compromise if you are going to try to use it against me in this debate. I should have known better then to try to compromise anyway, I guess I've learned my lesson.

Wayne
 
Handy-
Check the regs-
Firearms carry by approved pilots and LEO's most certainly IS the Status Quo.

But I still don't understand your backpedal on this compromise you offered. As I read the Second, it speaks of the "right of the people to bear arms". In a plane, I think that pointy objects, edged devices, SwitchBlades, Balisongs, Karambits, Dirks, Tasers, canes and short clubs more than meet that requirement. Even more so in a phone booth, though I don't think legislation on phone booth carry is called for. ;)

Where's the problem? Where have I tread on my principles? Where, exactly, are your principles when it comes to the Second Amendment? After all, you've stated that you would prefer a world where NO citizen has ownership or access to a firearm.....in this very thread, I believe.

Wanna go round again?
Rich
 
Nobody has come to the conclusion which I favor, and which should be the proper one if we truly lived in a capitalist system: let the market decide. It shouldn't even be a civil rights/RKBA issue.

If airline A wants a complete ban of everything down to nail clippers, then let them. They're a private company and can decide what they do and do not permit on their planes.

If airline B wants to place no restrictions whatsoever on weapons on planes, then let them. Private company, and all that.

If airline C wants to permit weapons, but prohibit FMJ and issue frangibles to passengers, then let them.

Then let the market decide which risks are worth what. Passengers have a choice as to the level of risk they find acceptable, and which airline they want to honor with their business.

Of course, in our current "government knows what's best" society, we can't have people entering into voluntary contracts and making their own decisions, oh hell no.
 
If our govt allowed the market to decide, and if some of the carriers allowed guns onboard, then guess which airlines would be less likely to encounter hi-jacker problems? You can also guess which airlines I would fly; if you want to.
 
Brother Marko and Butch-
Of course that would be the most likely answer from the Founders. Believe it or not, I actually did propose it about a page back. But given all the chaff that needs to be cut down, I edited it out in order not to sidetrack the main points(?) being debated at the time.

Your timing is perfect, your logic inescapable and your articulation far better than my own. Thanks.
Rich
 
- Concerns about the dangers of guns under the coats of law abiding citizens: If not born of fear, than what?
- Concerns about trigger happy citizens shooting each other in a mid-air melee. If not born of fear, then what?
- Concerns of armed highjackers shooting pistols with magic ammo into the "wing root" of jetliners. If not born of fear, then what?
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, Rich.

They're about "FREEDOM" and "RIGHTS" -- as much about principle and liberty as anything found in the Bill of Rights...

...You know, "the right to not feel afraid of your armed neighbors"
"the right to walk down the street without being robbed"
"the right to not be offended"
"the right to security and 100% safety in public"

All of these newfound "rights" somehow got overlooked by the founders of this country. What a buncha dolts they were. What ever were they thinking?! :rolleyes:

-blackmind
 
Rich, page one, post one:
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??
Click to expand...
Status quo?


Of course any weapon is an "arm". But saying that some arms are acceptable and others not is a restriction and compromise. That's all I'm trying to communicate to you: You can't have a zero tolerance policy towards restrictions, but agree to them in the next breath.

"Ban all firearms". Isn't quoting out of context a violation of your "rules of polite debate" policy?

No, I'm not trying to start something, just consider what I said. It just sounds like you want it both ways.


Marko, the problem I see with that is that the planes are private, the passengers are private, but neither owns the airspace and the ground/people/buildings under the plane. That's what makes the Philly flight a tragedy, and the trade center flights an attack.


Wayne,

Good job. I was surprised that you ever proposed something like that in the first place.
 
You can't have a zero tolerance policy towards restrictions
Click to expand...
Who said I have a zero tolerance policy toward restrictions? I never argued that Americans should be allowed to own nukes. What I DO have is a Zero Tolerance Policy toward infringements of the Second Amendment. Your compromise passed that test. Do you recant now and call it an infringement of the Second in context of Airline Flight? Were you simply attempting to get some of us to admit to being as intransigent as you? I'm not.

Marko, the problem I see with that is that the planes are private, the passengers are private, but neither owns the airspace and the ground/people/buildings under the plane. That's what makes the Philly flight a tragedy, and the trade center flights an attack.
Click to expand...
And, once again, you come directly back to Brady and VPC logic: "I understand that shopping malls are private, but they don't own the people that walk thru. We have to protect those people with some "common sense" restrictions on other people". Only one end to that logic, Handy: Collectivism, with non-accountable individuals deciding what makes us "safer" and what doesn't; subjugation of the individual to The State.

You keep choosing your poison; it's hardly being force fed to you. Just don't insist that the rest of us take a taste.
Rich
 
sendec wrote:
I have yet to hear a practical realistic argument why it is so important for civilians to be armed in flight. Everything seems based on the infinitesimal chance that ssomeone else does something bad with a weapon. You are afraid someone may have a gun, so you want to legalize inflight armament. It just doesnt make sense.
Click to expand...


You've heard the practical, realistic arguments: you've just paid them no mind because they are antithetical to your dogma.

The flight that crashed in PA on 9/11/01 (flight 93?) is one compelling argument. It's quite feasible that guns in the hands of one or more civilian passenger could have ended the threat to the plane's safety before the cockpit was reached and the pilots killed and the plane crashed.

Your indictment of carrying on planes because of the "infinitessimal chance that someone else does something bad with a weapon" is actually an indictment of carrying in everyday life. The same argument could be made for my carrying during my personal everyday activities. After all, the chances that I will need my gun are very very slim. I have never had to even draw it, in 12 years of carrying.

Why don't you carry your views to their ultimate logical conclusion and say that ANYWHERE there is only a very small likelihood of our needing a gun, we should not be allowed to carry it because the very small likelihood of its being useful is overshadowed by the potential for it to cause harm?

You are making anti-gunners' points over and over here, but I bet you'd be really upset if we started saying that we thought you were, deep down, anti-gun. (Or at least, anti-CCW, which you certainly seem to be, based on the pith of your arguments.)

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