Debate about arming pilots...

[lonegunman]

It does not appear that our commercial pilots will be armed, at least not until the next massive loss of life on an airliner as a result of a terrorist.

However, I wonder if we could have made a better argument.

I think a lot of the sheep would get edgy knowing pilots have guns on them. And I dont think the govt really wants that either, for fear that it will imply that the govt isnt able to protect the people (which they can't do, but don't want to admit).

What if instead of allowing pilots to "carry", our side had instead pushed to have a loaded firearm in a secured lock box in the cockpit?

This eliminates the stigma of having armed pilots, while still providing a last ditch method for dealing with terrorists.

I realize I am playing word games here, but would this have been a more acceptable way to accomplish arming pilots in this day of political correctness?

 

[George Hill]

That should be a given. A gun for the crew.

Look at it this way... We trust these guys to ferry 200 people at at time in a multi-million dollar jet capable of flying 1/2 around the world... Yet we don't trust them with a .38?
How retarded is that?
I think it's totally asinine.

We should allow pilots to be armed because the Constitution says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Pilots are being INFRINGED.
PASSANGERS are being infringed.

Airport security isn't an issue. Israel's airports are safe. Why is that? We don't here is those flights being hi-jacked anymore... or bombers hitting the airports. Why is that?
What are they doing about airport security that is different from what we are doing? Is our threat level so much higher? I don't think so.

 

[Art Eatman]

Check out the people who were the most vocal against arming pilots: They are all known anti-gun people. Magaw is the best known as the head of BATF, appointed following Ruby Ridge IIRC and in charge at the time of Waco. (I may be off as to timing.)

Anyway, no argument of any sort would have swayed these people, anymore than one's efforts to change Schumer's or Feinstein's minds to support of RKBA.

Art

 

[brianidaho]

The thing that I find hard to believe about all this is that there is no hew and cry from the bliss-ninnies concerning the federal employees who are allowed to carry armed in the passanger compartment as a matter or course.

 

[C.R.Sam]

Too many of the blissninnies firmly believe anything their father government tells them.

They live to be led.

 

[Art Eatman]

I imagine that if the blissninnies even think about it at all (?) they assume it's only those Nice Federal Marshalls or those Nice FBI people who are protecting us from everything. They don't even know about EPA, OSHA, USDA, NPS, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

Will the employees of the Federal Air Transport Airport Security Service wear those jackets with the acronym on the back?

, Art

 

[Watchman]

Now how in the world will the GOVERNMENT be able to exact any changes in our freedoms(all in the name of saftey of course) if they "allowed" the pilots to actually arm themselves and fight against hi-jackers ?

If the GOVERNMENT were serious about saftey, this would'nt even be an issue.

As already stated here, it does not make sense to allow pilots to fly a few hundred people anywhere around the world with a multimillion dollar jet and not allow them to carry a handgun.

Your politicians are allowing this crap to happen so that the sheeple will cry and scream and beg to give up some more of our freedoms in order to remain "safe".

 

[Jeff White]

So does anyone think that if Magaw ordered a hijacked airliner shot down (without an armed crew, what other option will they have) people in Congress and the press will scream for his head and ask why he didn't allow pilots to be armed?

Naw....we let him oversee the killing of innocent women and children at Waco and as a reward, we put him in a postion where he's responsible for the security of air transportation, one of the lifelines of our economy.

I have a couple questions?

Did his appointment require Senate approval? If so, where were all the senators who publically tore him a new one at the Waco hearings?

Who in the administration put his name in the hat anyway? Considering his glorious reign at BATF, how could they be so stupid as to give him a position with any more responsibility then a parking lot security guard?

Anyone else noticed that it doesn't matter what administration is in the Whitehouse, the same functionaries bounce from agency to agency and we continue to have poor government?

It's not just Magaw. The same people seem to run things, maybe not in the same post in every administration, but the positions right below cabinet level have been filled by the same people in administrations of both parties. I suppose they look at these people as a=political, but the actual cabinet level people need someone to run the day to day operations while they concentrate on the political end...and thus, the more things change, the more they stay the same..or...to quote those great politcal thinkers of the 21st century from across the pond..."meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

Jeff

 

[ankara36]

To Jeff White;

Either Magaw is a knee-jerk anti-gunner who doesn't think about the consequences of his actions, or he is setting up another air disaster to discredit the Bush Administration.

To anyone who disagrees with pilots being armed, keep in mind the next time the hijackers will probably have guns themselves to preclude being overpowered by the unarmed passengers, and that the next flight they take over will immediately be shot out of the sky. I'll take my chances with a bullet piercing the fuselage, thank you.

BTW, the fear of explosive decompression from a bullet hole is a Hollywood inspired myth. A 747 flying to Hawaii lost over 6 feet of its upper fuselage a few years back while in-flight. A flight attendant unfortunately got sucked out, but the rest of the plane held together and successfully landed.