Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dear Airlines: An Oped Letter to All Air Carriers
The Sierra Times - Email ^ | 17 September, 2001 | J. J. Johnson

Posted on 09/17/2001 6:37:54 PM PDT by brityank

Sierra Times Update
The following letter is being sent to every U.S. passenger commercial air carrier. Feel free to foward.

Dear Airline Executives,

My wife and I are both "Rapid Reward" customers with Southwest Airlines. We are also both Delta Airline "Skymiles" customers, and have used such Skymiles in the past. This letter is to inform all of you why we will not be using any U.S. domestic passenger air carrier any time in the future.

On September 11, 2001 we witnessed many of our fellow air travelers - our fellow American, while defenseless, turned into helpless onlookers on a Boeing 757 cruise missile - pointed at key American targets. Since then, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has mandated newer, tougher security measures to ensure safer air travel. Then we learned from Vice President Dick Cheney that Reagan National Airport will be closed indefinitely because there is too much risk to important government buildings in Washington D.C. - even after the new FAA regulations. (NBC Meet the Press Sunday 09.16.01)

Meaning to us - airline travel isn't safe yet.

In fact, Airline travel is as 'safe' as it has always been. There are signs in airports that state even 'joking' about such things as bombs and guns could find a person in a lot of trouble. I have even witnessed this policy enforced. In the time it was enforced, it was because of two air travelers mocking the existing security protocol - and for good reason.

After each air disaster, we were told that new security measures were in place to ensure passenger safety. Most of us believed them. Some of us did not, but assumed the risk anyway. But as you can see by your recent ticket sales and cancellation of reservations (threatening to bankrupt many of you), and the known fact that more foreigners were trained for the expressed purposed of one-way joy rides to death and destruction on U.S. commercial aircraft, we simply can't trust our personal safety in the hands of the FAA any longer.

We do trust your pilots. And we enjoyed the services of all the flight attendants, baggage handlers, ticket counter personnel, car rental employees, travel agents, aircraft mechanics, information booth persons, cab drivers, shuttle drivers, hotel employees, food staff, and other miscellaneous personnel - many of whom will soon be out of work, if you insist on following the new FAA guidelines. Not to mention the crippling loss of revenue you are facing now.

It does not have to come to this.

It seems that whenever the airlines and the FAA sit down to discuss security, the potential victims are always omitted from the discussion. Our goal is to change that.

We are not advocating an agenda per-se, nor is this a economic threat. We represent no group, organization or special interest. We are just two of the 1.3 million American air travelers each day. These proposed regulations are being strongly suggested for the sole purpose of personal, airline and national security interests.

Below is a proposed draft of legislation that we are asking all airline executives to take under very serious consideration. I can also add that you have a database of air travelers (frequent flyers, rapid rewards, Skymiles, etc) that you know and trust. Many of these air travelers are gun owners. We know this from talking to many of them during air travel stops, and especially after September 11, 2001. Many of these persons have already gone through rigorous background checks, and yes - do own firearms. I can assure you that many of them (after training supervised by your airline) would gladly volunteer for such an armed passenger program as a last line of defense against such attacks.

After speaking with government officials this morning (09.17.01) I was informed that the FAA would probably not even consider such a proposal. That is why we are not asking them. We are asking you.

The proposals listed below are a good way to ensure that the 55,000 takeoffs a day would have trained, responsible personnel aboard all commercial air traffic. Yes, we want to fly your airlines. We want to be free to roam the county. We want to fly the freindly skies again. We listened to the FAA, and again - we're picking up the pieces.

Hoping to catch a flight with an FBI agent, U.S. Marshall or U.S. Air Marshall is the equivalent of playing a game of Russian Roulette. This is simply unacceptable, and we cannot and will not subject ourselves or our loved ones through this. Until the proposals listed below are put into place, we are asking for a full refund of all tickets previously purchased for future air flight, and a 'refusal to board any commercial aircraft' commitment from all law-abiding gun owners in the United States of America, and others who agree with our position.

Of course, you don't have to take this letter seriously, figuring we're only a small minority. But as you can see, we are voting (and traveling) with our feet right now.

Sincerely,
J.J. & Nancy Johnson
Frequent Flyers (and your last line of defense)
we can be reached at editor@sierratimes.com
=============================================
Proposed is federal legislation, which may be called the "Airline Safety and Anti-terrorism Act of 2001", that would accomplish the following:

A. Remove all current prohibitions concerning carrying firearms on commercial aircraft for certain persons considered to be "air safety assets" under certain conditions, and to exempt these people from punishment by local and state laws where airplanes upon which they are riding may land, as follows:

1. Persons identified as an "air safety asset" who may be called a "sky guard" include: a. any current, sworn, law enforcement officer for any federal, state or local agency, and b. any person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by any state, or by any local agency under the authority of a state, and c. any person who is a classified handgun competitor under the rules of the United States Practical Shooting Association or the International Defensive Pistol Association.

2. Persons not eligible to be a "sky guard" include: a. persons who are not eligible to possess firearms under federal law, and b. persons who are not yet 18 years of age, and c. persons who are not legal citizens of the United States as a result of birth or naturalization. [ADDMENED: any one the captain of the aircraft deems un-appropriate for such duty]

3. The Federal Aviation Administration must accomplish the following: a. originate and publish within six weeks a brief manual, called a "sky guard briefing" which explains the fragility and weak points of commercial aircraft, which aircraft parts may be susceptible to dangerous disruption from either gunfire or terrorist activity, and which explains several most recommended tactics for defeating terrorists onboard aircraft, and b. publish this manual as a paperback book, which must be available to persons qualified to serve as sky guards at a reasonable cost or at no cost, and c. devise a system of signals whereby any sky guard flying on a particular aircraft may be identified under emergency conditions by other sky guards flying on that particular aircraft.

4. Conditions under which any qualified persons would be allowed to carry firearms on commercial aircraft departing from and arriving at destinations on U.S. soil, and the soil of U.S. allies which accept this arrangement, are: a. when the person is carrying a firearm that is concealed from view and simple detection by casual observers, and b. when the firearm being carried is loaded only with frangible ammunition, such as Glaser Safety Slugs or the equivalent, and c. when the sky guard certifies that he or she has read the sky guard briefing and understands the contents, and d. when the sky guard consumes no alcohol or mind-altering substances at all within 12 hours before travel, or during travel where the person serves as a sky guard.

B. Persons serving as sky guards:

1. Would serve in a voluntary (unpaid) capacity, and

2. Would be exempt from local or state laws restricting their ability to possess firearms along their route of travel, and at any location on the ground along their route of travel for a period of 72 hours between landing and departure, and

3. Both commercial airlines, and sky guards not acting with gross negligence, would be held harmless under law for the acts or omissions of sky guards serving voluntarily and while traveling on commercial aircraft or while in air terminals during travel.

C. The prerogatives and duties of sky guards while serving in that capacity would be limited to defeating any attempt to wrest control of a commercial aircraft from the airline crew, and to interfere with any person aboard a commercial aircraft who presents an immediate threat of loss of life to any crew member or passenger of a commercial aircraft upon which the sky guard is a passenger. The duties and prerogatives of a sky guard specifically would not include the use of a firearm or brandishing of a firearm to subdue an unruly passenger who does not pose a threat of loss of life to any crew member or passenger.

Sierra Times An Internet Publication for Real Americans.
©2001 Sierra Times.com - All Rights Reserved =============================================

If you wish to Subscribe or Unsubscribe from this list or have a change of address, please go to our website at:

http://www.sierratimes.com/listmanager.htm


TOPICS: Announcements; Crime/Corruption; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Just so you know; Philadelphia International Airport is hiring a bunch of new Security Officers for airport detail -- Starting Salary $7.00 to $7.50 per hour.
Do YOU want to trust these folks with YOUR life?
1 posted on 09/17/2001 6:37:54 PM PDT by brityank (brityank@FReepmail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: brityank
Until the Arlines are willing to run nationwide background checks on all their employees, it doesn't matter who they hire or how much they pay. The FAA can't enforce anything, they merely make suggestions. It's going to take an act of Congress to make these Airlines comply.
2 posted on 09/17/2001 6:47:57 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
Not to worry, prospective employees must submit to tests to ensure they're drug free. Of course, at $7.00 an hour, we can probably count on them being free of good sense, judgment and intelligence too.
3 posted on 09/17/2001 6:57:01 PM PDT by Agog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brityank
It's almost refreshing to see the airline industry go through this kind of upheaval. The notion that air travel could be affordable to almost every smelly, mouth-breathing, neanderthal Democratic voter who wants to take his family to Disney World is a joke.

When the airlines reduce their scheduled flights to about 20% of their current level, you'll find that air travel will be more expensive, and generally limited to those who have a lot of money and/or need it for business. At that point, security won't be a problem because these people will pay whatever it costs to travel safely.

4 posted on 09/17/2001 7:02:22 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
any person who is a classified handgun competitor under the rules of the United States Practical Shooting Association or the International Defensive Pistol Association.

hmmm. now if i only flew...

5 posted on 09/17/2001 7:08:46 PM PDT by glock rocks (fmcdh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
security won't be a problem because these people will pay whatever it costs to travel safely

You seem to think that the Airlines will willingly increase prices and use the money on good security. Or, that it is best that only the upper class persons should fly. I have to assume you include yourself. You are not thinking clearly. The Airlines do not care if you are safe. They only want to make a buck. Get a clue.
6 posted on 09/17/2001 7:12:09 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Five thousand American Citizens lost their life for the want of two thousand one hundred eight dollars.

(I will fly again when Pilots are armed)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ba6ac034145.htm

end

7 posted on 09/17/2001 7:12:32 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (lawjj2@allways.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Five thousand American Citizens lost their life for the want of two thousand one hundred eight dollars.

(I will fly again when Pilots are armed)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ba6ac034145.htm

end

8 posted on 09/17/2001 7:13:02 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (lawjj2@allways.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
My fiance' flies more then 100k miles per year, on many different airlines. I can assure the airlines, and the FAA, that all she wants is to arrive at her destinations safely and on time. Just flying out this morning, her sewing kit scissors were confiscated. A fellow road warrior had his nail clippers taken. Of course, in the Air Mall, she could buy a new kit and the nail clipper confiscation "victim" bought another pair in another store.....inside the airport and past security!

Make no mistake: the flight crews and ticketing agents are on edge. One flight attendant she's seen many times on previous flights told her that her husband tries to steel her resolve to continue working, but it's hard. There's got to be a better way.

9 posted on 09/17/2001 7:17:06 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
You compete with a glock?
10 posted on 09/17/2001 7:17:29 PM PDT by tymesf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
Of course, in the Air Mall, she could buy a new kit and the nail clipper confiscation "victim" bought another pair in another store.....inside the airport and past security!

Here in Philly they have taken all of the knives -- including the little plasic knives -- out of the secure passenger areas. That includes chef knives and anything that has a blade, no matter what size or implement it's attached to. And the blithering sheeple arew all saying they don't mind as it makes things 'safer'! Get a clue; they still let people through with ballpoint pens.

11 posted on 09/17/2001 7:29:16 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
The FAA can't enforce anything, they merely make suggestions. It's going to take an act of Congress to make these Airlines comply.

Wake up. The airlines are already implementing every stupid idea that those faceless bureaucrats have recommended.

12 posted on 09/17/2001 7:32:17 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brityank
The news is now that Brazil is allowing passengers to carry handguns. I presume there's some sort of vetting process, but I didn't catch all of it. I'm curious to see what happens with them.
13 posted on 09/17/2001 7:34:43 PM PDT by Marauder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marauder
... Brazil is allowing passengers to carry handguns.

That has been proven to be a hoax. Unfortunately for the Brazilians.

14 posted on 09/17/2001 7:38:57 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brityank
But, they still refuse to perform nationwide background checks on their employees.
15 posted on 09/17/2001 7:41:43 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
If the aircrews and CCW holders were allowed to carry, you wouldn't need the stupid background checks. Even with those checks, people have been hired that should not have been because of snafus and mistakes in paperwork.
16 posted on 09/17/2001 7:46:36 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Ballpoint pens, shoulder straps that could be used as a garrote, rubber chicken in in-flight meals.

The list is endless!

Philly International really never impressed me in the security, though. Most of them seemed to rather be somewhere else than scanning luggage.

17 posted on 09/17/2001 7:48:11 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Excellent article. It makes a lot of sense.
18 posted on 09/17/2001 7:52:54 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
If the aircrews and CCW holders were allowed to carry, you wouldn't need the stupid background checks

Who's to say that one of the CCW carriers or crew isn't a terrorist? What are we going to have? A shoot-out in the cabin? It is better to think of solutions that are plausible.
19 posted on 09/17/2001 8:03:01 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: brityank
The same morons who run the FAA and airport security are the same morons who adminstrate the school system. Why would you expect rationality from a bureaucratic moron?. Why would any rational person expect the new government security guidelines to be followed any better than the previous guidelines?. Sooner or later, people will figure out that the government is the problem, and not the solution.

---max

20 posted on 09/17/2001 8:32:07 PM PDT by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
Who's to say that one of the CCW carriers or crew isn't a terrorist? What are we going to have? A shoot-out in the cabin? It is better to think of solutions that are plausible.

Your cowardice is pathetic.

---max

21 posted on 09/17/2001 8:33:21 PM PDT by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: brityank
The Brazil legislature just passed a law allowing passengers to carry the guns on airliners. Our guys are stupider than the Brazilians.
22 posted on 09/17/2001 8:38:34 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: max61
I'm not a coward, I'm just bright enough to think of all the possibilities. If one of the crew IS a terrorist, I don't think it would be a good move to arm them. By the way, I own several weapons and am a member of the NRA. I'm more afraid of people like you missing your mark with your weapon in the air than I am afraid of terrorists.
23 posted on 09/17/2001 8:42:09 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
Yep, you're bright alright. You should run for congress.

---max

24 posted on 09/17/2001 8:50:47 PM PDT by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
I did get a clue. And when the airlines are flying planes across the country that are 90% empty, I can assure you that the first airline to fly their passengers around in military transports with one armed soldier on board for every three passengers will be the only one getting any business.
25 posted on 09/17/2001 8:53:11 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tymesf
I do, using a Glock 35 with a 3.5# trigger. While all the guys shooting the 1911 clones are proficient with failure drills, the Glock just keeps on shooting. :^)
26 posted on 09/17/2001 8:53:43 PM PDT by AKbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: max61
You should run for congress.

Not even; we already have too many unconstitutional moronic liars there now, thank-you-very-much.

The safest I ever felt was in Tulsa back in '73; guys all around downtown wearing hardware both concealed and open, and I never saw or heard of anyone getting shot that didn't deserve it -- and that included the 'bars'. (For those that don't know, Tulsa was 'dry', no booze by the drink except at bottle clubs you had to be a member of; then you brought in your own bottle and they charged you for the glass and ice. Strange setup!)

27 posted on 09/17/2001 10:06:54 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Check here or here.
28 posted on 09/17/2001 10:11:33 PM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
Well, it is possible you may not be brave enough to trust your fellow man. This may make you a coward, because it is demonstrable that trustworthy souls exist. If there is an untrustworthy SOB with a gun or boxcutter on the plane, you will be SOL because you are UNARMED, DEFENSELESS - a guaranteed victim.
29 posted on 09/17/2001 10:31:10 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: boris
Bump. You'll love this!
30 posted on 09/17/2001 10:34:49 PM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
FIVE THOUSAND LOST THEIR LIVES FOR THE WANT OF ......

News/Current Events News Keywords: CCW, AIRLINES, BUSH, ASHCROFT, TERRORISTS, TERRORISM, TERRORIST, BIN LADEN Source: Keepandbeararms

Published: September 17.2001 Author: PAUL WILLIAMS Posted on 09/17/2001 19:05:55 PDT by CHICAGOFARMER FIVE THOUSAND LOST THEIR LIVES FOR THE WANT OF TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS.

New Release

Ponder for a moment.

We trust a pilot with a 30 million-dollar plane knowledgeable of complex airplane functions, but government policy will not allow them to operate anti terrorist tools.

Israel Airlines bolts the Cockpit door and all Pilots and copilots carry Firearms.

Scanning the websites this week the following thread from Pilots, Law Enforcement, and American Citizens discuss ways to take positive action against airplane terrorism.

We trust a fancy security question (Thanks to Jim Kallstom, former FBI, did you pack your bags?) but not trust millions of active and retired law enforcement officers to Citizen Carry on an airplane. They should be outraged.

I’LL FLY AGAIN WHEN PILOTS ARE ARMED.

May I rant for a second! Get these liberal, antigun activists out of our government decision making process. Consider, Israel Airlines policy bolt the door, arms it pilots, and has armed travelers in the cabin.

We allow lowly-paid gate-guards to gate dis-arm us, creating a "killing zone of disarmed citizens", as passingers "do battle" in the sky with terrorists, using passion for weapons because misguided government policy has left us defenseless.

The government can not protect you when the terrorist is eyeball to eyeball with you. Now they have ban my pocketknife used to clean my nails. What next, my shoelaces becasue terrorists can make a rope weapon??

Most all of the former military pilots strapped firearms to their legs when they served their county. Today they are considered not capable, wear the wrong uniform, or untrust worthy.

This BS about putting a 9mm hole in the skin of an airplane will bring it down is more rhetoric and fiction than fact. Just ask the thousand of airmen who returned from flights over Germany in WWII. How about the 747 over Hawaii with a 20-foot hole in the side. Still got a problem with possible decompression? Consider the alternative!

I’ll trust anyday my life to any active or retired law enforcement officer to CITIZEN CARRY on any airline.

I’ll trust anyday my life to any pilot or copilot active or retired to carry on any airline.

I’ll trust any American citizen willing to CITIZEN CARRY after extensive training to carry on any airline. It is a huge responsibility, however, the current "Killing Zones" set up by faulty thinking is killing our husbands, wives, children, and our nation.

I am sure thousands perhaps millions of American’s would trust their life to armed pilots, copilots, air crew members, retired, policemen, FBI, CIA, ATF, or American Citizens willing to train, quality, and stay current with cabin safety issues keeping America airlines safe.

I personally trust all of the above personnel, rather than phony security questions, low-pay air guards, unlocked backdoor food and cleaning functions or gates at airports, or government officials with big titles.

WHO DO YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT? OR DO YOU TRUST HONEST AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO LIVE AND BREATH FAMILY SAFETY WHEN TRAVELING?

What do you want in your cockpit, a pilot and copilot with a firearm, or a terrorist?

2,180 dollars (four colt pistols or glock)would have prevented all four terrorist acts and five thousand dead would be having dinner with their families this evening.

Government will spend billions of dollars with highly visible, and very breach-able security that irritates American citizens during check-in when one additional layer can greatly enhanse passenger security. Pilots want want to die without fighting, but not me.

Thousands of American veterans, retired Law Enforcement Officers and American Citzens want to sign up today to fight terrorism. Don't tell them they are unqualified.

If you do tell them they are unqualifed, they may have a word or two for you. Something about pounding sand where the sun does not shine.

Visit keepandbeararms to carry the fight.

KEEPANDBEARARMS

WWW.KEEPANDBEARARMS.COM

Paul Williams

Advising Director

end

------ Let us hear from the active and retired Law enforcement, pilots, and concerned American citizens.

31 posted on 09/17/2001 10:42:40 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (lawjj2@allways.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: no-s
Well, it is possible you may not be brave enough to trust your fellow man. This may make you a coward, because it is demonstrable that trustworthy souls exist. If there is an untrustworthy SOB with a gun or boxcutter on the plane, you will be SOL because you are UNARMED, DEFENSELESS - a guaranteed victim.

May I remind you that the bastards that highjacked that plane were "fellow men" and were indistinguishable from the rest of us good citizens. No, I don't trust the Airlines to screen their crew in assurance that they are not the enemy. No, I do not know that another passenger on the craft that has a CCW is not the enemy. No, I do not assume that those who do carry CCW are excellent marksmen. If you are willing to trust all those variables, then you are not a coward, you are a simpleton.
32 posted on 09/17/2001 10:49:06 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
If one of the crew IS a terrorist, I don't think it would be a good move to arm them.

If one of the crew is a terrorist, he's already armed with a hundred-ton MISSLE! If there's a shootout and the plane goes down, that's FAR from the worst that could happen.

33 posted on 09/17/2001 11:03:35 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
Good post! Time for a bookmark!
34 posted on 09/17/2001 11:49:24 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tymesf, AKbear, Pete-R-Bilt
You compete with a glock?

yup. glock owners are much less proficient at clearing jams than many
owners of other firearms. we just don’t quite get enough practice
clearing those stovepipes and misfeeds.

and when the five meter double taps are less than 2” apart,
we’re waiting too long between shots.

glock shooters realize that the reduced recoil moment and
lower center of balance gives them an unfair advantage, but
we keep it among ourselves. shhhhh.

shoot straight. shoot safe.

35 posted on 09/18/2001 2:15:14 AM PDT by glock rocks (fmcdh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
Glocks are nice. I'll never own one, however, because the ergonomics are not right for me.

I've shot 'em. I just can't stand how they feel in my hand. too blocky...like holding a gun made out of Lego blocks.

One shooter's opinion.

--Boris

36 posted on 09/18/2001 8:12:22 AM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
Don't you think the fact there may be other armed people on the plane is as deterring to idiots as well as terrorists? Do you prefer to disarm the competent in order to keep the idiots from causing trouble, when disarming the competent leaves no deterrent to the terrorist?

I'm not saying we have to arm idiots. I'm saying it's unwise and perhaps even cowardly to assume everyone is an idiot. You put your faith in your fellow man every time you drive down a two-lane street, or cross at a crosswalk. If you are afraid to go out of doors because of the risk, don't try to tell those of us who must go out what to do.

37 posted on 09/18/2001 9:12:02 AM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: boris
like holding a gun made out of Lego blocks

i haven’t heard of glocks referred to as legos before... ah, that got me laughing.
thanks. hey - shoot what works for you, no problem here.

oh, and practice practice practice.

38 posted on 09/18/2001 9:12:34 AM PDT by glock rocks (fmcdh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: no-s
I have not spoken of disarming anyone. One has to be armed before they can be disarmed. And, if you really think the Airlines are going to let any clown with a permit take a weapon aboard an airplaine, you must be high on somethin'. This is why I stated before, it is better to think of plausible solutions. What is all this hooey about trusting your fellow man? All the passengers on all 4 aircraft TRUSTED their fellow passengers not to slash their throats and crash the plane. Now, you say I should trust complete strangers on an Aircraft to carry arms in my defense. But, you say, we can screen out the "idiots". How is that possible when you are still here? Not bloody likely. Trust and verify.
39 posted on 09/18/2001 11:13:02 AM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
Trust and Verify, you say? Your form of 'verify' is fine for the armchair, but leaves everyone at the pointy end SOL.

BTW don't make things up and pretend I said them. Don't be abusive, it's offensive. And irrelevant.

40 posted on 09/18/2001 12:50:09 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: no-s
It is abusive to call someone a coward, which you insinuated I was since I wasn't willing to trust my "fellow man". Your analysis that idiots would be less willing to use arms because of the arming of fellow passengers is insipid. Idiots don't use logic.....this is why they are idiots. Idiots use blind emotion to fuel their thought processes. I would be quite happy to see armed Air Marshals on every flight, at least I know which side they are on. Anyone else is subject to scrutiny.......including you.
41 posted on 09/18/2001 1:12:27 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Untouchable
I notice I haven't suggested you be disarmed. If I offended you by suggesting your position is potentially cowardly, too bad. I reject your suggestion everyone should be left defenseless because some are idiots; I reject the thesis government automatically knows what is good for us just because it's the government, and therefore only government agents can protect us.

If you fear your fellow man when there is overwhelming evidence most people are good and sensible, if you feel you can not trust anyone because some people are bad or worse, you will not be the better for it. Which side are you on, the side of the terrorists? There are now good people who are out on the demonstrably pointy end of life every day, whether they be pilots, flight attendants, or passengers. So far your only argument seems to be the passengers are idiots who can't be trusted. That anyone with a CHL is a potential "clown", and therefore can't be trusted.

"Insipid". Ha. I haven't seen that for a while. If some fool wants to get up and pretend to be a hijacker I expect "insipid" will lead to "evolution in action".

How about a compromise? I will happily support "Sky Marshall" if any CHL can be "deputized" by showing his CHL at the inquest. People from Vermont are automatically deputized by their driver's license....

42 posted on 09/18/2001 2:04:31 PM PDT by no-s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: no-s
How about a compromise? I will happily support "Sky Marshall" if any CHL can be "deputized" by showing his CHL at the inquest. People from Vermont are automatically deputized by their driver's license....

Lets see....whom would I trust with my safety on a crowded Jetliner?

A. An officer who has had extensive training in disarming and subduing armed suspects.

B. Some punk from Vermont with a drivers license.

Hmmmmmmmm. That's a tough one.
43 posted on 09/18/2001 2:17:14 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: no-s
So far your only argument seems to be the passengers are idiots who can't be trusted. That anyone with a CHL is a potential "clown", and therefore can't be trusted.

"Insipid". Ha. I haven't seen that for a while. If some fool wants to get up and pretend to be a hijacker I expect "insipid" will lead to "evolution in action".


No, my argument is that SOME passengers are idiots that can't be trusted. My argument is that SOME people with CHL's are clowns that can't be trusted. I don't want to see passengers get shot because a Saudi is arguing with the Stew about being out of J&B. May I remind you that McVeigh was a dude with some fertilizer that couldn't be trusted and SOME people would use these laws to further their own agendas.
44 posted on 09/18/2001 2:37:23 PM PDT by Untouchable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Could you kindly pass me the source on this? I need to verify this.
45 posted on 09/19/2001 3:18:14 PM PDT by Marauder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: max61
The nearly non-existent airport security has been well known for a long time. The airlines made money from it. Now, we're to feel sorry for the airlines who stash the real profits in the holding companies that we're not supposed to look at?

The holding company makes huge profits, while the illusion is that the airline is losing money - sorry, it's a statistical fake!

Wake up out there!!!

We may discover quite a scam in the proposed bail-out. For starters, the layoffs are roughly equivalent to the Reserve - Guard call-up; and the layoffs were almost automatic.

Further, in the military operation, the airlines fall under the lucrative "Civilian Reserve Air Fleet" program (CRAF), thus they will pick up a tremendous profit from flying the troops they generated.

The airlines created this mess by ignoring airport security standards, with the knowing and willing help of the FAA.

See -

Airline Safety ‘Net

- look to the “Attack on America” link.
46 posted on 09/19/2001 7:48:28 PM PDT by SKYDRIFTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Marauder
I didn't find the original story (Sierra Times pulled it) and I deleted the original email, but I did find this in the site's Mailbag:


Brazilian Airlines Story Hoax

Dear Sirs,

Are you sure about this article? I think someone needs to question the validity of Thomas Buyea ranger116@webtv.net. Only last year, if I remember, Brazil's President pushed through a strict gun-ban like the one that makes Jamaica such a low-crime society (NOT!). A Brazilian judge eventually threw it out, as (a) unconstitutional and (b) unlikely to achieve its ostensible purpose anyway.

It seems highly unlikely they would allow something like this. Did any one at the SierraTimes check this out?

M. R.

I was scanning through this morning (9-17-01) and briefly saw an article about how some of the Brazilian airlines are allowing passengers to carry .38 and under. I'm trying to go back and read the article but can't find it!

Help!!!
M. in Calif.

Sue,
The mistake that was made on the Brazilian story is understandable. It is vary easy to forgive those who printed it because we are all desperately looking for intelligent life among our politicians and it is a scarce commodity. Keep looking though because you might get lucky.

B. B.

To Our Readers: We apologize for publishing the story about the Brazilian Parliament approving the carrying of firearms on airflights by passengers. This story was apparently a hoax. We at Sierra Times have no excuse for believing the story, other than the wishful thinking that some intelligent life might remain on this planet. SierraTimes



47 posted on 09/20/2001 6:50:49 AM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: brityank
You know, I agree with the tone, sentiment and intent of this piece and the letter toward making our skies safer. I also agree that all states should encourage gun ownership as it is a real crime deterrant.

On the other hand, taking this to the skies is another matter. Any sort of shootout in the air is very deadly. I don't think letting anyone carry a gun is a good idea.

I think the cockpit should be trained and armed. I think sky marshalls are a good idea. But let's leave the potential "shootout in the skies" to those that will have special training and bullets for this different "OK corral" than the one on the ground.

48 posted on 09/20/2001 5:48:12 PM PDT by AgThorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson