Bush to OK Guns for Airline Pilots

AP via The NY Times ^ | 5 September 2002 | AP

[Smile-n-Win]

Shoulder holster best way to go, worn on the left side fore righties, right side for lefties.. Not sure the left for right or right for left is PC

I think it isn't because it "reinforces a heterosexual orthodoxy" ... :-O)

[Smile-n-Win]

No! No! No! We want to arm them with handguns, not with Congress and the administration!

LOL Though things like Congress and the administration can be MUCH scarier than handguns at times!

[Republic]

It is so easy. First you take a stance-any stance-that is opposite the one you really want to come to fruition. Immedicately your opponents begin making noises opposite your proclamations. Soon, when the level of noise is just about right, you cave in, accomplishing what needs to be done for the good of the nation and end up looking like a person willing to listen to reason. That is how the WH played this card, imho.

[Action-America]

Here me out. A lockbox makes sense from a couple of standpoints:

1. An airline pilot is easily identified and even if he picks up his firearm in the sterile area - beyond the checkpoint - he or she will become a target of opportunity for a directed attack by terrorists to obtain firearms.

This whole issue would be moot, if we allowed any law enforcement officer, from any federal, state or local agency, who wanted to take specialized training, to carry a weapon on the plane.  On any given flight, there is a fairly good chance that one of the roughly 700,000 combined full time law enforcement officers in the U.S. will be on that flight, either on official business or for pleasure.  Add pilots and air marshals to that mix and the odds of one or more guns being on any given aircraft, in the hands of trained professionals, becomes quite high.

In that case, even if a terrorist were to manage to get a gun from a single pilot, his chances of successfully using it in a hijacking attempt becomes very small.  He and some others try to use the stolen gun in a hijacking and are suddenly faced by two armed, off-duty policemen and an air marshal.

The problem is that our laws no longer respect the Second Amendment.  In fact, if we did respect the Second Amendment, any citizen who could pass a comprehensive background check (at his own expense), was willing to take the necessary training to use a gun on an aircraft (at his own expense) and pay for the special ammo required, would be allowed to carry a gun on any aircraft.  Then the terrorists wouldn't stand a chance of seizing control of one of our aircraft.

 

[FreedomFriend]

The White House doesn't care for this idea, as they are promting an expensive, exhaustive, unfundable program to train the pilots. This way, they can say that they support arming pilots, while later claiming that it couldn't be done due to funding problems. Opinions haven't really changed. Bush is one of the politically correct ones.

[from occupied ga]

First you take a stance-any stance-that is opposite the one you really want to come to fruition. ...

I suppose it's possible, but all of the evidence points to the simpler explanation. Ie, Bush is an anti-gunner, and caved in only when presented with a veto-proof majority.