It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Exercises Open-Carry Rights By Carrying Loaded Assault Rifle In Airport

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

In Atlanta you can carry in the public area, which is anywhere up to the checkpoints. You can't go past there though as that is a mix of federal and state property.


Seems odd still but at least there are some common sense limits.

For me a Airport is right up there with Firework factory and Chemical Factory in regards to paces one should bring a gun


It seems that perspective is everything on this topic.

It could be argued, as I do, that concealed carry everywhere is the safest mechanism to prevent rogue violence. Be it an airport, an airplane or an elementary school.


Its not about even stopping a bad "guy".

Its simple health and safety. To carry a gun in such delicate places you need those carriers to abide by a strict set of safely rules and have specialized training or you risk a accident or incident that puts peoples lives in danger.

Although my gun views are more liberal than most Brits I still respect them as tools that can be dangerous and need to be used responsibly.

Now if some dip# blows his head off while cleaning a loaded gun at home then fine his problem don't care. What I dont want to do is be on a plane with a dip# who haven't put the safety on a loaded gun that accidentally fires and blows a hole in the cabin wall.

Plus no country on earth would let a plant travel with in its airspace with untrained, unregulated gun carriers on board and a airline that cant travel is a bankrupt airline


Plus a gun fight on a Airplane with untrained people.....yeah......not a great idea even if Jihad joe has tried to hijack it.



edit on 4-6-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

In Atlanta you can carry in the public area, which is anywhere up to the checkpoints. You can't go past there though as that is a mix of federal and state property.


Seems odd still but at least there are some common sense limits.

For me a Airport is right up there with Firework factory and Chemical Factory in regards to paces one should bring a gun


It seems that perspective is everything on this topic.

It could be argued, as I do, that concealed carry everywhere is the safest mechanism to prevent rogue violence. Be it an airport, an airplane or an elementary school.

Or a freaking BAR! I might add.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

On a plane, hell no. Not only hell no, but Jesus Christ no. I barely like the idea of Air Marshalls and pilots being armed on a plane. There is way too much that could create a huge mess if h hit on a plane.


So, are you up in arms against "air marshalls"?

You must know that the planes on 911 would not have been successfully hijacked (I know maybe presumptuous of me on here) if the passengers were able to defend themselves with modern tools.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

On a plane, hell no. Not only hell no, but Jesus Christ no. I barely like the idea of Air Marshalls and pilots being armed on a plane. There is way too much that could create a huge mess if h hit on a plane.


^^^^^ what he said.^^^^^



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Right now I can't carry because of too many holes in reciprocity laws. If they pass the interstate reciprocity act, you bet your ass I'm going to carry. I'm leaning towards a Springfield .45. They're reasonably priced, and I've always liked that caliber.
edit on 6/4/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

In Atlanta you can carry in the public area, which is anywhere up to the checkpoints. You can't go past there though as that is a mix of federal and state property.


Seems odd still but at least there are some common sense limits.

For me a Airport is right up there with Firework factory and Chemical Factory in regards to paces one should bring a gun


It seems that perspective is everything on this topic.

It could be argued, as I do, that concealed carry everywhere is the safest mechanism to prevent rogue violence. Be it an airport, an airplane or an elementary school.

Or a freaking BAR! I might add.


Yes, especially in bars, I can't count how many fights I have seen in Cambridge that would not have occurred if the possibility of armed self defense was allowed. One resulted in the death of an innocent man who was my friend.

At any rate, the reason for concealed carry is that even those who choose not to carry benefit from the possibility.
edit on 4-6-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

On a plane, hell no. Not only hell no, but Jesus Christ no. I barely like the idea of Air Marshalls and pilots being armed on a plane. There is way too much that could create a huge mess if h hit on a plane.


So, are you up in arms against "air marshalls"?

You must know that the planes on 911 would not have been successfully hijacked (I know maybe presumptuous of me on here) if the passengers were able to defend themselves with modern tools.


No they would not have been hijacked if the idiot public had guns on that plane. some idiot would likley have missed and put a hole or two in the cabin and downed the plane



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Hell yes I am. I've seen their training and followed their actions and it scares the hell out of me sometimes thinking of them on a plane.

There are plenty of tools on a plane that don't involve shooting bullets at vital areas. Although they still would have been hijacked, because the crew stopped people from fighting back.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

On a plane, hell no. Not only hell no, but Jesus Christ no. I barely like the idea of Air Marshalls and pilots being armed on a plane. There is way too much that could create a huge mess if h hit on a plane.


So, are you up in arms against "air marshalls"?

You must know that the planes on 911 would not have been successfully hijacked (I know maybe presumptuous of me on here) if the passengers were able to defend themselves with modern tools.


No they would not have been hijacked if the idiot public had guns on that plane. some idiot would likley have missed and put a hole or two in the cabin and downed the plane


A bullet cannot "down" a plane. Cabin pressure cannot evacuate out of a half inch hole fast enough to cause catastrophic fuselage failure.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

Hell yes I am. I've seen their training and followed their actions and it scares the hell out of me sometimes thinking of them on a plane.

There are plenty of tools on a plane that don't involve shooting bullets at vital areas. Although they still would have been hijacked, because the crew stopped people from fighting back.


At least you are consistent though, I am forced to ask if you think you should be allowed to carry on a boat?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No, but they can hit the electronics bay, or an oxygen generator, or a pilot, or a fuel tank....



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Yes. A boat can be disabled, but isn't at as much risk. A single bullet on a plane can cause all kinds of major problems, up to causing a loss of control (although that would be the golden bb shot). A single bullet on a boat, unless it's a rubber raft, isn't going to sink it. My only restriction would be on a plane.

There is less chance on a boat of hitting innocents too. There's more room and more cover. They're pretty much lined up in a row on a plane in a very restricted area.
edit on 6/4/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

In Atlanta you can carry in the public area, which is anywhere up to the checkpoints. You can't go past there though as that is a mix of federal and state property.


Seems odd still but at least there are some common sense limits.

For me a Airport is right up there with Firework factory and Chemical Factory in regards to paces one should bring a gun


It seems that perspective is everything on this topic.

It could be argued, as I do, that concealed carry everywhere is the safest mechanism to prevent rogue violence. Be it an airport, an airplane or an elementary school.


Its not about even stopping a bad "guy".

Its simple health and safety. To carry a gun in such delicate places you need those carriers to abide by a strict set of safely rules and have specialized training or you risk a accident or incident that puts peoples lives in danger.

Although my gun views are more liberal than most Brits I still respect them as tools that can be dangerous and need to be used responsibly.

Now if some dip# blows his head off while cleaning a loaded gun at home then fine his problem don't care. What I dont want to do is be on a plane with a dip# who haven't put the safety on a loaded gun that accidentally fires and blows a hole in the cabin wall.

Plus no country on earth would let a plant travel with in its airspace with untrained, unregulated gun carriers on board and a airline that cant travel is a bankrupt airline


Plus a gun fight on a Airplane with untrained people.....yeah......not a great idea even if Jihad joe has tried to hijack it.


I don't think anyone on United 93 would agree with you.
edit on 4-6-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

No, but they can hit the electronics bay, or an oxygen generator, or a pilot, or a fuel tank....


Yes, and the moment they tried to do something like that they would be immediately put down.

From a safety standpoint when considering intentional sabotage, the presence of firearms outweighs the absence of them.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

It wouldn't have mattered on 9/11. They still could have fought back with tools on the plane. Airline policy was give in, keep passengers quiet and safe, and get on the ground.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

O dont pull the stupid 911 card. Honestly that's almost as bad as bringing NAZI's into a discussion.


A probably TRAINED and regulated Air Marshall should have been on board. That I can agree with.

Allowing any idiot to bring a gun on a plane is done right stupid and insane.
Should I be allowed to bring on Nitroglycerine on a plane if I choice or Gunpowder?

Plus such a airline would go broke in a week as no country on earth would let them fly into there airspace.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

Yes. A boat can be disabled, but isn't at as much risk. A single bullet on a plane can cause all kinds of major problems, up to causing a loss of control (although that would be the golden bb shot). A single bullet on a boat, unless it's a rubber raft, isn't going to sink it. My only restriction would be on a plane.

There is less chance on a boat of hitting innocents too. There's more room and more cover. They're pretty much lined up in a row on a plane in a very restricted area.


I don't quibble with the effectiveness of firearms in the hands of malcontents, psychotics or jihadists.

I only make the case that fire is best countered with fire.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I'm talking about people fighting back accidentally hitting something vital, not deliberate sabotage. It's nice to think that people wouldn't panic and would hit with every shot, but there's too much risk that adrenaline, shock, and fear are going to cause them to miss and possibly hit something they shouldn't.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

No, but they can hit the electronics bay, or an oxygen generator, or a pilot, or a fuel tank....


Yes, and the moment they tried to do something like that they would be immediately put down.

From a safety standpoint when considering intentional sabotage, the presence of firearms outweighs the absence of them.


He meant a untrained person trying to kill the "bad guy" could hit them by accident.

Extreme and in my opinion dangerous views like this don't help the pro gun argument. They just give fuel to the anti gun movement.

Guns may be a tool but they are still a dangerous tool that needs respect.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: greencmp

O dont pull the stupid 911 card. Honestly that's almost as bad as bringing NAZI's into a discussion.


A probably TRAINED and regulated Air Marshall should have been on board. That I can agree with.

Allowing any idiot to bring a gun on a plane is done right stupid and insane.
Should I be allowed to bring on Nitroglycerine on a plane if I choice or Gunpowder?

Plus such a airline would go broke in a week as no country on earth would let them fly into there airspace.


How effective is the current screening for nitroglycerine (I assume you mean something far more stable)?




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join