Gun Rights could have prevented 9-11

"Nineteen thugs with boxcutters hijacked four aircraft. They were able to do so
because government didn't trust the law-abiding citizens on those planes to be armed for their
own protection. It's been proven, time and time again, that respecting Americans' right to keep
and bear arms reduces violent crime. That's just as true in the passenger cabin of a 747 as it
is on the street, in your home or in your car."

Guns? On airplanes? Yes, says Badnarik. "Let's not be unclear. Let's not pussyfoot around the
subject. Thousands of Americans died. They died because their government said 'we don't trust
you to defend yourselves.' A gun in the hand of a law-abiding American poses no danger to anyone
except a violent criminal. Frangible ammunition that won't puncture an aircraft hull is
available. A terrorist will find a way to get a weapon on board. Why should government require
the law-abiding to be victims to those who respect no law? More metal detectors, more searches,
more guards are just Band-Aids[TM] that cover up the wound without healing it. Ultimately, we
have to acknowledge that a diffuse threat requires a diffuse defense."

Of course, Badnarik continues, the US would have fewer concerns with terrorism in the first
place if it looked to its own defense and its own interest instead of becoming embroiled in
foreign arguments.

Not a shy man, this Michael Badnarik fellow. He's just attacked the presumed pillars of American
airline security, international policy and military strategy.

But could he be right?

Reactions are mixed, he admits.

On guns and airplanes: "Some people feel, against all the evidence, that firearms restrictions
are necessary. They're trading real security for a false sense of safety, and I've not found a
way to convince them. But you'd be surprised at how many people tilt their heads, think for a
minute, and say 'you know, you're right. I never thought of it that way before.'"

Foreign policy and the war issue are even more divisive. "America has a century-long tradition
that to support the troops, one must support whatever war the nation's leaders send those troops
to fight. I've been called everything from a traitor to a pacifist. I'm neither." He pauses,
looking reflectively into the distance. "I'm a proud American. I respect the sacrifices that
America's warriors have made in our defense. And it appalls me to see that dedication, that
willingness to fight for one's country, misused."

Still, he says, most of those with whom he speaks agree. "My experience matches the polls. The
majority of Americans think the war in Iraq is a tragic mistake. They're looking for a way out
of that mistake. And neither of my 'major party' opponents are offering them one."

Badnarik favors a 90-day phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, beginning on the day of his
inauguration. And while he admits that reaching that day is a long shot, he doesn't think that
his policy proposals are.

"The American people ultimately get what they want. I may not be the man they pick to give them
that, but ultimately they'll make their desires known. I'm just the messenger."


---------I for one agree with this-------------Any thoughts on this matter?
I got it in my email so I can't post a link...

You beat me two it again I was just getting ready to post this

If the security measures in place at the airports had been what it should have, this wouldn't be an issue. The times leading up to 9/11 were not all peaceful and quiet. Not by alongshot. Arrogance of perceived untouchabilty and denial doomed those flights.

Originally posted by Amuk
You beat me two it again I was just getting ready to post this

Sorry dude... Great minds think alike once again!
I'll let you get the next one!

There are simply too many variables to allow the entire plane to be packing heat on flights. From making sure everybody has low velocity ammo to what to do with the inebriated passanger. While the risks may seem trivial compared to the 911 disaster, they are nevertheless risks. That being said, plane hijacking is going to potentialy fade as a means of terrorism. How many of us faced with a 911 type scenario will die trying to take the plane back rather than sit in our seats like so many sheep? I for one will follow the example of the Pensyvania flight and fight.

You have to have a certain kind of ammo, most bullets would pierce the fusalage of the plane and create a vacum casuing the plan to crash. If they had it, I think it would be low velocity it'd have to stop after a few feet, then the idea would work. If civilians onthe 9/11 planes had guns with low veolocity ammuntion, the terror could've been prevented.

If Badnarik was'nt against the war, and a few other things I would not mind him as president, he's far better than Kerry and is better than Bush on several issues.

Originally posted by JediMaster
You have to have a certain kind of ammo, most bullets would pierce the fusalage of the plane and create a vacum casuing the plan to crash. If they had it, I think it would be low velocity it'd have to stop after a few feet, then the idea would work. If civilians onthe 9/11 planes had guns with low veolocity ammuntion, the terror could've been prevented.

Apparantly you didn't read the whole article because he did touch base on what you just said...

I believe he said:

Frangible ammunition that won't puncture an aircraft hull is
available.

[edit on 11-9-2004 by TrueLies]

Assault Weapons ban made US safer

I'm confused on Bush's position as he's said he wouldn't oppose it's re-enactment (as it is popular in polls), but isn't pressuring the Senate to not let it lapse (as they answer to the gun lobby, not the people). One of those both sides of the issues flip flops Bush does but nobody calls him on.

The LP boxcutter argument doesn't cut it for me. They'd have assault rifles on planes if they could. Kerry was just speaking about what they say in AQ manuals...

"In the al-Qaeda manual on terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons, to come to America and buy assault weapons," Kerry said.

Seems like the terrorists would vote Bush/Cheney to me. Cheney voted for cop killer bullets and to remove the ban on plastic guns designed to avoid metal detectors. I've still never heard a good reason why we need those. Except to hijack airplanes of course.

i dont think MORE guns solves the problem..say that some of those innocents on board those planes did get guns on board(with the special kind of ammo).do u not think that the animals who commited these acts would also have got guns on board..and they would not be fussy about the ammo..and they also had every intention to die during these acts..so it would not have mattered to them if they had a bomb/gun/boxcutter...IMO

Originally posted by FredT
How many of us faced with a 911 type scenario will die trying to take the plane back rather than sit in our seats like so many sheep? I for one will follow the example of the Pensyvania flight and fight.

me to m8..lets make sure we never forget those brave words
LETS ROLL!!

Originally posted by Heratix
i dont think MORE guns solves the problem..say that some of those innocents on board those planes did get guns on board(with the special kind of ammo).do u not think that the animals who commited these acts would also have got guns on board..and they would not be fussy about the ammo..and they also had every intention to die during these acts..so it would not have mattered to them if they had a bomb/gun/boxcutter...IMO

Then at the worst case senerio they would have crashed like the fourth one at least they would not have hit the towers

It has been proven time and time again the solution to most of lifes problems is the proper use of firepower

And all I said was that it would have to be ammo like that.

This guys had box cutters, and no one stopped them. Why? Couldn't they just rush them? You might get cut, but it's a freakin' box cutter. Maybe the terrorists threatened, lied, and said they had a bomb onboard? That's why no one did anything. Maybe the passengers were paralyzed with fear? Maybe the hijackers
just told them that they were going to land safely, and not crash into a building?

Maybe....

How in the heck can anyone say gun rights could have prevented 9-11? Maybe they could of.

Geez, enough with the maybes. I think that was a poor example to plead a case for gun rights.

As usual, Americans oversimplify and overgeneralize in order to support certain agentas.

But if you actually used your brain...:

A terrorist is not visible until he stands up, goes to the pilot and threatens him. If a terrorist gets a hostage, not one dares touch him.

Imagine the above situation with guns! would guns make a change? how many passengers would be able to actually shoot someone in an airplane covered behind a hostage? none. They wouldn't dare hit the hostage, let alone open a bullet in the plane.

Methinks you americans watch a lot of movies...

Originally posted by masterp

A terrorist is not visible until he stands up, goes to the pilot and threatens him.

The terrorists might not have made it past the gates If we had secuirty like Israel .

I don't think just anyone should be able to carry a firearm on a civilian airliner. However, some people should. Just like you need a CCW to carry a weapon in public, you should need a permit to carry a weapon on an airplane. It shouldn't be given to just anyone, but to those who pass a firearm profiency test specifically designed for airplanes, and who pass a background test determining they are responsible law-abiding Americans. With people like that carrying weapons, terrorists won't stand a chance nor will be able to legally get a weapon on board, as the case with the boxcutters.

And that fragmenting ammunition that will not penetrate walls, that stuff is awesome. It'll blast a wound channel the size of a dinner plate. Has anyone seen the video where they kill a 500 pound boar with one 9 mm round?

I've seen a 1900 Beech get returned to hanger, for a pushed window from an elbow.
Now if an elbow can create a change in cabin pressure, from a slight opening I can only imagine the cause and effect of a bullet of any type.

How would it. The attacks of 9-11 were not terrorist using passenger planes. The planes used were armed aircraft, and most likely a missile hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 was shot down by a F-16.


Respects,

Originally posted by masterp
As usual, Americans oversimplify and overgeneralize in order to support certain agentas.

Apparently you watch the same movies, and generalization is not a purely American trait...

Given your hypothetical, I would take that shot. Sorry hostage but your dead either way. And you never know, I am a pretty good shot.


Anyway.. If everyone can carry a gun onto a plane, wouldn't the terrrosts have them too? Bednarik needs to flesh this one out a bit.

The day you put guns on planes is the day I will never board another plane.

And i'm sure many people will agree with me, this is downright absolute indefensible childish STUPIDITY of the highest calibre.

Do you have ANY idea of the implications of a decision like this? What would happen if someone accidentally misfired a gun on a plane? It'd punch a hole in the side causing a rapid depressurization. Even if it didn't then every other nut on the plane would draw their arms and a gunbattle could erupt on board.

Giving guns to people in an already tense, enclosed atmosphere is utterly moronic. I'm shocked it would even be considered.


Words cannot express how shocked I am that the libertartians would run on this. Then again, your candidates extent of political experience is Vice Presidency of his college dorm. Thank God you people will never make it into power.