Gun Rights could have prevented 9-11

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

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.


It's nice when you talk from your confy house, but reality is different. Shooting an innocent person is very difficult, even for police veterans.

And even if you killed one terrorist, there would be other terrorists that would fire right at you, and without second thoughts.

Then no one would dare make another shot.


So you are saying that only the terrorists are man enough to defend themselves?

Using this logic I guess THEY are the only ones that should be allowed to carry weapons on the plane.

Oh wait they ARE the only ones armed on a plane.

If I have a choice between a shot out with the terrorists and maybe being killed and NOT doing anything and for sure being killed along with all the other passengers and whoever happened to be at the target area guess which one I will choose.

And I HAVE shot people




posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes
and you just posted the reason that the LP stance on gun control should be a positive.


Yes, I agree that gun control is stupid. My personal beliefs are that I don't like them at all but controlling them won't stop a thing because people who want to get guns will still get the guns.

My point was that I don't believe allowing every passenger to have a gun on flight will do a thing to help in the event of another attack like that. But this shouldnt be up to the govt. to make this decision, it should be up to the airlines. I think as a whole, guns should be kept legal.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
But this shouldnt be up to the govt. to make this decision, it should be up to the airlines. I think as a whole, guns should be kept legal.


I would go along with this


A few years down the line we could compare safety records



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I'm not against people owning guns either. We have guns here for hunting. It's just that in situations with crowds of strangers I would'nt feel very good knowing they all have guns. Who knows which one is psycho or something?
I'd be all tense and eager to get off that plane! LOL.

You see the problem is...
I trust myself with MY gun, but can I trust YOU with yours?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
I'm not against people owning guns either. We have guns here for hunting. It's just that in situations with crowds of strangers I would'nt feel very good knowing they all have guns. Who knows which one is psycho or something?


Our Second Amendment was not written so we could go hunting or have sport-shooting matches. It was written so we could form an armed militia to keep our central government in check.

Our founding fathers knew of the importance of the right to bear arms. It's just sad, that in today's society, there are those who will go to great lengths to abolish this right, with their reasoning that "we don't need to hunt when there are grocery stores all over the place." These people, with there reasoning, I beleive are the real threat to America! Hands down!



I trust myself with MY gun, but can I trust YOU with yours?


Yes you can. I trust many people that are armed in my presence, because I'm armed in theirs. And I know that they're trained (from youth a majority of them) to correctly handle and respect firearms. I feel safer around firearms than not.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
On another note, you shouldn't be one to speak your beliefs regarding the Libertarians success, the American people will decide, not the British.


"You people" smell more and more like vigilantes every day.

Oh, and you shouldn't be commenting when you're not aware of a persons situation. You were pretty quick to repress free speech there. I'm not allowed to express my opinion because I'm not "one of you".

If you were unable to formulate a decent reply based on the issues you shouldn't have posted at all.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
................. It's just that in situations with crowds of strangers I would'nt feel very good knowing they all have guns. Who knows which one is psycho or something?
..................I trust myself with MY gun, but can I trust YOU with yours?

how do you feel about strangers now....because chances are they have them now......you might already be.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
.. My personal beliefs are that I don't like them at all but controlling them won't stop a .

youd be amazed what gun control will stop


gun control == (proper sight picture and firm grip)


[edit on 11-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
"You people" smell more and more like vigilantes every day.


Is it being a vigilante to protect yourself?
Are you one of those crowd that say be sure not to hurt the slobbering rapist/killer that just broke into your house?

Seriously does the deffinition of vigilante include someone who protects themselves from an armed attacker?

That after all IS what we are talking about



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
"Nineteen thugs with boxcutters hijacked four aircraft.


I don't know what newsperson or government official used the word boxcutter but the fact is and this is straight from the 911 commission report the terrorist used 4 inch knives not boxcutters apparently at the time of 911 you could actually walk onto a plane carrying a 4 inch knife in your pocket.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
2 entries found for vigilante.

1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.


Ahem, there are some key operational problems you haven't exactly looked at either. You'd make a terrorists job alot easier by letting guns pass. All they would need to do is book plenty of themselves onto flights.

Terrorists aren't just people with funny names and brown skin, there are plenty of white terror groups out there and when they sit down beside you then you wouldnt even know.

Are you a qualified counter terrorist squad member? Oh you're not.

Then who the hell are you to stand up and shoot who you think is a terrorist, These guys are NOT going to stand there and be shot, everyones going to be standing firing guns and nobody will know just who the terrorists are. As i said, they dont come in standard models.


Impardonable stupidity.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Then who the hell are you to stand up and shoot who you think is a terrorist, These guys are NOT going to stand there and be shot, everyones going to be standing firing guns and nobody will know just who the terrorists are. As i said, they dont come in standard models.
Impardonable stupidity.


I would imagine the terrorist would be the one waving the gun telling everyone else not to move.


So in your wonderful brilliance it would be better to sit there like a good little sheep and let them kill you at there leisure? Or we susposed to call the police? Are they gonna pull the plane over?

What is it with you people that standing up and fighting scares you so much. Its ok you can go ahead and hide behind the seat the "vigilinties" will protect you too



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The list of scenario's are endless. It wouldn't be hard for one of them to shoot the pilot and copilot... then you're all dead anyway.

"We" are not ones to shy away from a fight, we just like to be sure what we're fighting rather than charging in with all guns blazing like some kind of cowboy.

If you had effective airport security in the first place there'd be no need for anyone to carry guns.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Impardonable stupidity.

Is this an apology or an accusation?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
The list of scenario's are endless. It wouldn't be hard for one of them to shoot the pilot and copilot... then you're all dead anyway.

"We" are not ones to shy away from a fight, we just like to be sure what we're fighting rather than charging in with all guns blazing like some kind of cowboy.


Just as long as someone else does it for you?

And if you are all gonna die anyway why not die like a Man. If ONLY the terrorists are armed this is gonna help how? Other than to give you an excuse to sit there and do nothing?

Its been fun kiddies but my hands are hurting like hell so I will have to pick this up tommorow.

[edit on 11-9-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Errr, I'm not advocating doing nothing whilst being hijacked.

Frankly it makes alot more sense for them to have knives rather than guns, at least that way they're going to have to get close to you in order for them to take you down. I'd rather have the chance of taking one of them down when they're a foot away from me rather than than 10ft away with an automatic weapon. It only takes one shot to cut you down.

Oh, and airliners aren't the only source of terrorism. Gun toting sky militia's only have to be outnumbered to be beaten. Not everyone is a person ready to take the shot. You would be in an environment where EVERYONE is a possible enemy.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
As to all this speach about terrorist having weapons on the plane as well. With the amount of people you can fit on these planes, a terrorist organisation would have to field a company sized element (130+ terrorists per flight for you non-military arm-chair rangers) just to outnumber the passengers. What would they accomplish? I dont think they would be able to get that many of them on the planes, for one. For two, what could they accomplish if even half of the passengers were terrorists? The other half would fight them, the plane would go down (most likely over a non-poulated area, as most of our country is) and 100+ terrorist would die that die that day. It would be sad, but at least they would bring down a # load of bad guys with them. Not a very effective use of manpower from a terrorist point of veiw.

As to Brits telling us how we should run America, I think this is pure stupidity. We kicked your asses all the way back to your little island last time you tried to that.
What, your history book dosn't go back 200 years? Here, I can break it down for you. Brits try to tell Alericans not to keep guns and give them money, Americans shoot Brits, leading to Gen. Washington making British Royalty look like asses in front of the entire world. Even France laughs at them. Brits stop trying to tell Americans how to run America (with the exception of ATS members.)



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
haven't you missed the point ?

It wasn't that guns weren't allowed on the flights...it was that knives / boxcutters were....what were the airlines thinking...we can't deny the right of people to carry knives ? The situation should never have arisen in the first place

having said that, I see glass bottles are still allowed on planes...what's the difference between a smashed ragged end of a bottle and a box cutter ? not much



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Firearms on high altitude pressurised aircraft would be insanity.

Why not have the hostess issue each passenger with a complimentary samurai sword, tomahawk, or a javelin as they enter the aircraft. Then passengers could slaughter each other without damaging the aircraft. Much safer.

Better still, reserve a section of the aircraft especially for blood sports, so people that want to sleep will not be disturbed by the screams.

On landing they could just quickly hose out all the blood before the next flight.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
*SNIP*
As to Brits telling us how we should run America, I think this is pure stupidity. We kicked your asses all the way back to your little island last time you tried to that.
What, your history book dosn't go back 200 years? Here, I can break it down for you. Brits try to tell Alericans not to keep guns and give them money, Americans shoot Brits, leading to Gen. Washington making British Royalty look like asses in front of the entire world. Even France laughs at them. Brits stop trying to tell Americans how to run America (with the exception of ATS members.)


How does that work again? Since the Vietnamese kicked our asses all the way back to our little country, can they tell us how to run America? Since the Lebanese kicked our asses in Beruit, and we went home, can they tell us what to do?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join