Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 9/26/2001 4:36:39 PM EDT
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/26/gen.america.under.attack/index.html[/url]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 4:47:20 PM EDT
Uh... So there are going to be armed federal agents on all flights now? I doubt it. Business jets, light aviation... the only security on those planes is what a pilot brings with him or her.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 4:49:57 PM EDT
shouldn't even be the white house's decision. should be up to each individual airline. then we'll let market activity determine whether the public wants pilots armed. if they do, those airlines that allow it get all the business. if they don't, those airlines go out of business. and this is going to do wonders with the gun control movement. why [b][i]not[/i][/b] let pilots carry?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:00:24 PM EDT
... yeah, what a HUGE industry this mess has created. I still say, "you can trust a pilot with your aircraft but you can't trust him to keep the peace?" Don't even get me started regarding law abiding citzen carrying knives; Like I've done on every flight I've been on.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:16:13 PM EDT
Well, looks like it's back to business as usual. The politicians won't do anything that will be immediately effective. Instead we'll sit back hold hearings, try out alot of BS that will be marginal eventually adopting a policy that won't or can't work effectively. Then wonder what the hell went wrong, when it happens again. Christ, I'm sick of it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:23:38 PM EDT
think of the children! what if the plane were to crash killing everyone aboard and local kids poked around in the wreckage and found whatver pocket-rocket saturday-night-special or hand-cannon the pilot might have been carrying. Besides its been shown that if you have a gun you are 1000^3 times more likely to have it used against you than you are to use it in defense unless you are a trained policeman. Good to see that election stealer is finally showing some sense. If it only saves one life.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:25:57 PM EDT
Bummer
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:27:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CIB: Well, looks like it's back to business as usual. The politicians won't do anything that will be immediately effective. Instead we'll sit back hold hearings, try out alot of BS that will be marginal eventually adopting a policy that won't or can't work effectively. Then wonder what the hell went wrong, when it happens again. Christ, I'm sick of it.
View Quote
Nail. Head.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:35:22 PM EDT
And the politicians. Nail, Hammer, Thumb...... [BD] Standard Operating Procedure
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:40:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By erickm: think of the children! what if the plane were to crash killing everyone aboard and local kids poked around in the wreckage and found whatver pocket-rocket saturday-night-special or hand-cannon the pilot might have been carrying. Besides its been shown that if you have a gun you are 1000^3 times more likely to have it used against you than you are to use it in defense unless you are a trained policeman. Good to see that election stealer is finally showing some sense. If it only saves one life.
View Quote
Way too funny!!!
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:41:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARlady: shouldn't even be the white house's decision. should be up to each individual airline. then we'll let market activity determine whether the public wants pilots armed. if they do, those airlines that allow it get all the business. if they don't, those airlines go out of business. and this is going to do wonders with the gun control movement. why [b][i]not[/i][/b] let pilots carry?
View Quote
Sniff, sniff....I smell a Libertarian in the making!!! [;)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:44:23 PM EDT
Have to wonder if the pilots had been armed..if the terrs would have come aboard with their box cutters..and started slashing the throats of stewardi.. The country (if we are to believe the pundits) is awash in terrorists..we got biological terrs ..hazardous waste terrs...terrs with nukes ..terrs with knives ..yet our government (which is in reality WE THE PEOPLE) cannot allow our pilots (quite a few who are ex military/reservists) trained in E&E Fighter Jocks...to carry arms aboard their own aircraft...Sheep arent allowed to protect themselves...but free men are...hopefully the pilots will strike..refuse to fly and bring some common sense to this issue..
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:46:47 PM EDT
Aren't most pilots ex-service men? They will probably only need a refresher course in side arms, if that.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:47:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CIB: Well, looks like it's back to business as usual. The politicians won't do anything that will be immediately effective. Instead we'll sit back hold hearings, try out alot of BS that will be marginal eventually adopting a policy that won't or can't work effectively. Then wonder what the hell went wrong, when it happens again. Christ, I'm sick of it.
View Quote
No shit... I agree 100%. I expected as much from our commie friends like Dickhead Gepheart and that monkey of monkeys, Ted "We'll drive off that bridge when we get to it" Kennedy, but I never expected it from Dubya. It would be one thing if *we* were requesting that pilots be allowed to carry sidearms, but it is the pilots themselves that are asking to be allowed to. I voted for Dubya... I am a libertarian at heart. He's about 10gazillion times better than that pussy Algore, but the Bin Ladens of the world *know* we have become a nation of wussies, and that they can kill whenever and where ever they want to. Unless the US returns to it's roots, as defined by the founding fathers, we are doomed to be fodder for assholes like Bin Laden and Ted Kennedy. Hate to suggest adding Dubya's name to the shit list. ARnSC
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:52:20 PM EDT
In some ways he's right, but to me it would make more sense to have both armed pilots and air marshalls, with the pilots acting as plan B or to help support the marshalls. I assume his goal is to keep the pilots inside the cockpit and let nature run its course in the cabin.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:08:11 PM EDT
Speaking from a pilots point of view they may be (I repeat, may be) some merit to "not" arming the flight crew in the cockpit. If I'm a terrorist and I know for sure that the crew is armed. I'll start killing off the passengers one by one until one of the flight crew in the cockpit comes out armed through that little door. I'll pop him too. You see, the whole flight crew can't come out all at once. There simply isn't enough room to exit the cockpit effectively and the door is too small to provide any back up fire. What keeps me from tossing a gas grenade or some other device that I assemble in the bathroom into the cockpit to render the crew a non-threat? It leaves too many options for the terrorist and too few for the flight crew. On the other hand, if there are a pair of air marshals onboard, as the terrorist, I'm not going to know who is who among the passengers, which puts me at a disadvantage. Is there one or three on todays flight? Personally, I still think the cockpit should be armed but the above bothers me a bit. I know my thoughts have a lot of holes in them but I'm just thinking out loud which my wife reminds me I'm lousy at. Hell, shoot the terrorist with a modified flare gun that shoots those rubber BB's like the SORT teams in prison use. Anything is better then having no protection at all.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:17:57 PM EDT
I saw a pilot on TV the other night advocating arming the pilot. His scenario is this: Door is replaced to be stronger, but somehow, someway it may be breachable. When the door is locked and there is a terrorist onboard that door does'nt open period, now the weapon the pilot has is to be used in a last ditch defense if and when the door is breached.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:25:08 PM EDT
It figures............
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:26:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ramjet: If I'm a terrorist and I know for sure that the crew is armed. I'll start killing off the passengers one by one until one of the flight crew in the cockpit comes out armed through that little door. I'll pop him too. You see, the whole flight crew can't come out all at once. There simply isn't enough room to exit the cockpit effectively and the door is too small to provide any back up fire. What keeps me from tossing a gas grenade or some other device that I assemble in the bathroom into the cockpit to render the crew a non-threat? It leaves too many options for the terrorist and too few for the flight crew.
View Quote
except for two things. Americans can no longer accept the authority of the hijackers. must be pretty difficult to shoot ALL of them without reloading. at some point the hijackers will be vulnerable to attack by the passengers. also, what good does it do the terrorists to kill all the passengers on board? by doing that, they have just eliminated any bargaining power they may have had in the first place (of course, if Americans implement number one above, this is a moot issue). if the only people left alive in the plane are the hijackers and the pilots, the pilots crash the plane. we HAVE to assume from now on that a hijacked plane is not a bargaining tool, but rather an instrument of war and aggression. there is no negotiating with these jerks. stop giving them the power over us.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:27:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RoyDamnMercer:
Originally Posted By ARlady: shouldn't even be the white house's decision. should be up to each individual airline. then we'll let market activity determine whether the public wants pilots armed. if they do, those airlines that allow it get all the business. if they don't, those airlines go out of business. and this is going to do wonders with the gun control movement. why [b][i]not[/i][/b] let pilots carry?
View Quote
Sniff, sniff....I smell a Libertarian in the making!!! [;)]
View Quote
i think you might be right! [;)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:32:01 PM EDT
This should also serve to answer all questions regarding whether Bush would sign a bill continuing the AWB. Case closed AFAIC. Priceless, simply priceless the things we do as a country not to upset the leftist soccer mom contingent.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:32:56 PM EDT
I think the idea of armed flight crew is a sound one.. if the terr has an arsenal hell they could cancel the flight with one of the 100 or so stingers left behind in Afghanistan not to mention what our great Russian allies have sold them or the Chinese..etc... The idea is that the terrs will have trouble getting grenades ..handguns etc.. past security and would be armed with box cutters knives etc..and wont attack the flight crew as they needed the intact aircraft for their kamakazi mission.. Somebody should ask the stewardess/stewards what they need ..as they were the ones getting their throats slashed... Apparently air marshals will not be available on every flight..that being the case then arm the flight crew...stewardess et al...
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:38:59 PM EDT
How about letters to the airlines stating that if we can't have armed pilots or sky marshalls on every flight, we're takin' the train.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:40:48 PM EDT
I don't disagree that the shrub is a far better choice than the robot would've been, but this is a good example that gwb,jr. isn't half the things everyone seems to think he is. Personally I think arming the pilot is a great idea, but I'm just a common member of the voting public so wtf do I know, right? As a side note...after reading this, how many people *still* think he's going to allow the evil assault weapons ban to go gently into that good night???
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:44:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gunmonkey: How about letters to the airlines stating that if we can't have armed pilots or sky marshalls on every flight, we're takin' the train.
View Quote
Sounds like a plan to me. :)
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:05:16 PM EDT
Did the gov give any reason as to why they don't want the pilots armed? I personally think the gov is afraid that if they let the pilots carry, it might create a snowball effect the next time another tragic event happens. Then everybody, little by little, will want to be armed to prevent it from happening again. This is counter productive and will totally destroy their long term master plan to confiscate all private guns. Their decision has nothing to do with your safety. Or if it does, it is not their primary concern as they lead you to believe.... They are way ahead of you.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:19:40 PM EDT
Which of you thought that 'ol Bush was a champion of individual rights? He isn't, and never has been. Would someone who so vehemently supports the death penalty think anything of disarming honest citizens? I doubt it. Levi got it right--if they arm the pilots, then GOA wins. Even now, the control freaks can't let that happen. It would lead to passengers asking to be armed as well. The news showed clips of the high falutin' training the air marshals get. It ain't much. The cost is going to be staggering and impossible for the airlines to bear. Then the fed gov. will want to control air security. Then we end up with more government. Then we are less safe. NYC is going communist in a big way--can't drive on certain bridges, can't photograph the scene of the crime anymore (civilian cameras are being seized by police). Giuliani wants to be dictator for life... We are witnessing the way power corrupts the minds of men. Can anyone else see a pattern forming here? Our country just turned into a police state. Deny it if you want, but that's what happened. The only thing left is to put up checkpoints every 50 miles on the interstates so that all travel, not just air travel, can be controlled. When they do that, I hope each one of you knows what to do.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:49:34 PM EDT
Supporting the death penalty is a [b][i]conservative[/i][/b] issue. I'm for guns, but am also very much for the death penalty. I'm actually more to the right than that. I believe in the Old Testament system of justice. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Back to the airlines, I think that all the pilots should strike until they get the right to carry.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:48:09 PM EDT
Haven't y'all seen the compromise yet. Stun guns. Mark my words they will go with the less than lethal PC bullsh*t. Nevermind that you have to get close enough to touch someone to use a stun gun and all the other problems with it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 10:00:45 PM EDT
They estimate they would need 100,000 air marshalls to put 2 guys on every US passenger flight. Does anyone know where we are going to find 100 THOUSAND young people that can shoot straight AND get Top Secret clearance? The salary range is $35-$81K. Let's say the median will be $50K- then that will be $5 BILLION per year in salaries alone. Then they will be staying in hotels, getting meal allowances etc, figure that will be another $3 billion per year. The air marshall program suffers from high attrition due to boredom. Sitting on your ass, doing nothing all day, and "enjoying" airline food to boot. On the other hand, pilots are responsible, psychologically profiled, tested for drug use and trained to deal with emergencies constantly. They are entrusted with $100 million aircraft and hundreds of lives already. They are not going to suffer from boredom, they will be armed as a contingency, but will be able to perform their duties regardless. In the event that the gun is necessary, they only have to shoot whoever tries to come through the narrow door to the cockpit. The air marshall has to find his targets in the middle of innocent bystanders. It is a no-brainer. Anyone who says different is thinking with their liberal "guns are bad" dunce hat on. Even talking about swearing the pilots in as federal law enforcement agents is a red herring. Since when is the 2nd Amendment only for Federales? Madkiwi PS Oh yeah, 4 highjackers are scared of your stun gun. Oh yeah. They will shove it up your seat-warmer is what they will do...
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 11:03:24 PM EDT
Just issue each passenger a baseball bat.Problem solved. They'll be leapfrogging over each over to get at the terrorists. Make sure there's cameras rolling on each plane, cause I wanna watch.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 11:33:21 PM EDT
Aww hell just ban all civilian aircraft. Then the terrorists' only option would be to hijack military flights. Do it for our safety and the safety of our children.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:18:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:23:02 AM EDT
Wouldn't it be great if the Airline Pilots Association went on strike until they were given the option to carry? FINALLY! A strike I can support!
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:35:05 AM EDT
Same 'ol Statist Pig thinking going on in Washington. They can't seem to see any "solutions" that don't include them spending more money. Hell, they'd rather have a half-assed solution (like this one) and spend some money than to have a free, effective one.[flame]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:35:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Don't even start me on the politicians. Asscroft just couln't wait to start taking away civil rights from people. He wants the authority to detain legal immigrants and non-citizen residents INDEFINITELY with no evidence but just on the basis of a vaguely defined "suspicion of terrorism"? WTF? That's got to be the scariest thing I've heard in a while. He's going to try to outlaw dancing next. And we're supposed to be surprised that Dubya is against arming citizens? Sorry about the rant, but it so bugs me to see these guys talk a good game, and then just act the same way as always. It seems that not even a national tragedy of this scale can make a politican have honesty and integrity for more than a week or two.
View Quote
Gotta disagree DK-Prof (just with the GW part, the rest chaps my ass) I lived in Texas under Comrade Ann Richards. I voted Dubya. As Governor, Dubya was VERY instrumental in gettin CCW passed. I think that Dubya is just methodically going through options, and is trying not to support reactionary measures, but measured responses.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:04:03 AM EDT
If you look at the number of commercial national and international flights that originate in the US and abroad, it becomes readily apparent that an air security service will require thousands of marshalls. These people will have to be stationed, quartered and trained throughout the country. The cost will be in the hundreds of millions for wages and benefits alone, SANS administration, training and bureaucracy. Training and arming pilots would cost a fraction of that and guarantee security on EVERY flight. Hopefully, someone will get a reality check on this whole issue, but I doubt it. But then, security of Americans is not the real issue here, is it? Imagaine what this would do politically for the gun control advocates. By arming 66,000 pilots they would be in effect telling Americans that it is okay to be armed to protect yourself. Canada is already freaking out over the pilot proposal. When in doubt the government will do what they can to further their own control with a force that is loyal to them and not the airline industry. That is why they will push for air marshalls and unarmed pilots, because it does not fit the long term goal of total control of the people. Air marshalls make absolutely no sense, economically or operationally, but that is what I fear we will have. The deaths of 7,000 Americans and foreigners are already being used for political gain.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:23:50 AM EDT
[size=3][b][red]Call/Write your Congressman![/b][/red][/size=3]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:50:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:01:47 AM EDT
They way I understand the news story, the White House 'strongly opposes' arming pilots. They did not say Pilots CANNOT be armed nor will they outlaw it via the FAA. So it is still up to the Airlines and Pilots to authorize firearms iaw applicable FARs. Fritz
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:28:59 AM EDT
The White House made a strong suggestion...will provide billions in aid... duh!
Top Top