NO, they would NEVER agree with me!
[blue]OPPORTUNISTIC WAYS TO FIGHT AND WIN A WAR 101[/blue]

1) attack the British and Hessian forces on Christmas morning
2) the TET offensive
3) launch counter attacks on German forces in deap Russian winter
4) take out WTC because, well, because the [red]OPPORTUNITY[/red] presented itself!

any questions???

Fatty, my friend, I agree 100% about the warfighting stuff. Stand down.

They are indeed opportunists, that use Tragedies as Opportunities to push an agenda.  And they would agree with you.

I think that a semi-organized militia could be very useful in the current situation, relieving National Guard guarding bridges, tunnels, etc.  A militia could also be useful guarding mosqes from angry civilians.

GunLvr

wait a minute, if you get what i'm saying, then why shouldn't we employ the tactics of our enemy (sharpton, et al.) to combat them?

Sharpton's a member of the militia, too.
We all are.
The enemy is terrorism.

Militias, as they exist today, and in the forseeable future, would be too high-risk to guard against attacks on bridges and tunnels.
They would need background checks, extensive checks.

i thought your point was that we should be ABOVE the opportunism in furthering our RKBA agendas...

Some people seem to be under the impression that since the militia is clearly incapable of preventing every form of terrorist attack that the militia is ineffective in preventing terrorism.  Certain types of terrorism can be foiled by armed citizens, like shooting up schools, like taking groups of people hostage, like hijacking fuel trucks and using them as weapons.  The latter is a particular concern, what do you suppose would happen if if terrorists hijacked a fuel truck and drove it into a tunnel during commute and detonated it?  That's right, hundreds of incinerated commuters and a tunnel that is out of commission for months.  How about a fuel truck detonated at the loading dock of a major building?  Big fire, potential collapse of the building.  Could armed citizens prevent something like that, absolutely.  By being able to foil simple terrorist actions the terrorists would be forced to resort to more complex plots involving more individuals.  The kind that the intelligence community will have a higher probability of detecting and foiling.  Of course, terrorist could still resort to suicide bombers, with explosives strapped to their body, there aren't very many conceivable defenses against those.  But now you're talking about sending a small army of walking bombs over here and that increases the probability of the intelligence community detecting who is funding them.
Basically, we (the US) appears to be defending against the last attack, and completely failing to confront the reality that we have no idea what they are planning next.

The only thing we were able to do to lesson the effect of the 9/11 attacks was the response of the unorganized militia members on board one of the planes.

Had the militia been properly organized "well-regulated", if you will),the Pentagon plane would not have impacted the Pentagon, and perhaps the WTC planes would have missed their targets, as well.

Our fundamental problem in fighting this threat is that our society has become organized into a small warrior class, and a class with a priority of personal safety and comfort.

Shooting several small holes in the plane will not take it down. If the bullet shatters a window, [i]some planes[/i] would have to drop altitude quickly (I understand that 747s can loose some 4 windows and still do OK at altitude).

The planes already have small holes in their "pressure bulkheads". Several bullet holes are not going to take them down.

Hindsight is always 20/20.
Who believes that there is even the remotest possibility that the regulations that prohibit us to carry loaded handguns on a plane will be loosened?  Now? No way, no how.  I wish it were not true, but it is.  And everyone here knows it.
Don't waste you time.  Not now.

That those citizen who choose to be armed can foil some terrorist acts as they occur is common sense.  Just like armed citizens can foil car-jackings.

No need to call it the militia.  That's about individuals defending themselves and their neighbors.

The most important thing right now, is to do everything possible to prevent an NBC warfare event.  The militia, or you and I, if you like, are not up to the task.

If such an event occurs, the loss of freedom will be as tragic as the loss of life.
ALL energies should be put to preventing this.

Major-Murphy,

The militia exists.  I'm not talking about "private" militia's that train independently.  The issue is the "regulating" of the militia ("A well regulated militia").  If the citizenry of the US (ie. the militia) were trained and armed through commissioned officers, we could be effective.  We could guard water supplies, bridges, rail roads, etc., for a fraction of the cost of stationing police or military personnel.

A second benefit of being trained and organized is that we would be an armed force representing the majority of Americans.  If the government gets oppressive, we'd be ready.  Federal regulation wouldn't be a problem, unless it was used to "filter" the militia so as to only arm those who agreed with a particular political ideology.

Until we're "regulated", we'll be bystanders.

Richardson

The flight that crashed in Pennsylvannia was the fruit of the first "anti-terrorist" effort on September 11th.  This guided missle missed it's target because the militia decided to act.  The passengers that attacked the hijackers didn't have any "official authority" to do so.  They were not military or police, they were militia.  The militia saved an untold number of lives.

Major-Murphy, you're wrong.

Richardson

Public sentiment is closer now than it ever has been to re-instating the honor of the citizen militia, and dispelling misinformation about firearms.

And if I can use that sentiment in AN OPPORTUNISTIC fashion to get the laws changed, then call me the "opportunist of the century."

We are at war against ingorance. And ALL tactics in this fight are legitimate.

So far, this is the only effort relating to the 9/11 attacks that has paid off. It is certainly the only effort that diverted a plane from its target--and it was the effort of the unorganized militia, not the federal government.

the government by the way is supposed to help train the militia according to the constitution.  as far as being qualified to defend against terrorist; would one have to qualify to defend his own life?

here in virginia our militia is the virginia state defense force, also known as the "George Washington division" their top commander is the same as the top commander for the Va national guard (General i think)

Whew!!!!!!!!

The last couple of posts of this thread are restoring my faith in this site.

Thought I had mistakenly logged on to the Rosie O'DontHurtMePlease site.

Gentlemen you misinterpret me if you think I don't believe individuals can make a difference, if the chance presents itself.

Garandman, you can make your usual insinuations:
-that I'm a coward {Rosie O'DontHurtMePlease
-that I dishonor the memory of our forefathers.
-that I don't approve of the existence of militias.
-that I'm even anti-RKBA!
All lies.
(I've noticed that when people disagree with you, you sometimes do this. These are the types of comments that men never make face-to-face, unless trying to provoke a fight. You seem quite comfortable behind your keyboard throwing these insults about. It says alot.)

And Gentlemen, if you can lobby to get the restrictions on in-flight CCW loosened, during the climate that exists today, My hat goes off to you.
We should of course always let our voices be heard, in the name of freedom, no matter how futile.

If you ACTUALLY believe (IN YOU HEART OF HEARTS)that in-flight CCW is possible, NOW, I've got a 120 story building in Manhattan that I'd be willing to sell you.

This is the most elaborate oxy-moron that I have ever read in my life.

People should come together, but know up front that you’re going to fail. (why come together at all, with this logic?)

I say, pick the side of the fence that you want to be on and stay there! And Its not anyone else’s’ fault that Rosie is on the side you picked.

Cut and paste, to make a point, all you will.

DO YOU THINK RIGHT NOW THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF RKBA IS TO USE THE WORD: MILITIA? YOU CAN'T STUBBORNLY IGNORE POLITICS AND EXPECT TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING POLITICALLY.  
IS THIS A SMART STRATEGY?
IT'S NOT A STATEGY AIMING AT VICTORY.  

If you think now is the time to go chasing after windmills, be my guest.  
We don't need permission to act as a militia.

I don't believe that airline CCW is going to happen. But it is worth bringing up. If only to reinforce the point that CCW reduces crime and does not lead to shootings over minor disagreements.

Right now the public supports pilots carrying guns by a wide margin, and Ron Paul (Republican, former Libertarian presidential candidate) has put forward legislation to accomplish this. But this failed, so what chance does civilian CCW have? None, but it is still worthwhile to carry on the fight. Sometimes you have to change people's minds a few at a time . . .

Don, I agree 100%.
Do think using the idea of a militia will convince more or less of the public?
I think we are in a position where the public could overwelmingly support National CCW.
If we choose to advance that cause by using the militia argument, we'll lose half of them.
Politics.

We are all waiting for you’re strategy for victory.
So far all you’ve said is why our ideas are so stupid. Please enlighten us on the correct way to be victorious.

Maybe saying the word “militia” isn’t PC, but the best way of pointing out a commonly believed lie, is to point it out.

Treetop, It's simple.
Lobby for National CCW, "for the sake of the children".
The people are listening.

That's how you win.

Would you rather have National CCW that way?
Or would you prefer to not have it, but be proud that you stuck to your guns? (no pun intended)

M_M

Your proposal seems distastefully opportunistic. (I had to say that)

My question is what does the national CCW have to do with the value of the militia?
The laws that govern any CCW, basically disable any value that the militia would have, unless terrorists happened to be shooting at you.

National CCW is a great idea, but does little if anything to empower a militia effort, let alone exposing the lies that malign this issue along with many others.

It's something that can happen quickly.
It's something that CAN help.


Considering how fast our freedoms are are being tossed away this week, it would be nice to see one come back.

Allowing CCW holders to carry on airliners is neither a good idea nor does it have a chance in getting approved.  We can't even get Congress to allow us (pilots) to carry them!  What a joke!  The sad fact is that the Feds only trust themselves with firepower.  My only reservations about CCW's on aircraft would be the extensive background checks and training they would have to get.  If they got that, I wouldn't mind.

As to the notion that the militia can't do anything about terrorists, it doesn't look like the police, military, or intelligence services have been too effective either.  it's not their fault, it's just the way the game is played.  Militias can't help much either, since these terrorists aren't doing drive-by shootings or holding up banks.  They operate in the shadows and blend in.  Probably the greatest contribution CCW holders(one part of the "militia" is the drastic reductions in street crime, and the feeling of criminals feeling like the hunted instead of the hunters.  

Remember, the Bill of Rights states "a well regulated militia", and no matter what standards you put on it, Al Sharpton will NEVER make the cut (if I recall, he has several felonies).  I'd say you would at least have to meet the requirements of the 4473 form to buy a firearm.  No, not everyone is entitled to be in the militia.

-Dave

I don't see the Militia as being much help in preventing a terrorist type attack.  If it were defending our homeland against some sort of land invasion we could be of service in mounting some sort of "resistance", and throwing the monkey wrench into the works here and there.

In this type of conflict, we can help dig those fallen out of the rubble.  We can give blood.  We could transport supplies to those that need it (water, food).  There's a lot the Militia could do, most of which doesn't require carrying around an AR-15 and looking for something that doesn't exist.

One thing the militia can do that the National Guard/Military can't is act immediately. Just like those Korean American Store owners during the LA riots. The local Police agencies were totally overwhelmed, they couldn't do anything but retreat to their stations. The National Guard wasn't able to do much of anything either until about 2 days later. By then it was too late for a lot of people. Any store that wasn't protected in the those first two days was either burned down or looted. The same thing would happen if there were simultaneous terrorist strikes across the country. Everyone will be basically be on their own until the National Guard showed up.

There are people who talk about what they do not understand and do not even bother to read up on. These people include people like Major Murphy, Stealth and all those who think and believe as they do. They do not know anything about the Militia and they have made an error about the Militia, not only is the Militia quite capable of protecting our infrastructure and our citizens from some terrorist attacks, but it has already been used for that purpose by our government. And it was not 200 or even 100 years ago that the Militia was used to defend our country, but only less then 60 years ago that the Militias of the united states were used to protect our country from terrorists, or as they were known at that time saboteurs or even the fifth column.  These Militias where not necessarily called Militias but were usually called the “Home Guard” some of the Home Guard where used as coast watchers who kept a look out for enemy aircraft or submarines. Some were members of civil defense and would walk about the cities looking for anyone who had lights that were visible and told these people to put the lights out so that enemy bombers could not use that light as a target. And some of these men of the Home Guard were armed and on guard duty making sure that enemy saboteurs did not harm anything of vital interest to the war effort. So Major Murphy and Stealth you think that the militia is of no use, lets see what you have to say after the Militia prevents a terrorist attack, of course we may never hear about that since our government may want to keep it secret so as not to alarm the people. I do not need recognition for defending our nation, just knowing I was successful and I saved some American lives and actually helped defend my country will be enough of an reward for me.

You need to read my post again.  I listed several things the Militia could do.  I also said that most things wouldn't require the use of an AR-15.

In this type of warfare I don't believe we'd be much help in finding the terrorists before they strike.  If given that duty, it would be abused at the cost of the rights of others.  I do believe we could be of great service in the aftermath of an attack in giving aid.

In a different type of warfare... ie ... one with enemy aircraft (not jetliners), enemy ground troops (in uniform) on our soil, then we would be at our best.  Spotting, Recon, radioing info, mounting ambushes, providing defence, and other underground and guerilla manuvears to name a few.

I will also say,... without organization and training, the militia is useless in providing substantial focused aid.

Edited because I was being a jerk.

It is getting late and I am tired. If I misread anything in your post then I am sorry. I never said that the Militia would seek out and destroy the terrorists before they strike, what I said and meant was that the Militia was useful for defending a static location like a reservoir bridge, power plant, power lines, defense plant or anything that needs to be simply guarded. That is what the Home Guard did in the second World War and that is what the Militia can do in this War.

It is a fact that there are at least six million Muslims in our country and even if only 1/10 of 1% of them are willing to commit acts of sabotage means our country is in big trouble, and we might actually be in as much danger as our troops on the front lines. One vicious act and more then 6,000 of our fellow Americans are most likely dead, and these terrorists might be planning on using crop dusters and large trucks to carry out more attacks and some of these may even be more deadly then the attack on the World Trade Center. It is also a fact that there are not enough police and military personal to properly defend our country against this many potential saboteurs and terrorists.

What is your answer to the problem of protecting all of our infrastructure from attack if not the use of the Home Guard or Militia. Recalling our troops from overseas, or maybe drafting a couple of million new members of the military or hiring a large number of new law enforcement officers with the resulting increase in the tax rates. And how many more cops should we have two, three million. And lets not forget about training these new soldiers and police officers, since this training will not occur overnight and do you really want some poorly trained soldier or policeman with very little experience and with the power to shoot you running around patrolling the streets.  I would rather see and trust my life to Militia men guarding some power plant in the middle of nowhere or Militia men without arrest powers riding along with the police as backup then some trigger happy rookie cop who is about to mess his pants when someone he doesn’t expect walks around some corner. We need to remember this is war and it will not be like Vietnam or the Gulf War or any war we have been in since the Revolution where the tories committed acts of terrorism against the families and property of the Patriots. The closes we can get is World War Two where we were in fear of German saboteurs but never really had any major problems with them as far as I know.

Does anyone really want to wait until after a water supply is contaminated to decide that we need more people guarding our water supplies then our military is capably of supplying, I should hope not. We need to use every resource that is available including the Militia, and this I believe is a fact.

Good night all.

You make several good points.  There was a special on the news regarding the lack of security in and around nuclear power plants earlier.  Water supplies seem especially vulnerable as well, as these water supplies would be hardest to protect.  As a certified armchair warrior, I wouldn't mind pulling a little guard duty now and again.  But without proper authorization, I'd probably end up in a cell with Abdul the terrorist.

Think I'll put my survivalist hat back on and do some research on water filtering systems.

Try to think outside the box.

Miltia personnel OFTEN act alone, WITHOUT other personnel present.

A militiaman could be the guy in a bank that prevents a bank robbery.

Or a passenger on an airplane that confronts a terrorist. Without any other passengers help.

It seems like there is a mindset here that in order to BE a militia, you've got to line up 600 guys in British volley line fire array.

Not so.

A militiaman  = a single individual, acting in defense of his country.

WEll lets just see what several Trillion Dollars and the last 25 years have bought us from the Military and Intelligence serices and the agents who have been paid to protect us..THANKS MOSTLY TO THE CLINTONS AND RENOS ....remember the 101 airborne crash in Gander Newfoundland...Lockerbee Scotland..numeorus skyjackings
terrorists acts too numerous to mention..then there is Ok City...Middleeastern looking John Does running arround like jack rabbits...never brought to justice..ignored..forgotten..covered up..what has all this tax money bought us...lets see Ruby Ridge , Waco.....Ok City...TWA flight 800...and now..this...and the budget buster of them all the 5 sided puzzle palace..the fortress...gets kamikazied by a handful of RH;s with box cutters after they slit the throats of  young women- stewardesses..
Lets see who actually did do something to combat terrorism... A sunday school teacher .. A Rugby player..and a Judo Champ...along with the Civilian Crew...simple untrained ill equiped..but highly motivated...just a thought murph ...just a thought...
rant off/

Murph.....the myth of decompression....is just that...shooting a couple of 9mm holes in the aircraft wont decompress it...the pilot can do that by dumping the whole works
The point is..stopping the highjackers from using the plane as a flying bomb...what ever it takes...the highjackers didnt want to blow up the aircraft..to kill the passengers they wanted to crash them fully loaded with fuel into a building of some significance
If they wanted to kill the passengers...they would only have to use one of 100 or so stingers we gave them...(via the US military by the way) :)......personally I think all passengers should be allowed to bring their knives aboard...sure the terrs would bring some..but unless they put 50 terrs aboard..they couldnt get control of the aircraft..the crew would be armed and so would the sky marshal...yes some people are going to get killed...better 80 or 100 than 10,000
Besides they are done with that phase of their op...they are going to launch phase two...unless we can annihilate them ...every one of them..or change their thinking

Doc, Those citizens reacted.  They were brave. They are heros. And as every adult citizen is a member of the militia, I guess it was the militia.  The fact that they probably didn't know that they were militia-members doesn't matter.

My point was and is: Combatting terrorism  must be prevention.  I've spent the past week in NYC "reacting" to terrorism, and it sucks. Militia/Citizens can only react.

If anyone thinks that I've been saying that citizens are incapable of reacting to and stopping a terrorist act as it happens in front of them, they are mistaken.

We have to be careful of two things, however.
1. If you think that the terrorists have been plotting and planning for years just to strap on a TNT vest, and go shoot up the mall, guess again.  That would be easy for an armed citizen to foil -it would also be a Chuck Norris movie.
What's a citizen going to do to prevent a terrorist from dropping a vial of Anthrax spores onto the floor of the food court? -nothing.

We can't just pick and choose who's militia, and whose not according to who behaves honorably.  If those citizen/heros aboard aboard Flight 93 are militia, then so are the citizens who mistakenly shoot an arab clerk, or burn down a suspected arab hideout.

I'm all for calling all of the adult citizenry "militia", I just don't see the point of bothering Tom Ridge or the Federal government about it, if it's just to make a point, AT THIS TIME.

Major-

No one is saying the citizen militia is [b]THE [/b] solution to terrorism.

We are saying it is[b] A RESOURCE [/b] to be utilized in the fight.

Well, Tom Ridge is the new guru of "Homeland Security."

He is NOT in charge of the military.

He doesn't have the responsibilites Pres Bush has on him.

He has ONE responsibility - HOMELAND SECURITY.

Let's see - who lives in the "homeland?" Uhhh, citizens. Oh yeah - the citizen militia. You and me. People who have already spend hundreds of hours in firearms training.

I can't possibly think of ANYONE that is MORE appropriate to contact.

Murph..how ya doing out there...havent had my orange juice or prunes yet..so bear with me.. The so called disorganized militia per se..seems to bother you...and given a scenario of a whole bunch of un military un disciplined yeah hoos armed to the teeth shooting up the place refusing to obey commanders frightens you?...hehehehe
I agree somebody has to be incharge...people ran out and bought surplus gas masks..half of them probably wont work..get put on correctly..wont seal..not to mention lots of gas goes through skin pores..they also bought handguns..makes them feel safe...my guess is I would be more worried about looters and gang bangers taking advantage of the police being too tied up...there are lots of ex military in this country who might be put to good use..as you say just patroling public places and free up the police and military ...augmenting airport security ... lots of us former military have S&R dogs and practice weekends..lots of Ham radio ops arround here ...all of that needs to be put under some C&C.... so if that is what you allude to I agree People have owned guns in this country since its inception.and as of yet I have never heard of the whole country going nutso and shooting up the place..most gun owners are responsible ..hard working honest folks with common sense..We wouldnt tolerate otherwise arround these parts for very long- BTW. the militia beat a well trained highly organized military..the best in the world at the time...The Brits...the country is different now..too heterogenious...imo

I'm just at a loss to comprehend why we need a letter writing campaign to tell Tom Ridge something as obvious as: "an armed citizen can stop a knife-wielding, gun-wielding or bomb-throwing terrorist".

It's common sense.
If our goal is to help fight this enemy, then using the term "militia", when offering our help isn't smart. Politics are politics.
If your goal is to just be heard on this issue, you won't.  They have a deaf ear to this issue.
Rephrase it, say: "National CCW", and the recent soaring gun-sales will be your poll.  Even the busiest politician has time to recognize that.

Now garandman, you can compare me to the "Tories"(traitors) and hint that I'm a disappointment to our Founders, all you want. (My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and we've fought in EVERY American war since. We will fight in this one, too)

Comoon sense, eh???

Is that why Ridge essentially had to be COERCED into allowing CCW into PA when he was Gov. there???

If its such "common sense" then we must all be imagining the anti-gun rhetoric in Washington DC.

besides, you are missing the WHOLE point - the POINT it to get recognition of the fact that the "armed citizen" who can stop a terrorist [size=6]IS [/size=6]the citizen militia.

And is an EXCELLENT resource he can utilize in his greater plan for "homeland defense."

-maybe this is what's bugging me.

I think the WHOLE point should be for us to try to actually help, not just make a semantical "point", by getting them to call the citizenry, "militia".

Ridge isn't worried about the help we have to offer, right now.  He'll be working with the FBI and other COORDINATED agencies to try to prevent something bigger than what we have the ability to prevent as armed citizens.

We're not talking about sabotuers blowing up bomb sight factories, or Zodiacs filled with commandos.

Two points -

1. Nice job of dishonestly editing my post. I CLEARLY said that I wanted Ridge to know that the militia is " an EXCELLENT resource he can utilize in his greater plan for "homeland defense."" But you conveniently edit that out of my post. Cute.

2. So your whole point is that we should "try to actually help." But then you say "Ridge isn't worried about the help we have to offer." Do you have ANY clue what you are talking about, or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard???

garandman out.

Major,

You just made our point.  Ridge is not concerned about the help we have to offer.  Let's remind him, pester him, or HEY LET'S PETITION THE GOVENMENT.  

Using the word militia isn't important to me, except that it has constitutional (federal and state) and legal (federal and state) precedent, and it views every citizen as holding responsibility.  A national CCW wouldn't prepare the citizenry to mobilize for use in (1) guarding vulnerable points in our infrastructure, (2) being used in emergency efforts.  

You seem to think that either (1) we can ignore guarding our infrastructure, or (2) we should employ enough police and soldiers to do it.  I disagree with both of these premises.  

Please clarify how you think we should guard our infrastructure.  Please clarify your position on dramatically increasing the federal police forces.

Richardson

garandman,

-so now I'm dishonest, because I quoted, verbatum, one sentence from your post, and didn't address the others.  If that makes me dishonest, then by your logic, you're the biggest liar on this board.

Jesus! you're insulting. (Moderator? Ha!!)  Please, if you want to insult my honor, my patriotism or my integrity, Email me your address. I'll send you a plane ticket, book you a room in a hotel. You can come up here and do it to my face.  I doubt you're up to it.  So shut up.

Ridge doesn't need our offer of help, because we don't need to offer it. It exists. It's a fact.
You just want the citizenry to be publicly declared the "militia".

Major,

While it's true that many would like a public declaration regarding citizenry = militia, it is a secondary issue.  How many Americans want to help, but can only "participate" by watching the TV?  I don't know anyone who thinks that being called "the militia" would solve anything.  I know many people who would like to help out in their communities.  We're legally recognized, but the government must organize us (i.e. training & provide a command structure) for us to be able to help out (and not just with guns -- first aid and advanced medical training would be great too).

I still don't get your beef with Americans wanting to be useful during a time of crisis....

Richardson

I absolutely have no beef with Americans wanting to be useful during a time of crisis....

I think that more Americans will come on board and help, if we avoid the "militia" issue. It's a political reality, sad but true.

People are ignorant, and will be turned off by the word "militia", again, sad but true.
We don't have time to erase that ignorance through education, and THEN rally their support.

We can get people to help NOW.
If that's our real goal.

Per John Lott, civilian CCW [i]does[/i] work as prevention. It would work even better on an airliner, where the probability of an armed citizen would be greater than on some dark street. I think this would impress terrorists who are willing to die while taking hundreds with them, because they will still think twice if it is likely that they are the only ones who will die.

Certainly, such actions won't prevent other types of terrorist acts. But then, so far the power, intel, 'coordination', and 'training' of the government forces haven't been able to prevent all terrorist attacks, either.

And, as we all know, civilian CCW on airliners ain't about to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make a strong case for it.

Q: Does anyone know how many suicide bombers have been foiled by the armed civilians of Israel?
A: (0)

That being said, it is always better to be armed, than unarmed.
I have never said otherwise, and never will.

When a man suddenly explodes....
When a truck suddenly explodes....
When a man quietly drops a vial or jar....
When a man's suitcase explodes...

...No gun will be able to prevent this, without a massive investigation directly supporting that "gun".  The info from such investigations cannot be given to the militia/citizenry, for obvious security reasons.  

They know this in Israel, all too well.

Wow! You have really done your research on this one.  Bullets in fuselage will kill everyone on board? Can you site a reference? Just curious.

Marcus Wynne, former sky marshal stated, "You can shoot a hole in the aircraft at 30,000 feet and the plane won't fall apart. You're not going to have rapid decompression. Instead, you will have a noisy hole. If they aircraft lost a significant piece of its skin, say half the size of a door, that's a different story. It sucks everything out unless it's tied down."

Now, granted, that is only one source, but he is qualified and trained. And he is one more source than you have. Where is YOUR intel? You are a member of the military, are you not?

Even if your scenario proved to be true, 200 people on board dying is better than 7000 in a building.



If anyone is trying to advance an agenda here, it is you. You think only the government can protect us. We should change your name to Major Pain (in the arse).

Better yet, we'll promote you to General Pain.

I also read that G.W. has authorized the military to shoot down any plane they feel is at risk of committing  this type of act. Yet, he is not sure about letting pilots arm themselves to secure the plane. How is a fighter jet killing 200+ people then dropping a plane over a populated area better than one or two armed citizens or pilots controlling the plane from the inside. Can anyone explain?

Major: Sorry about not reading all 4 pages prior to posting my diatribe...I stand corrected.