[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641[/url]

Even if this story is total bullshit, the hue and cry for more gun prohibition will be back, just wait and see.

I smell bs. Even if it is true it only proves our point that pilots should be armed.

I don't know, But I'm getting awful tired of my goverment lying to me in the intrest of the war on terror.

I think it's bs also, but it's just ironic that it plays into the hands of HCI/VPC, an organization that has been on the ropes lately.

How would the FAA know so much detail about an incident that allegedly occured on a flight that left no survivors and no intact wreckage?

And what would be the government's motive for a cover-up?  No one could successfully sue the feds for letting a gun on the plane at a time that airport security wasn't a federal responsibility.

Assuming that WND isn't simply WRONG like they so often are, it is most likely a attempt by the anti-gun lobby to weasel in on a tragidy that left them behind...

WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! BS ALERT! BS ALERT!

I suppose the next phase of the story would go something like this:

"Further evidence indicates that the weapon used was purchased at a gun show from a non-licensed individual which required no background check.  This evidence came from a secret cell phone call from a passenger who was able to give the weapon's serial number, make and model to a relative before the call was abruptly terminated.  Using this information, ATF agents were able to track the history of the weapon to a Texas gun show sale to a middle eastern male last July.  Uncorroborrated information also suggests that President George Bush actually facilitated the sale by personally vouching for the buyer"[rolleyes]

Those whacky antis are so pathetic it's funny sometimes.  Whats not funny is the almost endless line of sheeple that would by such a story if it ever made it to print.


Saleen

Yeah, right.  Three planes, no guns.  Fourth plane, the hijackers risk having their whole plan blown just to sneak one gun on board.

[img]http://members-http-1.rwc1.sfba.home.net/jeff.hoeft/pics/BS1.gif[/img]

Experts also believe that the other three planes had their pilots incapacitated by snipers on the ground using .50 caliber sniper rifles that are so deadly and accurate that they practically aim themselves.

Wasn't that one of HCI's reasons for banning .50 cal. rifles?  I seem to remember that argument surfacing somewhere in Illinois maybe.

Just out of curiosity, what difference (from a gun-control perspective) whether they were armed with boxcutters or handguns?  Either way, they had the passengers "outgunned," and at that time the philosophy was "comply - he Feds will get us out of this!"

Excuse me, but where in this is the government lying?  This is by someone who quit the FAA several years ago and by families who want more money.  Are you saying that there was a gun on board?

Its BS, come on guys, can't you smell the manure from there?  That would have come out months ago if true, its just another attempt to use 9/11 to their advantage.

Even if this is true, I fail to see how this would play into the HCI/VPC argument. To the contrary, it proves that the badguys will have guns regardless of attempts to disarm the population, and that even with all of security procedures in place, the government cannot protect us.

What a Crock O'Shit. Not hard to see why we are such an easy target to the world's whackos; we can be our own worst nightmare. Who wrote that crap? [whacko]