Does anyone still not know you can't carry a gun on a plane?

[HokieFanDC]

2. Please tell me in your expert opinion why what works on a train will not work on a plane, and your credentials.

[/url]

On #2, I'm not an expert, which is why I said it "might not work".

So your point was worthless, yet you threw it out there anyways?

And you're still ignoring the point I specifically made, that hijackings are extremely rare today, so why would anyone feel the need to change the current rules or regulations. Care to address the point I was making, at all, or do you agree with it.

No, you're looking at this backwards. You need to explain why the state has a compelling interest to restrict my civil right. So I'll ask you: What is the compelling interest served? The statistics don't support your argument.

My statement was clearly a conjecture, and based on the fact that that planes and subways are two completely different modes of transportation, with different travel goals.

And I'm not looking at it backwards. The rules, lots of rules, were put in place a long time ago, and have continued to evolve. They cover guns, metal detectors, screening techniques, air marshals, and many others. Over time, the safety of air travel has increased to the point where there is little to no threat of hijacking. The state has a compelling interest to keep air travel as safe as possible, and what is in place, is doing that. If something changes to change the equation, then adjustments may be necessary, but it just seems silly to consider changing what is working.
No one is telling you can't take your gun to another city (unless that city restricts it, which is another topic), you just can't have it in the body of the plane.

[USN_Hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

[HokieFanDC]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

[awesome guy]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Then you're a moron if you can't admit that's exactly what you're doing. You just think it's justified, but aren't upfront enough to admit that's the case. My civil rights are certainly infringed by removing my weapons, all because they make you feel scared.

[USN_Hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

[ip_law-hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

Fruitcakes are fruity.

[133743Hokie]

So please enlighten me as to how you would use your weapon (and superior skills) to disarm a terrorist on a plane full of people. So everyone just ducks (not a whole lot of space to duck on today's planes ya know) and you shoot the bad guy center mass (because you know he is just going to be standing tall in the center of the aisle). Boom! All done. Please show a little common sense

Up yours and your condescension. You're way off base and not informed on this.

All situations are unique. If it's a case of the shooter saying "I have a bomb", then shoot him when he stands up. If he has a human shield then you wait for your time. Everyone else is going to lay on the floor, put their heads between their legs, etc. No one is going to be a prairie dog. But you and the other ignoramus don't know that CCW training covers when to take shots, when not too, and how to assess the situation to maximize the protection of life. Additionally, they teach that if you think you'll choke then don't do anything because you die in that situation. Use some common sense and figure that this isn't in your wheelhouse and so you should first learn the subject before making asinine comments.

I'm weapons trained with both 9mm and M4, necessary for the years I've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq so I'm not the ignoramus you play me to be. Again, answer my question. What would you do on a full plane with panic everywhere.

Lol. Already answered it Rambo

You insulting veterans of foreign conflicts while boasting of your (hypothetical) soldier skills is not a good look for you. Just FYI.

He's a building contractor, that's standard training when working overseas. Of course you're feigning concern.

I also get it that you like to invent to invent positions for people, but I never claimed to be a super solider or whatever, just laughed at the made up, full of crap, dumb as rocks position that you and fellow libtards throw out that ONLY a special operator can handle a shooter. There are hundreds of examples each year proving the opposite. This may be a case of "what would I do" thinking leading some to realize that they're pussies and so would act like one in such a situation. Fair enough, you are a pussy and shouldn't be trusted with a weapon. But there are millions of Americans who aren't pussies, have weapons, and would respond appropriately to the shooter.

Sorry, but I'm not a building contractor, and I'm not a US Military vet either.

[133743Hokie]

I look forward to the portion of this thread later on where people say that we should be allowed to carry on planes.

Why not? I look forward to your answer / rationale.

Because it is a danger to all on the plane. And at 36,000 feet there aren't a lot of options.

So you think Air Marshals are a danger?

I know that air marshals are trained with how to deal with various scenarios on a plane full of people at 36,000 feet. 99% of those with CCPs aren't and therefore are less likely to be able to handle the situation appropriately and without endangering others.

I've gone through several military and Blackwater classes while active duty, as well as civilian courses. I led VBSS teams carrying an M9 and a Mk18 to search vessels suspected of violating trade embargoes in the Persian Gulf. I probably shoot 3-4k rnds a year (wish I had time to do more). I carry a gun wherever I can. I've held high level security clearances, pay my bills, and have never even received a parking ticket, let alone a moving violation. So, don't presume that Corporal Gump with the Radford PD is more special than me and endowed with some gifts which allow him the privilege of defending himself while I should be relegated to praying with my family in the back of a plane before it's used as a weapon to kill a thousand people because you're scared I'll wing grandma.

Wow, I'm impressed!

But the other 99% aren't as impressive as you, and they're the ones that will fark things up.

[awesome guy]

Up yours and your condescension. You're way off base and not informed on this.

All situations are unique. If it's a case of the shooter saying "I have a bomb", then shoot him when he stands up. If he has a human shield then you wait for your time. Everyone else is going to lay on the floor, put their heads between their legs, etc. No one is going to be a prairie dog. But you and the other ignoramus don't know that CCW training covers when to take shots, when not too, and how to assess the situation to maximize the protection of life. Additionally, they teach that if you think you'll choke then don't do anything because you die in that situation. Use some common sense and figure that this isn't in your wheelhouse and so you should first learn the subject before making asinine comments.

I'm weapons trained with both 9mm and M4, necessary for the years I've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq so I'm not the ignoramus you play me to be. Again, answer my question. What would you do on a full plane with panic everywhere.

Lol. Already answered it Rambo

You insulting veterans of foreign conflicts while boasting of your (hypothetical) soldier skills is not a good look for you. Just FYI.

He's a building contractor, that's standard training when working overseas. Of course you're feigning concern.

I also get it that you like to invent to invent positions for people, but I never claimed to be a super solider or whatever, just laughed at the made up, full of crap, dumb as rocks position that you and fellow libtards throw out that ONLY a special operator can handle a shooter. There are hundreds of examples each year proving the opposite. This may be a case of "what would I do" thinking leading some to realize that they're pussies and so would act like one in such a situation. Fair enough, you are a pussy and shouldn't be trusted with a weapon. But there are millions of Americans who aren't pussies, have weapons, and would respond appropriately to the shooter.

Sorry, but I'm not a building contractor, and I'm not a US Military vet either.

Thought that was your business? It's related to facilities, right? Or just the engineering of facilities.

[awesome guy]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

Fruitcakes are fruity.

Sissies are girly

[133743Hokie]

So what? Most people haven't. And the people who decided to ban or restrict guns on planes did so for a reason. No one really cared until planes started getting hijacked in the 60s. Once that became a successful way of taking over a plane and getting money or making a terrorist point, the dynamic of plane travel and carrying guns changed. It wasn't message board posters who made those decisions about weapons on planes. It was lots of people, many of them experts on planes and guns. If you disagree with their reasoning, what do you disagree with?

He made a blanket statement/justification for why only agents of the state are qualified to carry guns on planes. I didn't need to provide an example of anyone but myself to demonstrate that his 99% assumption is wrong. I have a natural right to personal self defense, and baseless scaremongering isn't a rationale to restrict that. The only argument against allowing ordinary folks who are otherwise allowed to carry everywhere else to do so on planes which I find remotely compelling is Visor's argument of access to medical facilities.

Again, all the rambo/die hard scenarios are silly and irrational. Nobody answered my question asking why grandmas weren't getting plugged on subway trains by armed citizens in old west style gunfighter shootouts on a regular basis. We already proved that passengers weren't going to get sucked out of the fuselage by errant bullets depressurizing the cabin, and I think we can all agree that one person being hit with a stray bullet is preferable to the plane being used in an act of mass terrorism.

It didn't occur on subways b/c subways don't go anywhere. Planes can go almost anywhere.
The simple facts are that before rules and procedures were put in place, there were lots of hijackings. Now, they are extremely rare. You, having a gun on a plane, isn't saving anyone, because planes aren't getting hijacked. if changing laws to prevent mass shootings is ridiculous, changing laws to prevent non-existent hijackings is even more ridiculous. Why change something that's working? Only a nut would want to do that, right?

The use of force in the scenario which was outlined as justification for not allowing guns on planes does occur, you just don't hear about it:

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/03/man-pul ... ave-lives/

Terrorists also target train/subway systems all the time (one example):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_20 ... n_bombings

As for the # of hijackings, that number was high through the 90's. It was 9/11 which lowered the number, because before that, people were told to cooperate. Hijackers weren't using the planes to commit terrorism.

Hijackings were way down pre 9/11. That isn't a data point

[HokieFanDC]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

[133743Hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Then you're a moron if you can't admit that's exactly what you're doing. You just think it's justified, but aren't upfront enough to admit that's the case. My civil rights are certainly infringed by removing my weapons, all because they make you feel scared.

I own the airline and say you can't bring a gun on the plane.

I own the bakery and say I don't want to bake a cake for you and your gay lover.

Which do you agree with?

[awesome guy]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Then you're a moron if you can't admit that's exactly what you're doing. You just think it's justified, but aren't upfront enough to admit that's the case. My civil rights are certainly infringed by removing my weapons, all because they make you feel scared.

I own the airline and say you can't bring a gun on the plane.

I own the bakery and say I don't want to bake a cake for you and your gay lover.

Which do you agree with?

You don't have to bake a cake for your gay lover if you don't want to. And you can ban guns on your plane if you want to. But the government shouldn't tell me that no airline can allow me to carry my weapons on the plane.

[133743Hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Then you're a moron if you can't admit that's exactly what you're doing. You just think it's justified, but aren't upfront enough to admit that's the case. My civil rights are certainly infringed by removing my weapons, all because they make you feel scared.

I own the airline and say you can't bring a gun on the plane.

I own the bakery and say I don't want to bake a cake for you and your gay lover.

Which do you agree with?

You don't have to bake a cake for your gay lover if you don't want to. And you can ban guns on your plane if you want to. But the government shouldn't tell me that no airline can allow me to carry my weapons on the plane.

The airlines are telling you that you can't bring a gun on the plane, not the government.

[awesome guy]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Then you're a moron if you can't admit that's exactly what you're doing. You just think it's justified, but aren't upfront enough to admit that's the case. My civil rights are certainly infringed by removing my weapons, all because they make you feel scared.

I own the airline and say you can't bring a gun on the plane.

I own the bakery and say I don't want to bake a cake for you and your gay lover.

Which do you agree with?

You don't have to bake a cake for your gay lover if you don't want to. And you can ban guns on your plane if you want to. But the government shouldn't tell me that no airline can allow me to carry my weapons on the plane.

The airlines are telling you that you can't bring a gun on the plane, not the government.

They're telling me what the government told them.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting ... ammunition

[USN_Hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?

[HokieFanDC]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?

Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.

[133743Hokie]

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Then you're a moron if you can't admit that's exactly what you're doing. You just think it's justified, but aren't upfront enough to admit that's the case. My civil rights are certainly infringed by removing my weapons, all because they make you feel scared.

I own the airline and say you can't bring a gun on the plane.

I own the bakery and say I don't want to bake a cake for you and your gay lover.

Which do you agree with?

You don't have to bake a cake for your gay lover if you don't want to. And you can ban guns on your plane if you want to. But the government shouldn't tell me that no airline can allow me to carry my weapons on the plane.

The airlines are telling you that you can't bring a gun on the plane, not the government.

They're telling me what the government told them.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting ... ammunition

TSA is administering the airlines criteria.

[awesome guy]

TSA is administering the airlines criteria.

Nope, federal law.

[USN_Hokie]

You're a statist if you believe that a person needs to justify why the state should not restrict their civil rights and not vice versa

Rights are not black and white. I don't think telling you check your gun, while on your really safe plane flight, is taking away your civil rights.

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?

Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.

No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.

[HokieFanDC]

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?

Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.

No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.

That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.

[HokieFanDC]

I own the airline and say you can't bring a gun on the plane.

I own the bakery and say I don't want to bake a cake for you and your gay lover.

Which do you agree with?

You don't have to bake a cake for your gay lover if you don't want to. And you can ban guns on your plane if you want to. But the government shouldn't tell me that no airline can allow me to carry my weapons on the plane.

The airlines are telling you that you can't bring a gun on the plane, not the government.

They're telling me what the government told them.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting ... ammunition

TSA is administering the airlines criteria.

Pretty sure it's under title 18 as a fed law, but that may only be in reference to loaded guns.

[ip_law-hokie]

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?

Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.

No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.

That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.

These gun nuts are mentally ill. Prayers.

[USN_Hokie]

Natural rights are natural. My natural right to personal self-defense predates any government system.

OK. That applies to everyone. If not allowing guns on planes makes it safer for everyone to fly (or say it the opposite way, if allowing guns on planes makes it less sage), then restricting gun rights on a plane is legal. Rights don't occur in a vacuum.

How did not allowing guns on planes make 9/11 safer?

Nice try, again. I don't know, and neither do you. A single instance (or 3 if you want to be technical) hypothetical can't wipe out the last 10 years of really safe air travel.

No. Your argument is that guns on airplanes make us less safe. Therefore your argument must be that over 3,000 people would have died in accidental shootings on airplanes in the last 30 years.

That is not my argument. My argument is that there is nothing that could make us more safe, so why change it. You go to the airport, check your gun, fly safely to your destination, pick up your gun, and enjoy your travels.

"Safe(ty)" is the wrong/incomplete criterion. If safety were the only concern, putting everyone in maximum security prisons (a very safe place) would be the answer. Replace safe with liberty/freedom in your above rhetorical. How much freedom do you feel as you take off your shoes and watch screeners ogle your wife and kids naked between having orders barked at you buy a JC drop out?

Now, ask yourself how safe you feel on a train. How much freedom do you have traveling on a train (where guns are allowed)? I acknowledge that the two are not perfectly analogous, but they're close enough to make my point.