Guns on a plane

[Will]

I think some of you misunderstand my stance on this. I'm very pro right to carry. I simply think that a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Among others things, I believe that Florida's lawprohibiting the carrying weapons in bars (like many states) is sound. Booze and guns don't mix. And we all know that airplains are flying bars.

 

[Kuldebar]

I think some of you misunderstand my stance on this. I'm very pro right to carry. I simply think that a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Among others things, I believe that Florida's lawprohibiting the carrying weapons in bars (like many states) is sound. Booze and guns don't mix. And we all know that airplains are flying bars.

I feel your pain

Read my last post, I think we are on the same wavelength.

 

[ZandarKoad]

Ah, OR, you could simply not serve BOOZE to the passangers! I'd rather have GUNS and NO BOOZE than BOOZE and NO GUNS. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Again, all of this MUST be decided by the COMPANY PROVIDING THE SERVICE. We've seen how well central planners (in this case the Feds) protect us in the air. I for one would prefer private capatalist competition in this instance (and... just about every other instance too).

 

[jj111]

Guns on planes is such a debatable subject, it really does not belong in a Ron Paul speech IMHO. Claiming that his policies might have prevented 9/11 again does not seem like a winning argument to me.

There are many good claims one can make politically to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, such as the best defense against invasion from a foreign enemy, but I really think that Ron's two arguments above that he has used in speeches are weak politically and should be discarded for better ones.

 

[ZandarKoad]

So far in these forums there seems to be little to no debate about guns and planes. Just everyone saying the same thing...

But for a national speech, I think you may have a point. That's why I'm not part of the official campaign. I don't want to worry about that high end political crap. Maybe you should contact the campaign with your suggestion.

 

[tmg19103]

I think RP was trying to sell the big pro-gun crowd in Iowa, but the message was not clear. Like I said - the point he should have clearly made was that the pilots should have been armed and it is our bloated and inept government that prevented this. That would have been a good point, but it was not clear and got confused with passengers carrying guns. I'm pro-gun and have a concealed carry permit, but I don't think passengers should be armed.

Like I said, though, Israel has armed their pilots for years and they never get hijacked. The other message that did not come across clear was that government beaurocracies are usually inept - and look at how weapons were smuggled on board. the airline screeners need to be private companies that are financially motivated to keep planes safe - not government types who can't stand their job.

 

[Kuldebar]

Guns on planes is such a debatable subject, it really does not belong in a Ron Paul speech IMHO. Claiming that his policies might have prevented 9/11 again does not seem like a winning argument to me.

There are many good claims one can make politically to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, such as the best defense against invasion from a foreign enemy, but I really think that Ron's two arguments above that he has used in speeches are weak politically and should be discarded for better ones.

Not his policies...the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Anything that undermines this weakens the whole.

 

[quickmike]

I think some of you misunderstand my stance on this. I'm very pro right to carry. I simply think that a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Among others things, I believe that Florida's lawprohibiting the carrying weapons in bars (like many states) is sound. Booze and guns don't mix. And we all know that airplains are flying bars.

It worked in the old west


POW POW POW

 

[quickmike]

I think RP was trying to sell the big pro-gun crowd in Iowa, but the message was not clear. Like I said - the point he should have clearly made was that the pilots should have been armed and it is our bloated and inept government that prevented this. That would have been a good point, but it was not clear and got confused with passengers carrying guns. I'm pro-gun and have a concealed carry permit, but I don't think passengers should be armed.

Like I said, though, Israel has armed their pilots for years and they never get hijacked. The other message that did not come across clear was that government beaurocracies are usually inept - and look at how weapons were smuggled on board. the airline screeners need to be private companies that are financially motivated to keep planes safe - not government types who can't stand their job.

I think he made that very clear. He said that the airlines were forbidden to protect their passengers and their equipment and that all these problems would be solved if we followed the constitution. Whats not to understand about that statement. Clear as a bell to me. He wants pilots to be able to protect their property.

 

[angelatc]

Man, back at the original thread, there's just no cure for stupid.

After being out argued on just about every point she tried to make, she resorts to using the fact that George Bush is from Texas, and so is Ron Paul.