I knew Ron's 9/11 2nd Amendment argument was going to backfire

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

 

[TruePatriot44]

I dislike how Joe Klein (author of this piece) opens up with his interpretation of Ron's speech instead of presenting the factual information he stated. He never stated allowing passengers to carry weapons on airlines.

 

[Sematary]

I dislike how Joe Klein (author of this piece) opens up with his interpretation of Ron's speech instead of presenting the factual information he stated. He never stated allowing passengers to carry weapons on airlines.

Even if he had - so what? If there had been 10 armed people on each of those flights, 9/11 never would have happened.

 

[trispear]

From TFA:

By the time that Libertarian congressman Ron Paul told a cheering crowd at the Iowa Republican straw poll that the 9/11 terrorist attacks might have been prevented if the passengers on the planes had been packing heat, I was beginning to wonder if the event—a goofy affair under the best of circumstances—had gone fatally exotic.

The problem is that Ron Paul did not say he wanted passenger to pack heat. He said he wanted the second amendment observed and that meant the FCC should not have forbade the airlines not to arm the pilots or tell everyone not to fight back (previous policy).

Fighting back is what kept the one plane that went down in PA from hitting Washington.

The reporter is a biased idiot who is slandering Paul with dumbass presumptions.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

I have no problem with you Deadhead sitting next to me with your 45 under your jacket on an airplane.

.

Maybe I misunderstood Dr. Paul's meaning, but I thought that he meant that pilots and security provided by the company should have weapons. I wouldnt object to individuals also having weapons - however, MOST people would.

 

[noxagol]

It's not crazy for passengers to have guns on a plane. They make rounds specifically designed to NOT blow a hole in a plane and most people are good people. So, if a group wished to hijack a plane, they would lose the fight since they are outnumbered. The only way they would be able to do it is if the whole plane were filled with hijackers, which well, guns wouldn't be needed then.

The problem to most crime is just let people have guns really.

 

[Original_Intent]

From TFA:


The problem is that Ron Paul did not say he wanted passenger to pack heat. He said he wanted the second amendment observed and that meant the FCC should not have forbade the airlines not to arm the pilots or tell everyone not to fight back (previous policy).

Fighting back is what kept the one plane that went down in PA from hitting Washington.

The reporter is a biased idiot who is slandering Paul with dumbass presumptions.

Exactly, and if this becomes "big news" and the MSM tries to run with it, someone will have Ron Paul on, he will calmly explain, and it will be Rudy "9/11" Giuliani all over again.

 

[TruePatriot44]

Even if he had - so what? If there had been 10 armed people on each of those flights, 9/11 never would have happened.

Because allowing passengers to carry firearms on airplanes is absurd? The terrorist would of just held guns to people heads as hostage demands to being let into the cockpit.

 

[Sematary]

Because allowing passengers to carry firearms on airplanes is absurd? The terrorist would of just held guns to people heads as hostage demands to being let into the cockpit.

People who have concealed weapons permits are well trained. Since it is OBVIOUS that NOT having guns didn't work, then the alternative is to make sure that people can defend themselves. It's not absurd - it's genius - and the founding fathers knew it.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Because allowing passengers to carry firearms on airplanes is absurd? The terrorist would of just held guns to people heads as hostage demands to being let into the cockpit.

I am not saying that allowing passengers into the planes with guns is a good idea. However, allowing the pilots to have guns IS very much a good idea. I think they should have automatic weapons. Better still, have night vision equipment and be able to cut lights (or if flying during day, install technology to instantly close all plane cabin windows to make things dark) and take the terrorists out that way, that is if the security guards are not able to contain the hijackers. These tactics should be part of their training like a brief stint with the spec ops may be. This is what taking responsibility for your own security is all about.

The pilots should be under instruction not to let any hijackers into cockpit, regardless of their demands, and if this information was clearly posted to all entering the airline and the cockpit door, it would deter hijackers.

Notice could read something like:

"
WARNING WARNING WARNING:
Unauthorised attempts to enter the cockpit will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.
The crew in the cockpit are under orders not to let anyone unauthorised personnel into the cockpit under any circumstances.
The crew in the cockpit is heavily armed and has orders to defend the airplane against take over using all means necessary including deadly force.
"

I also believe that rather than passengers carrying guns, there should be 1 or 2 armed security guards who are not conspicuously dressed on every flight.

 

[atilla]

From TFA:


The problem is that Ron Paul did not say he wanted passenger to pack heat. He said he wanted the second amendment observed and that meant the FCC should not have forbade the airlines not to arm the pilots or tell everyone not to fight back (previous policy).

Fighting back is what kept the one plane that went down in PA from hitting Washington.

The reporter is a biased idiot who is slandering Paul with dumbass presumptions.

well if Ron Paul is really against our right to keep and bear arms on airlines i may have to reconsider my support of him. also, why is the FCC (federal communications commission) preventing airlines from arming pilots, i thought they just dealt with radio and tv?

 

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

 

[SWATH]

Time magazine is full of CFR inspired bullshit.

Funny you mention that, I just came across his quote:

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991

translation:

auto-determinism = freedom

 

[noxagol]

I am not saying that allowing passengers into the planes with guns is a good idea. However, allowing the pilots to have guns IS very much a good idea.

The pilots could be under instruction not to let any hijackers into cockpit, regardless of their demands, and if this information was clearly posted to all entering the airline and the cockpit door, it would deter hijackers.

Notice could read something like:

"Unauthorised attempts to enter the cockpit will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. The crew in the cockpit is heavily armed and has orders to defend the airplane against take over using all means necessary."

I believe, that rather than passengers carrying guns, there should be 1 or 2 armed security guards who are not conspicuously dressed on every flight.

This is certainly plausible and FAR FAR FAR FAR better than what we have now which is basically lay down and take it like a bitch.

 

[Shellshock1918]

The media hates logic, which is why they seldom deal with it.

 

[Nash]

well if Ron Paul is really against our right to keep and bear arms on airlines i may have to reconsider my support of him. also, why is the FCC (federal communications commission) preventing airlines from arming pilots, i thought they just dealt with radio and tv?

Just because taking a gun on a plane would be technically legal in a Ron Paul administration doesn't mean the airlines themselves would allow passengers to have one.

The airlines have the final say because the plane is their property.

It does likely mean that airline security and pilots would be armed though.

 

[wecandoit]

This is just another example of Paul baiting the MSM with another excellent strategy.

Sure it sounds a little risky to some, but let this idea Paul put forth be debated far and wide and the end result will be more Ron Paul supporters.

This is about the 4th or 5th time he has baited the MSM, who want so desperatley to try and pin "whacko" on him. Everytime the MSM has nibbled at the bait, Paul becomes more popular, and they back off.

 

[quickmike]

I think it worked great. Im glad he told the truth about the 2nd ammendment having such a big part in our security. All my friends who own guns thought this was an awesome statement and made perfect sense. No harm done here that I can see.

 

[Slugg]

This may get Dr Paul even more free publicity...

The man is a genius.

Yeah he is!

 

[trispear]

well if Ron Paul is really against our right to keep and bear arms on airlines i may have to reconsider my support of him. also, why is the FCC (federal communications commission) preventing airlines from arming pilots, i thought they just dealt with radio and tv?

He is not against your right to keep and bear arms period. But he said at google that while he is for the 2nd amendment, he is also for private property rights - that for instance America could repeal all gun laws but Google could have it's own by-laws that it enforces on its own property - perhaps disallowing guns - and that would be perfectly fine by him. You could do the same at your home - set policy that is.

You have a choice whether or not to patron a business establishment, you have no such choice with the government - that is the difference.

(I am all for Airlines allowing Pilots and trained stewards/stewardesses to have weapons with special ammunition or tasers or whatever and banning them for passengers but that is another thread I don't want to argue.)

The FCC is not in charge of Airlines and Airspace, the FAA (Federal Air Administration) is. I mistyped.