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

[ZackM]

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.

Yea this is the key. The point here isn't just about stopping terrorists hellbent on taking over a plane. It's also about the property rights of the airlines. Just as Virginia Tech had the choice of whether or not allow guns on campus, airlines should have the same choice.

Airlines would be free to impose their own rules. If they allow passengers to carry guns, and that makes you feel unsafe, then you will fly another airline. That's how the free market determines these things.

Right now, the federal government has tyrannical control on airline security. As most of us here believe, the government can accomplish very little through rules and regulations that the free market cannot do faster, cheaper, and safer w/o on its own.

 

[Richandler]

Guns would have not changed anything on 9/11. I think it was a very foolish statement by Ron Paul. It's cool to be for the second amendment, but bringing a gun on a plane is stupid. Having it in storage underplane may be fine.

The big problem on 9/11 is that a potential hijacker has access too the cabin. There should be a big steel door between the pilots and passengers. 9/11 hijackers had box cutters. Flight 93 proved you didn't need a gun. The sad thing was that there was no one to stand up up the other 3 flights.

 

[trispear]

Guns would have not changed anything on 9/11. I think it was a very foolish statement by Ron Paul. It's cool to be for the second amendment, but bringing a gun on a plane is stupid. Having it in storage underplane may be fine.

He also went on to say the policy of no resistance encourage a hijacking plan as all previous hijacking attempts saw that the pilots surrender to the pilots and meet their demands, and it was assumed the demands would be money, flight out of country, etcetera.

With this policy in place, a steel door would not have mattered as the terrorists would have taken hostages until the pilots surrendered and let them into the cockpit.

Flight 93 never reached Washington D.C. only because the passengers became aware of what happened to the other flights and fought back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Guns would have not changed anything on 9/11. I think it was a very foolish statement by Ron Paul. It's cool to be for the second amendment, but bringing a gun on a plane is stupid. Having it in storage underplane may be fine.

How do you know that? If I'm hijacking a plane and all I have are boxcutters and the pilot is sitting in the cockpit ready to fire a gun at me, who do you think is going to win? I think that the pilots should have guns in the cockpit or have an armed security guard. One of these things very well could have prevented 9/11. I don't know about passengers being able to carry guns on planes, but I doubt the airlines would allow this anyway. I think it's rather foolish to say that the pilots being allowed to have a gun to defend the cockpit would not have changed 9/11.

 

[quickmike]

Guns would have not changed anything on 9/11. I think it was a very foolish statement by Ron Paul. It's cool to be for the second amendment, but bringing a gun on a plane is stupid. Having it in storage underplane may be fine.

The big problem on 9/11 is that a potential hijacker has access too the cabin. There should be a big steel door between the pilots and passengers. 9/11 hijackers had box cutters. Flight 93 proved you didn't need a gun. The sad thing was that there was no one to stand up up the other 3 flights.

You must be one of those people who has seen too many movies of a bullet compromising the fuselage of an airplane and causing decompression, making the whole plane implode on itself. That is not the reality. Why do police carry guns? Isnt it to protect themselves from somoene attacking them? So why not the pilots?

What happened to flight 93? Did they succeed in saving the lives on the plane?

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

If there were a steel door to the cabin, a hijacker could easily hold a hostage and make demands, making a steel door practically worthless.

You are saying the co-pilot could not have killed the guys with box cutters if he had a handgun?

Explain your reasoning.

 

[Razmear]

I took a break from the PC after making that post, and I do stand by my statement that his speech at Iowa did not properly explain the logic of his position.
RP has made the armored car analogy in other speeches and it made more sense, in the Iowa speech he did not follow up with that analogy which led to the misunderstanding by Time and many others.
I am a gun owner, and gun rights are very high on my list of priorities when choosing who to vote for.
I would not support allowing passengers to carry fire arms on planes, however if each plane was allowed to have two well armed men sitting outside the cockpit door, much like an armored car driver protecting the loot inside, then 9/11 definitely would not have happened.
Yes, the pilots should be allowed to carry firearms, but their primary job is to fly the plane, and if they have to leave the cockpit then security is compromised.
Airlines should be allowed to hire their own security and passengers have the right to fly on an anti-2nd amendment aircraft or one that has armed guards making sure everything goes smoothly. I know which one I'd choose.
Currently only air marshals can carry on a plane, and they are maybe on one flight out of 10. Hijackers planning on taking over 4 planes even today are ensured of succeeding on at least 3 of them, so we are no safer now than we were on 9/11 where 3 of 4 planes hit their targets.
Perhaps if he reworded his point so it made clear that if airlines were allowed to protect their assets with deadly force 9/11 would not have happened, then it would be more clear to the folks at Time.

eb

 

[Nefertiti]

It may sound crazy but it isn't entirely off the mark. Think about the 4th plane and the fact that it might have hit some sensitive target if it were not for the actions of the brave passengers who got together and stormed the cockpit. Yes, they probably knew their own mission was a suicide one but they knew that going down in some field somewhere would probably save lives so they took that chance. The 2nd amendment isn't just about guns, it's about self-defense in a way.

 

[ButchHowdy]

AFAIK, Ron Paul has never said the passengers should have been armed, he has stated that if the pilots had been armed, men armed with box cutters would not have been able to hijack the planes. Seems pretty common-sensical to me.

Correct! It was Archie Bunker who said we ought to "arm the passengers".

 

[ButchHowdy]

It may sound crazy but it isn't entirely off the mark. Think about the 4th plane and the fact that it might have hit some sensitive target if it were not for the actions of the brave passengers who got together and stormed the cockpit. Yes, they probably knew their own mission was a suicide one but they knew that going down in some field somewhere would probably save lives so they took that chance. The 2nd amendment isn't just about guns, it's about self-defense in a way.

There was no plane or plane fragments, Shanksville mayor even said so. Plus, cellphones didn't work on planes in 2001. Twas a hoax!

 

[lucius]

The Happy Hooligans

There was no plane or plane fragments, Shanksville mayor even said so. Plus, cellphones didn't work on planes in 2001. Twas a hoax!

S9498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE September 19, 2001

"...just as there are so many heroes around this country during a time of need—so, too, were the Happy Hooligans in their cockpit of the F–16s, flying combat air patrols over our Nation’s Capital. Let me say to the Happy Hooligans: I salute you. I am proud of your work. And this country owes you a great debt of gratitude. Mr. President, I yield the floor."

 

[quickmike]

Ok, this lady makes a case for allowing handguns on planes better than anyone ive seen so far.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

 

[max]

Screw time Mag!

Screw Time mag and to hell with what the brainwashed sheep of America think.

The very reason why this country is in such sad shape is because we have ALLOWED the media to define and shape every debate. Once we start watering down Ron Paul's message in order not to alienate the masses, then it's just a hop, skip, and a jump until we water down actual policy and start to become that which we now oppose.

However, I do wish Ron Paul would emphasize that it's the pilots and perhaps an Airline guard that he would like to see armed.

As I've said before and will say again, his advisors are amatuers.

 

[Dave Wood]

I sent Joe Klein of time mag an e-mail saying that he misqouted Ron Paul again.

I said that what I heard was that the the airlines should be able to protect their property and passengers the same way the armored car companies do. I also told him to stop calling him a libertarian, he is a real republican with a capital "R" !

We see if I get a reply???

 

[Bradley in DC]

This was not my issue in the office, but (if I remember all of this right) Dr. Paul's position is great but he didn't have the time to explain it all well. One, he was not referencing passengers being armed on planes but pilots. Many commercial pilots have a military background and weapons experience. For most of aviation history, those pilots carried with them in the cockpit a weapon (in a locked box--not to be confused with Gore's lockbox). The FAA, siding with the major unions in a contract dispute, overruled the commerical airlines' responsible policies keeping us safe and prohibited keeping firearms in the cockpit. That decision, arguably, made the planes vulnerable to 9/11 type highjackings. I believe (please check before repeating this) that Dr. Paul has introduced legislation to overrule the FAA's bad bureaucratic meddling that would allow commercial airlines to determine their best safety policies and measures.

 

[loupeznik]

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 can say we we have played the hostage game in training while I was in the Navy and the hostage was never a consideration. All we see is a guy with a gun and we shoot. I currently am in the Marines and have a Texas concealed license. I still don't give a damn about the hostage while there are other people at risk. If I am safe and nobody else is at risk maybe then we can talk about a hostage.

 

[loupeznik]

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.

If Delta won't let me carry my pistol on board maybe Southwest will. I'd switch.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

For most of aviation history, those pilots carried with them in the cockpit a weapon (in a locked box--not to be confused with Gore's lockbox).

Was that were Gore kept the intertubes during the invention process?

 

[thuja]

some of you would be just lost if you were not obliged to answer to some authorities, and if you were unable to depend on some authorities to protect you from whatever you have been taught to fear by the same authorities.

but, imagine the very nice manners aboard a plane with armed passengers, or even air marshalls.

 

[BarryDonegan]

i think the fact that the TIME magazine writer finds the kind of logic that prohibiting the carrying of guns only prohibits law abiding citizens from doing it "exotic" shows a gross absence of any education on the subject.

there has never been a stat or study ever showing that prohibiting weapons carried by responsible law abiding citizens increases crime. only that it stays the same or lowers.

 

[loupeznik]

If the NRA or the GOA had an airline, I wonder if they would ever be hijacked?